flektogon: Achievements in the electronics are growing almost exponentially, but what about the optical achievements? A sensor with such density would be able to register details equivalent to up to 200 lpm of the lens resolution. Does Canon (or someone else) have such extremely sharp lens? The best lenses for the 35mm film format went up to 100 lpm. How much improvement can we see in the lens design?
Well, the image circle makes a huge difference on the lens resolution. We are talking roughly about the FF-type lenses. But if Canon now comes with the sensor having ability not to suppress those 200 lpm of resolution, I believe that they have corresponding lenses.
Achievements in the electronics are growing almost exponentially, but what about the optical achievements? A sensor with such density would be able to register details equivalent to up to 200 lpm of the lens resolution. Does Canon (or someone else) have such extremely sharp lens? The best lenses for the 35mm film format went up to 100 lpm. How much improvement can we see in the lens design?
RuneMC: Stacked sensor sounds very interesting if it means something like the Sigma sensor/image quality.
4K video also interesting, but 8K would have been even more interesting to extract panorama images from the video with Microsoft ICE 2.0 for example.
And the EVF - please drop it to drop the price significantly.
Will probably keep my RX100 Mk1 and wait for RX200 (whenever that may be) - although if the stacked sensor is exceptional, then I might be tempted...
If almost entire sensor surface can gather the light, I would not be surprised if Sony eliminated microlenses. If only thin filter layer stays on the top of sensor, all the problems with the corners (non perpendicular light beams) alignment would disappear.
Well, I do not fully understand to your last sentence, but from the explanations how that new sensor is arranged, it looks like now the entire sensor surface can gather the light, while on the BSI sensors it is only around 75% and on the non-BSI sensors only 50%.
cgarrard: Sorry I didn't see anyone criticizing this part, so I'm going too...
"Out of all the different cameras that Canon offers, the XC10 probably comes with the most comprehensive kit of any of them. In addition to the basic camera, cables, and things that you might expect, the camera ships with the additional viewfinder, a 64GB CFast card and card reader, and a wireless infrared remote."
Additional viewfinder is a piece of plastic, with plastic in it. I can get a 64GB card on Amazon for..nothing. Imagine how much that costs Canon... and the wireless remote, hah... peanuts. None of that costs Canon much if anything to include.
"These are all accessories that are typically sold as options for other cameras, but they are all included with the XC10. Users can be comfortable that they will find everything....... It also uses the same battery as the EOS 5D Mark III [and several other EOS DSLRs - ed.] making it easier to manage interchangeably with other Canon cameras."
I wouldn't mind to pay even $500 more for it, i.e. anything what is not above CAD 2,000. On the other side I wouldn't want NX1 even for 1000 CAD. So, it's a matter of taste. What I appreciate most on this Canon is a very reasonable pixel density of their sensor. On the other side the lens could be brighter on the long side, something like 1:4.5 at least.
So, the CCD technology is not dead yet. I would even say that it must be better than CMOS, if in such an expensive project it is preferred. Just wondering when we are going to see CCD in the digital photography again.
Eddy M: Better than Pentax K-S1 lol
Apparently you have no idea what are you comparing. On the other side, the only weak point of the camera is its lens, i.e. very soft at the corners especially at short focal distances. If the new model (1s) has really improved lens, and this improvement is aimed towards the corner softness, than yes, the Stylus 1s will be a great camera.
David Julian: For those of you who want to see more samples to judge the CAMERA by, here is a link to a Photobucket of 12 images at the max resolution available. A few are repeats from the set above, just for a SBS comparison. Some images were improved a bit in Adobe LR5, and some are left at defaults. Take into consideration the viewing magnification, and of course the camera settings data available for each. A few could have been improved with more time to try optimal settings tailored for the subject and conditions, but most were shot literally while on the go.
They are all very nice pictures and your original pictures are not bad either, except the picture No.18. What was the ISO setting? Had to be very high. And where were your last 12 pictures taken? Damn, when I look outside through the window...
Greg Pavlov: I would really like to understand this: why the 5-6 articles about this "pocketable" camera "with a "large" sensor when during the same show Panasonic released a camera (DMC-GM5) that is smaller, has a larger sensor, includes a built-in viewfinder and accommodates multiple lenses? Compared to that, why is this Canon "One of the exciting new cameras here at Photokina?"
If nothing else then because no one can beat the Canon colours. The weakest point of Canon are their rather weak sensors. But this camera is equipped with the currently best 1" sensor.
drummercam: Comparing the Pentax K-S1 to the Pentax K-50 is definitely a good way to avoid having to compare it to Canon's 2014 entry-level DSLR, the EOS 1200D (Rebel T5). I don't think the pentamirror, mono-microphone, 3fps, 0.8mag viewfinder, 460K-dot LCD EOS 1200D compares favorably at all, and the price difference is buying solid features, including build, no doubt.
And since "looks" get most of the troll action here, that black blob of a Canon lacks all distinction. Also obvious just by looking -- since looking is all that the complainers about the K-S1 have done as of yet -- is that if Pentax intended to present a less intimidating user interface, comparing K-S1 to the EOS 1200D wins the point easily.
DPR also again shows some anti-Pentax bias by listing (according to the "side-by-side" feature) the EOS as a "Compact SLR" and the Pentax as a "Mid-size SLR." The Canon is apparently 130 x 100 x 78mm, while the Pentax is 121 x 93 x 70mm. I guess compact is bigger than mid-size now?
This camera is really very interesting and actually I like it. The only question I have regarding its sensor. If I am not wrong, Sony doesn't make 20 Mp APS-C sensors. I hope it's not a Samsung sensor. That would be a step back.
Juraj Lacko: It would be so much more appealing to me if it was made in m42 mount since that is easy to adapt with cheap adapter almost to any system.
Obviously you forgot that you would lose the auto exposure feature.
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?