sdh: Does RAW actually offer benefit in smartphone-size sensors?RAW has real benefit with DSLRs and regular point-and-shoot type cameras because the image sensor can capture a larger range of information than the jpg format can store. But the margin decreases as sensor size decreases (decreasing dynamic range).Do smartphone sensors actually have headroom beyond what jpg can store?
And separately I can't help thinking that if you're fussy enough about your images to manually post-process RAWs (because there's no point shooting RAW if you don't) then you probably should be doing photography on a device with a proper handgrip and shutter button (ie a real camera even if only a compact and not a smartphone).
I would like to apply DxO PRIME on some of my phone pics.
BrunoH: "Some third-party camera apps and many Android phones have therefore been allowing separate control of exposure and focus for quite some time. "
Why do you insist on comparing with Android? Almost all Android phones have crap cameras.
The natural thing would be to compare to the best phonecameras on the market - Nokia Lumia 9xx and 1xxx series. Dont you think so?
And by the way. Nokia phones have of course had these options on all their phones!
DPR is always wrong, these guys are just bunch of amateurs with close to zero knowledge in theoretical digital photography and questionable photographic skills.
Ouch, I knew this. Sorry dude, panoramas you have posted are a pure joke.Sweep mode is a toy to try it once and forget. Guided google camera's mode thanks to its subtle control gives much more room for creativity.I just don't get the point of shooting long wide belts. They are crappy. I'm using "belt" panoramas in the way like this:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/2014.05.10/2014-05-1210.06.43.jpghttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/2014.05.10/2014-05-2316.15.45.jpg
And google recently introduced rectangular stitching, like this:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/2014.06.03/PANO_20140602_152619.jpg
I said already: iPhone may stitch better, but it its panorama mode is useless. Google's camera is just much better for creative purposes.
"Sorry, but this is complete BS. I've very thoroughly tested the new pano feature of the Google app and found that, while it's much-much better than the sweep pano of the previous major version, it in no way can stitch frames as flawlessly as the iPhone."I cannot imagine how crappy sweep can be better than android guided mode, which gives subtle control over composition. And, possibly you don't know yet, android recently released rectangular projection for 3x3 stitch: that is really amazing.In other words, iphone may be stitch better, but google camera is just a better app overall.
iphone camera isn't any better than much of android crowd, you think too good about apple phone if you think it can compete with that nokias. There are also better android cameras, like xperia z1, etc. The only advantage I see on the iphone side is the shutter lag. On the other hand, android now has much better panorama engine (see google camera).
pako: I believe the Sony Zeiss FE 55 f1.8 is the best 50mm... http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-STAR-Otus-55mm-F14-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18___1306_795_1241_795_1252_0
You chose D800 instead of D800E for Otus. And used old sigma 50 instead of new 50 art.
theprehistorian: Are there any decent lenses for these things? I have recollections of most of the standard primes being a bit below par compared with similar from Canikon...
@scottelly fanboy detectedNo test so far confirms this Sony Zeiss branded lens is better than Nikon or Canon. All test shows it is slightly behind the Nikon and Canon trounces them all. Just don't bee blind or stupid.
magneto shot: these phone raws are getting serious
@massimogoriThey told they have no intention to support and encourage color filter system that was made for the sake to be different and only degrades IQ.
phoenix15: Most obviously, no Ricoh badge on the back that was complained by hardcore pentaxians. If one read K-3 review in page 4, DPR even wrote: "The real changes are on the back, and we're not talking about the 'Ricoh' logo on the K-3." :)
Apparently, Ricoh do listen to the fans. This 645z is truly a winner in MP league.And maybe pro FF shooter will give some credit to this machine. I am curious to see the image quality compared to Nikon D4s or Nikon D800e, or Canon 1DX.
Hope DPR will review it faster than what they did to Pentax K-3
IQ of Canon 1dx? You must be joking!
Tony Bonanno: I don't understand why DxO doesn't address the Fuji X sensor cameras. The Fuji X is not a huge market, but it is certainly an important one and seems to be growing in popularity by leaps and bounds. I shoot Nikon, Canon and Fuji systems, but until Fuji is supported, I won't support DxO.
They just know XTrans is theoretically limited compared to bayer thus will die in a shot time.
Grumpyrocker: I sold my NEX-6 yesterday and have a Fujifilm X-E2 being delivered today. I was taking a risk that the NEX-6 replacement wouldn't be the camera I wanted. I was right - especially given the reduction in EVF resolution. Though my decision to change was more about the lenses on offer - the A6000 still looks like a fine camera, just not right for me.
@ZeisschenWhere is trolling?
plasnu: imaging-resource.com says that the A6000's EVF is the clear winner as it produces much more accurate colors and easy to discern details, compare to NEX 6. hmm...
@ZeisschenThe new lowres VF is also smaller. And this is even more painful than resolution decrease.BTW, what "Zeiss" your nickname refers to? Sony zeiss? Then you should rename yourself to "sonychen", because germans did nothing with ZA's and crappy 24/1.8
@pew pewHigher refresh rate relates to sensor readout speed"Better IQ" relates mostly to processing. Sony could improve older cameras too via FW update if they would care about their customers.And, it is smaller: obvious downgrade.
EricoftheNorth: I am simply stunned by the praise the NEX 6 and 7 EVF gets. They far and away have the worst VF optics outside of $350 super zooms. Compared to pretty much any other EVF, pulling a the NEX EVF to your eye is disorienting and unnatural. The a65 and a77 are stunning, the NEX are blurry and finicky. If your eye is a few degrees off center, it's a blurry mess. Forget leaving the huge eyecup off to make it easier to get in a smaller bag, it's almost impossible to get the frame focused without it.
I manage a camera shop and watch people flip out about the alphas or the OMD series, but look through the NEX with almost zero reaction. Which means in my decade of sales experience, that it simply sucks, and they think they don't know what they're doing.
So I gladly welcome a smaller EVF if it will actually be functional without 100% perfect eye alignment.
No touchscreen though? FAIL.
@ZhanMInG12You must be blind, there's a big difference.But, on the other hand, the size of NEX evf is barely enough. Even smaller one makes no sense.
Sergey Borachev: Looks great, but still not sure as DXO is involved in the lens testing. I will wait for Lenstip and Photozone to be sure.
Correction. These are DXO's test results, not DPR's.
@chadwadsGood thing you put this link here. Add another one useless "testing" site to my list. Any testing is only usable when it provides some basis for comparison. The slrgear is obviously not.The same lens on larger sensor with larger amount of pixels always has higher resolution in terms of LW/PH, this is straight consequence from testing procedure. The testing procedure itself is a generalization of the way people shooting. And in this SLR gear graph FE 55 on NEX-7 has better graph than on D800 even at areas that refers to the same area of lens coverage.So, people, think next time before to suggest these crappies (photozone, lenstip, slrgear) as viable alternative to dxomark lens testing. They are not even close to purity and adequacy of dxo methodics.
ulfie: 71 mm (2.8″) long make it a bit long for steady, low-light, hand-held shooting considering these two full-frame Sonys have no IBIS unless you're willing to pump up the ISO. The price for a "normal" lens is, IMHO, ridiculous.
> Yeah, just like they had troubles with the Otus doing the same. *shakes head*.
My thoughts exactly :) Same problems, same cheat solution.
So, took a look about lenstip procedures. Their results are certainly interesting but useless, because they don't seem to take cameras into account.
Photozone guy is a pure joke. Telling you cannot compare resolutions between different system is a BS. Resolution is ABSOLUTE value and was invented for such comparisons. Although its technical data is OK. But its rating is far more awful than one of DxO. Just a sample: Pentax 31Ltd on K10 has higher rating than 31Ltd on K-5, although this lens has higher resolution with K-5. This guy seems to measure lens greatness based on its uniformity, which is always relative scale and thus cannot be compared. In other words, that guy has problems in general understanding and knowledge.I didn't read about lenstip testing procedure though, so cannot comment it.
The didn't test APO-Summicron, and, based on its MTF from Leica site, Cron is better (must be for this price). And it is not the second best performer for sure: take a look at NEX-7 chart, it's uniformly acceptable, even in the center, where it should be good or very good.BTW, 55mm is an FL of oddish side. It looks like they had troubles making fair 50.
Emacs23: More careful observation of results should dump down initial enthusiasm. In fact this lens is only great on FF. It is quite mediocre on APS-C and there's something in optical design or coatings which spoils color reproduction with filters (at least UV).
> I don't think you understand the term 'mediocre'.
I do, and you not. See the screenshot above: Otus is close to excellent. If the center part of FE 55 was about as good as Otus I would call it very good. But, it is not. And it is even worse than SEL 50. FF glass needs less sharpness to be very good and it is the case: FE 55 has flat field of view and quite good resolution WO, which makes it a very good performer for FF. But, its resolution is not enough for APS-C, where it loses in practice to even SEL 50, not to mention the Otus, which is in its own league. So, switching from MF to A7r+FE 55 is not the best ever idea. On the other hand, switching from MF to A7r+Otus is quite reasonable (more reasonable than to D800+Otus IMO, thanks to EVF and much better LV implementation).