D200_4me: Sort of a hard sell if you look at it closely. You could get a m4/3 interchangeable lens camera with a kit lens in that price range or less ($650 for GX7 with kit lens), depending on what you want. Then you'd have a much more versatile camera (because of the lens options) and of course better image quality.
Well, you can also attach a wonderful portrait lens like the 45/1.8, or an ultra wide zoom like the 7-14/4, 9-18mm, etc, and any number of other specialty lenses. The 12-50mm rather than the 12-42mm wouldn't add much more weight in any case.
So yes, adding more lenses costs more money and means more weight, but it gives you a lot of options that a fixed lens camera does not. I fail to see the logic where interchangeability is a bad thing, it's simply different. May be better or worse depending on needs. Different doesn't mean incomparable either, if there weren't differences, there would be no point to compare in the first place.
A Nikon 1 system camera with 70-300 would merit comparison as well if you're looking for extreme reach tele in a small package.
mr_landscape: CaNikon say bye-bye to most of your trusty fanatics;)
Please inform us clearly stupid and ignorant masses, which shooting situations do you frequently find yourself in that 42MP is unacceptable but 50MP is perfect?
Difference between 42mp and 50mp is about 8% linear resolution, in other words, basically imperceivable to the human eye. You'll see as much (if not more) difference in resolution simply by observing sample variances between two copies of the same lens.
If 42MP isn't suitable for your work, 50MP isn't either, and you should probably pick up an 80MP medium format back, or shoot large format film.
SteB: The 90mm macro, looks rather long for a 90mm macro lens. It looks more like a DSLR design with a built in extension to fit a short back flange distance. The Tamron 90mm macro, both the old and new additions, prove that a high performing 90mm macro lens for FF doesn't have to be big. In fact I think it's not unlikely this Sony lens may be based on the Tamron 90mm macro. I'm not saying it is, because we need to see the specifications. However, it would hardly be the first time a camera manufacture has done this.
The 90mm lens looks like a DSLR lens with a tube built in, because that is essentially what it has to be. When you get into the telephoto range, there is no getting past physics. Telephoto lenses of the same focal length an image circle (in this case 90/2.8 FF lenses) will actually tend to be longer, not shorter, when we're talking about mirrorless lenses. This is because the FF DSLR has a longer flange distance, thus the camera itself provides some of the extension required for a lens to physically have a 90mm focal length. You can see this with the FE 70-210/4, is actually a little longer than the EF 70-210/4. Not because Sony is stupid and doesn't realize people want small lenses, but because they can't break the laws of physics to accomplish it.
And more zoom added to the detractions of the RX100 and RX100ii.
And I want fewer pixels and better lowlight performance, I sure hope Sony listens to the likes of me and not this silly more zoom thing. Sony used to always go for more zoom, and it got Sony ignored by people interested in seriously good cameras.
As for this particular Sony sensor, the new Nikon One v3 and the Samsung NX-mini both appear to seriously threaten this Sony's sensor.
The NX mini's lens is two stops slower than the RX100MK3, so any slight advantage the Samsung has at high ISO is moot. Its also bigger and doesn't have an EVF.
HowaboutRAW: 8 or 10 raws for download, please.
These jpegs look decidedly unimpressive on a 15" MacBook retina. Hoping the raws would be better.
Contrast ratio is a useless marketing term and most manufacturers make up/have their own standards for the measurements. Its not a reliable spec because you can't compare it directly, it would be sort of like if some camera manufacturers measured ISO in a different way.
Contrast ratio shouldn't have any bearing on monitor selection when color accuracy is the goal, many manufacturers pump up the contrast so the screen looks more "vivid" to the average consumer, but the color accuracy on these displays tends to be worse. Lower end panels often have higher contrast ratio ratings, because its an easy spec (even if it means very little) to sell to a consumer.
What your monitor's contrast ratio spec is, is really neither here nor there, and has no bearing on color depth.
32 bit is typically what your color setting will say(as apposed to 16/24 bit), which is 8+8+8+ 8 bit alpha. I highly doubt it says 32 bit *per channel*, if it does, take a screenshot.
Virtually every monitor made in the last 10-15 years can run in 32bit "truecolor" mode (even if some can't display all the colors, ie cheap 6bit per channel TN/e-IPS monitors)
"As of 2012 many modern desktop systems (Mac OS X, GNOME, KDE, Windows XP/Vista/7, etc...) offer an option for 24-bit truecolor with 8 bits for an alpha channel, which is referred to as "32-bit color" or the RGBA color space. Switching to an 8/16/24-bit color option in those systems generally disables transparency/translucency effects, and the only reduction in color depth is seen when going to 8/16-bit color."
Ah, here is a PDF from HP that should clear it all up. They specifically reference 30 bit (in reality 10+10+10) as apposed to 24 bit (in reality 8+8+8) when talking about "30 bit" dreamcolor monitors. http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/workstations/pdfs/lp2480zx-30-bit-panel.pdf
It also references 18bit (in reality 6+6+6) bit monitors, which most cheap TN based monitors are, and even some e-IPS monitors like the dell U2311H etc.
No place in this PDF does HP claim 90/96 bit depth.
I will be happy to provide sources of information about the 6/8/10 bit depth per channel of various different panel types.
Again, a 10bit per channel (30bit total) monitor means you have a high quality, professional monitor, so I am sure it looks nice. But you do not have anything exceptional or rare, as Dell(U2413) and Eizo also offer hardware with the same specs. Possibly even the same panel, as only a few companies actually manufacture monitor panels (Samsung and LG are a couple examples).
Please provide reference for the specific software (and where) it claims this is 96 bit. As again, no other resource on the internet makes the same claim (if you can find that, I would be interested as well).
Even more THIRD PARTY sources listing the LP2480zx as a 10-bit per channel (30 bit total) monitor.
Make sure to read past the "from HP" marketing info. 12-bit LUT, 10-bit interface.
I've yet to find a single source that lists this monitor as "90bit". Please provide me with such a source if you intend to keep this up.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1010658-REG/hp_gv546a4_aba_hp_lp2480zx_24.html 12 bit lookup table, 10bit/per channel color, again similar to every other high end monitor on the market.
Again, computer monitors are typically specified by color per channel, not total color for all 3 channels, which is the only difference between my 10bit and your 30 bit number.
If you want to call it "30bit" that's fine I guess, but you're already adding up all 3 10 bit channels. You don't multiply it again by 3, because that makes no sense.
32 bit float gives you a data range of -3.4E+38 to +3.4E+38, which is a much, much, MUCH higher value range than you can represent on any current hardware. But somehow you think you've got a 90/96 bit monitor? How many values can your monitor display? What GPU can actually push anything close to that amount of values to the display?
Do you realize that you're basically the only person on the internet making this claim? Go ahead, google 90/96bit monitor.
Also that HP monitor is a 10Bit per-channel monitor, equivalent to most high end panels, they're just doing the same 3x math you are for marketing purposes and calling it 30 bit. Nothing new there. When you talk about bit-depth for monitors, the standard term is per channel. You can't just 3x everything and pretend like its something new. Look up the specs on B&H, clearly 10/12 bit like all other pro type monitors.
And which monitor do you have again?
Not sure what fantasy world you live in, but you do not have a 96bit monitor, because such a thing does not exist. Most high end monitors use 8-10bit panels, and even the most expensive professional monitors are 12bit at most.
revio: DPR says: "The D3300 continues to be one of the smallest and lightest digital SLRs on the market"
How can a NEW camera "continue to be one of the smallest..."???
Since it´s not been existing until now, it can´t of course...
The D3300 seems, anyway, to be a nice and capable camera, and notably smaller than its predecessor was.
A. The Nikon D3XXX line has always been on the small side, this is the latest in that series.B. ballwin12 - What part about "one of the smallest" confused you? It is *one* of the smallest DSLR, I haven't seen anyone claim it is smaller than the SL1.
Lucas_: Although a bit heavy for an f4, the 70-200 would be a great option for Sony folks, if priced right. Currently there are only huge/expensive f2.8 choices on that range from Sony, Sigma and Tamron.
The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is 1112g/201mm vs this Tokina lens at 1020g/168mm, so barely any size/weight gain.
yabokkie: Sony E20/2.8 is equivalent to about 31mm f/4.3 on 35mm format. Sony E24/1.8 is about 37mm f/2.8, Canon M22/2 is about 35mm f/3.2, and Pana G20/1.7 is about 39mm f/3.3.
compared to the last three, E20/2.8 is wider and darker. all these lenses are very easy and very cheap to make, and I think they are all quite handy to use, even for indoor if you don't mind IQ.
Any exposure benefit you get from using a 1.7 lens on M43 vs a 2.8 lens on APS-C is pretty much moot, because sony's APS-C sensors give you on average about 1 stop better ISO performance than the best M43 sensors.
So a M43rds 20mm lens at 2.0 and iso 800 and an APS-C 20mm lens at 2.8 and ISO 1600 are generally going to take the same photo in terms of quality, noise, dof, etc. All things being equal of course(lens quality, you'll have to step back a little with the M43 to get the same framing).
So the 20/1.7 gives you a half stop benefit. Hooray!
My mirrorless camera is an OMD with 20/1.7 + 45/1.8 btw, just so you guys don't think I'm hating on M43. I do understand the differences though, and I think its important, if a bit esoteric.
With static scenes the IBIS on Oly cameras makes a much much bigger difference than a 1.7 M43 and 2.8 APS lens. On Pana bodies, its moot(unless you have an OS lens). With moving subjects, its moot.
Jefftan: biggest problem is no OSSno use at high ISO at night
So you carry around a tripod, with your pocket sized camera and lenses? What is the point then? Just bring a DSLR if you're going to be lugging around a tripod.
HubertChen: I shoot regularly with Pentax prime lenses on Sony NEX. This is already fun and image quality is superb and comparable to what my friend shoots with his Canon 5D, which will make the NEX / Pentax Prime combo look like a dwarf. This adapter would shift favors even more to the NEX. I am wondering why the Pentax K-Mount is not considered yet. They have excellent primes at diminishing size and low cots. Ideal for NEX and Metabones adapter.
You can get a cheap PK to EF adapter and use it with the Canon version of this adapter, as long as your PK lens has an aperture ring.
Same with Olympus OM, M42 screw mount, Contax/Yashica C/Y mount, Kodak/Voigtlander DKL mount, Leica R, and probably a few more, all with infinity focus. Really anything that can be converted to EF mount without correct glass will work.
No AF though obviously.
vassilis gazelos: Hi all, I'm trying to decide on a new compact/bridge camera and this review came out on time even though it doesn't inlcude the bridge/large zoom cameras! I don't have first hand real life experience of either of these so I'm trying to narrow down the selection from the reviews and comments. I'm looking for the best image quality, full manual control, widest angle 24mm/25mm, long exposure, braketing. I was considering the FZ200 or SX50HS however these have significnalty smaller sensors than the ones reviewed in this article. Could anyone assist me with some real life experience and regardless of the budget how these different types compare. Is the image quality (and Depth of Field) of the comeras here noticeably better? P.S> The only reference I have is via a friend's Canon older Gseries which produced some relay good results (I don't rememer the widest angle though). My experience ranges from a SLR Canon F1 (multiple lenses) to a point a shoot Sony DSC T7 Thank you
when you compare M43 vs NEX with similar lenses, the M43 combo is almost universally smaller. Say M43 with 45/1.8 vs Nex with 50/1.8, M43 with 20/1.7 pancake vs NEX with 35/1.8, 24/2 or 30/2.8. Even when you compare larger bodies like the OMD vs the Tiny Nex 3/5 the M43 is about the same size or smaller with similar lenses. If you take the compact M43 bodies the size is smaller than NEX. Sure the NEX may be smaller in height, but what does that give you with a large lens attached? The Sony 16-50mm and the not very good 16mm prime lenses are the only NEX lenses that really compete on size.