Extremely useful article, and not only for the digital-era photographers. There are still many, who are completely confused what is the F ratio and the equivalent F ratio. I hope that now those guys who claimed that, for example, RX10 lens brightness corresponds to the F ratio 1:7.5, will stop with such nonsense.
pedroboe100: I would still get a K5iiS and a Tamron superzoom lense and it would not cost that much. Don't care about video that much...
To yallo:The RX10 lens has the (maximum) aperture 1:2.8 whether you like it or not. That "equivalent" aperture (1:7.5 or whatever) represents the DOF only. Please, learn some optics essentials first.
The main reason why I would buy RX10 (or that new FZ1000) is that I wouldn't need to carry a still camera and a camcorder on my trips. That's why those two cameras are so unique.
Nukunukoo: I don't get it. With or without an OLPF is a binary thing: you either have it or not. It's like saying a woman became "slightly" pregnant! So all this while that we have been hearing that the D800e has no OLPF, it actually has and the "effect" is created automagically? So does that mean that the D7100 without the OLPF will suddenly be like the D800e when the D7200 comes out? Kindly clarify.
Well, once the information is missing (filtered out) nothing will restore it.
flektogon: As I was originally disappointed with Canon G1 X Mark II (just based on other users/testers experience), now I am changing my mind. The IQ of Canon is definitely better. Yes, RX100 is smaller and has built in EVF, but with better IQ and better (longer) zoom lens, Canon is the winner.
The only negative point of G1 X is rather poor video, at least what DPR's found out. This might be an important feature for many occasional video shooters (like me), if they do not want to carry a still camera and a camcorder together, especially on travels. Here RX100/III shines.
As I was originally disappointed with Canon G1 X Mark II (just based on other users/testers experience), now I am changing my mind. The IQ of Canon is definitely better. Yes, RX100 is smaller and has built in EVF, but with better IQ and better (longer) zoom lens, Canon is the winner.
Eleson: I'm curious about full sensor readout. Is that actually true?
Thanks, but what is then the rolling shutter? I understand that it is the scanning of a single line of a frame instead of all the lines. As a result is that for example a horizontally moving (vertical) rod would look like skewed with the upper part always forward. Or am I completely wrong?
Does it mean that there is no "rolling shutter" effect?
jonny1976: watching the samples here it's clear these lenses are nothing up the leica film standard, probably not even far from micro third, who already use leica design....it's clear leica know there will be forever a niche of rich people who don't know where to throw money who will buy everything leica put out.treally. 7000 dollar for this camera with 2 lenses and a viewfinder...when a pentax 645z with kit is 8400.i find it pretty offensive if i were a leica user.
If I wanted to have a similar high quality camera, probably I would go for the Sony A6000 + Zeiss 16-70/4 lens for a fraction of the Leica price. The bodies are coming and going away but a decent lens can stay for ever.
mcshan: Looks like a good, small entry level extended zoom camera. I know it will be compared to the RX100 etc. out here but this is a small sensor camera with a long zoom. The RX100 is a different class camera and this new Olympus should not be expected to come close to it. For a relatively small camera with a nice zoom range this is a decent camera.
It is obvious by the comments that most dpr readers have moved past small sensor cameras.
Of course it's a nonsense to compare Stylus SH-1 with the Sony RX100. This camera should be compared with other, 1/2.3" sensor sized cameras. And in my opinion it would beat them easily. Look just at the first picture in the gallery. 3200 ISO! Incredibly good picture. Or look at the that bicycle wheel taken at the base sensitivity. Another incredibly high IQ picture.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: I really only see the water color effect at ISO 800 in the man's face. If you don't pixel peep and look at the overall picture, the images are impressive with sharpness and color accuracy, even at ISO 6400. Olympus is now spreading it's impressive newly acquired technology in all kinds of cameras. If only they would release it in a standard 4/3 DSLR, it would please a lot of people who owns a lot of 4/3 lenses.
But to pack a 24 X zoom in a such a small pocketable body is quite a feat. And if you add the 5 axis stabilisation in it is really another step ahead for the non stop innovative company that is Olympus. Bravo Olympus!
Actually this camera delivers surprisingly good images. Much better than the Stylus 1, which has a larger sensor. So, the size doesn't matter in this case.
DT200: Big Disappointment. The VF is worse and sensor will either be the same or slightly worse than the NEX 7 due to all the PDAF pixels (just tlike the NEX 6 was slightly worse).Even if the the PDAF works this time, there are still no long lenses with wide apertures to use it with. The 55-210 is too slow and is F/6.3.I guess you could wait for the 70-200mm lens, but its size is bigger than the Canon and Nikon full frame versions which defeats the purpose of the system.For now the NEX 7 is a bargain. Better VF, possibly better sensor and instead use less expense more abundant legacy lenses.
If you have two identical sensors but one with the PDAF cells, usually that one performs worse from the IQ point of view. Why? Who knows. Maybe those PDAF cells take away some sensor area. But this has been observed at least on the latest Fuji cameras. Another problem with the 24 Mp APS-C sensors is, that while they provide better resolution, their noise goes rapidly up with the higher ISO settings. See for example Pentax K-5II vs K-3 camera performance. And, such highly dense sensors are much more demanding from the AF, lens quality and, at the case of such mirror-less cameras, from the proper alignment of the light rays, sensor cells and microlenses, especially at the corners when using wide angle lenses.
Vladik: Seems bland and lifeless
Actually the X-M1 sensor should deliver higher IQ than X100s as it doesn't waste a single pixel for the PD AF.
I am not sure whether this new studio scene is so good. For example those “grass” areas are placed too far away from the centre, so any smudging might be attributed to the poor lens performance in the corners rather than as a result of aggressive NR.
So, it looks like the sensor used in GX7 is identical with what the GH3 uses. At least that's what the "digineff.cz" claims: Podle prvních informací by měl být model GX7 výkonem rovnocenný s modelem GH3.
flektogon: Still the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 seems to be the best camera in this section.
O.K. but then why almost each bar in the graphical comparison (including the low light performance) is longer for the LX7? I would like to get the explanation from the authors of those reviews, how reliable are those graphical comarisons.
Just add the other cameras at the graphical comparison. Unless those graphical bars are not comparable.
Still the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 seems to be the best camera in this section.
In spite of the conclusion that the Coolpix P7700 has a better lens:
"While both cameras produce some of the best photo quality of any small-sensored compacts, we were especially impressed with the results from the Coolpix P7700 - at least at low ISOs. What stands out the most in the P7700's photos is just how sharp they are (for JPEG and Raw), which is a testament to the quality of the lens..."
the "Optics" bar at the graphic comparison is far shorter for the Coolpix. It looks like those graphic comparisons are meaningless.