Robert Garcia NYC: I love grain in my images reminds me of film.
There's grain and then there's noise. And there's "noise" and then there's _noise_. This noise is a bit yuck imo.
When are you guys going to graduate from using ACR for noise reduction when dealing with high ISO output? If you're going to post RAW conversions in a sample gallery at all why not show people what is possible when using more sophisticated tools?
Surely you guys have a copy of DxO Optics Pro at the office? I'm not saying you should switch converters entirely as there are plenty of people who use DxO Optics for the PRIME noise reduction module only and do the rest of their adjustments in LR or whatever.
Ittenomis: As if camera phones weren`t already bad enough, Samsung is striving to make them worse.
I said that's what they are _striving_ to do.
I don't care about marketing; I care about facts. And the fact is that if you look at the history of digital photography you will see that sensor efficiency has improved over time as a consequence of a constant series of incremental improvements in sensor technology. And increases in efficiency mean you can either:
1) produce better quality images using the same sensor type or
2) reduce the sensor area slightly without a performance penalty
Will Samsung actually pull it off? I don't know. Theory is one thing, implementation is another. But if they do succeed far from it being miraculous it will simply represent the next incremental improvement in sensor efficiency.
iAPX: For me there is "an image quality tradeoff " since many years, and I would dream to see 6MP or 3MP camera sensors with the same surface, to increase Dynamic Range and reduce Noise.
Plenty of people don't buy things that are true, but thankfully that doesn't change reality for everyone else ;)
(most people who make this mistake don't think to compare output at the same print/display size)
Besides, I wasn't talking about parity within the same generation (even though in this case there is) but the fact that performance sweet spots migrate to higher pixel counts _over time_.
arhmatic: Manufacturers needs to stop this thin device craze forever.
Image quality is more important. Battery life is quite bad, most phones barely last through the day... Phones are uncomfortably thin to hold.
Samsung, apple and the rest, please stop this.
Yes, phones are so thin these days that they need cases so you have something to hold on to. But cases are good because they can protect the resale value (a damaged/worn case is better than a damaged/worn phone). So as far as I am concerned it's OK that phones are getting thinner because that way a good case with some decent shock absorption can offer better protection without the whole combo being too bulky.
thx1138: Just when you thought smart phone IQ couldn't get worse, Samsung admits they are trading IQ for size. Ridiculous
Sure, but we're not there yet, and we don't seem to have completely exhausted our options when it comes to improving the efficiency of existing designs either.
Also, you might be surprised to discover that at least one prominent CMOS sensor architect has some pretty convincing arguments for venturing more deeply into sub-micron territory than "conventional" wisdom might suggest is worthwhile. See: http://www.ericfossum.com/Publications/Papers/What%20To%20Do%20With%20SubDiffractionLimit%20Pixels.pdf
That's really not how it works at all since the performance sweet spot migrates to higher and higher pixel counts over time as a consequence of the evolution of sensor design.
And if you don't buy that, here's a quick investigation of the issue using actual image samples:
What they are in fact doing instead is striving to make them lighter in the pocket without compromising IQ any further.
They admitted no such thing:
"Samsung says that despite the smaller photosites, sensor performance is just as good as on previous models and conventional sensors with 1.12 micron photosites."
And it's certainly not impossible for them to be correct about that, as the history of sensor development clearly demonstrates.
joyclick: Canon sure know very well how to screw money out of your wallets
If they wanted to screw money out of my wallet they should have screwed in an EVF.
(this is my tribute to the poster directly above you)
guydr: A lot of whiners here over the VF, and why should you mention it one time if you can mention it 40 times. You're right it is a stupid decision to leave an small VF out (like in SX60) ,but it is not the end of the world because not everybody feels the need to hold the camera at arms lenght. If you're not have intrest in the camera iust for that, move on to the next. Something else here in my country it is 949€ for the camera and 1149€ for camera + EVF. 1149€ is the same price of RX100m4 here. The RX10m2 cost 1599€, so 450€ more is not a bit more expencive, it's huge.I'm gone buy one for the 600mm reach and the water resistant, but the price has to drop.
As far as I can tell you just complained about all the complaining, and then essentially complained about something else as well (the price of various cameras, including this one).
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.
"24mm vs 38mm is a significant difference"
It's 24mm vs 28mm actually. Still significant for some but not so much for others.
"Also two lenses vs one adds more complexity and is a totally different shooting experience"
Like I said: It really boils down to whether or not you can be bothered with multiple lenses and the need for a slightly bigger camera bag.
Not really. Barely a day goes by on these forums where someone isn't comparing a fixed-lens camera to an ILC alternative, and since the pros and cons almost invariably run both ways such comparisons are useful to explore.
"Compare it with another non interchangeable superzoom with similar focal lengths."
Thankfully it is not up to you to decide what sort of comparisons do and don't make sense for everyone else ;)
The point is to match needs, not specifications.
It's not automatically necessary to match the specifications of the G3X precisely in order to have a viable alternative since everyone's needs are different. And some people are even fond of playing specification games that are more about what wins on paper than what they actually find themselves needing when they're out taking photos.
In other words: some people might really want a 24mm EFL and might really be bothered by that small gap (and that's fine), some people wont care about either of those things (myself included) and some people essentially have their needs dictated to them (at least for the sake of argument) by the latest spec sheets.
E-M10 + 14-42 + 75-300 II = $1049, and you get a built-in EVF (instead of having to pay $240 for the Canon add-on). And if you don't care about an EVF there are even cheaper MFT bodies.
(yes, there is a tiny gap in the FL range there, but nothing that isn't manageable).
As for weight we're looking at ~940g for the MFT kit (body and _both_ lenses) and 733g for the G3X. Not a dramatic difference in my opinion.
It really boils down to whether or not you can be bothered with multiple lenses and the need for a slightly bigger camera bag.
As a MFT user myself I am not even remotely tempted, although I would very much like to be.
Mike FL: "... the same 12MP BSI CMOS sensor found on the FZ200".
Panasonic is aged.
Quite aside from all that though, what I'm really saying is that I hope the 12MP sensor in the FZ300 is more like the 12MP sensor in the SX50 than the 12MP sensor the FZ200 because the latter was sub-par even 3 years ago.
Unless you're able to compare the RAW output of all those sensors when shot behind the same lens, which you can't (because all those cameras have different lenses), and unless you do such comparisons at the same print/display size, you're just going to end up conflating sensor performance with lens performance (since a soft lens means more in-camera sharpening which accentuates noise), JPEG engine performance, and pixel-level performance (when you should be looking at performance at the aggregate image level, which again means normalizing the print/display resolution).
The truth is that for the same sensor technology (and optical performance) more pixels do tend to result in more noise, even at low ISOs (on small formats), but not so much more noise that it cancels out the detail resolution benefit, as evidenced by controlled comparisons involving the Panny ZS40 and ZS50 (same lens, same sensor size, different pixel count).
In other words, the pros and cons actually run both ways.
"The newer 16MP & 20MP turned out to be too much for the tiny size."
Not really. The 16MP sensor in the FZ70 (probably one of Panasonic's own Smart FSI sensors) has better noise/dynamic range characteristics than the 12MP sensor in the FZ200.
The real question here is if Panasonic is indeed using the exact same 12MP sensor that they used in the FZ200 (which was significantly behind the competition) or if they are using a newer 12MP sensor with better performance characteristics. Given that it does 4K it might in fact be the latter (in which case dpreview is essentially making an unfounded assumption by implying that the sensor is identical).
samfan: I've read a story about a fake Canon flash about a year ago. The dude bought the flash online and one of the secondary features wasn't working properly, so he took it to a Canon dealer to check it out. They were trying to make the flash work for hours until finally they called a technician who eventually noticed some differences and figured out the flash was fake.
On the other hand, there are rally good really cheap flashes available. I'd guess that if the makers of these fakes don't want to be found out immediately and hurt their business, I'd assume the insides of these fakes would be at least half-decent. But no guarantee of course... It can be the cheapest, most dangerous crap. Flashguns are dangerous stuff.
If I hear too much more of the "poor camera makers don't make much money so take pity on them and buy their offensively overpriced accessories" sentiment I might just throw up.
Jefftan: Low night capability of Panasonic GM1 is underated because of its excellent image stabilizationWhen I am testing the camera I take 2 pics that is 1 second at ISO 3200, yes 1 second but the image is not blur by handshake. I can't post image here otherwise I will do soI don't know how typical this is. I don't have particular steady hands. Another testing pic at 1/3 sec turn out blurbut in practical use I think handheld to 1/10 sec at 24mm equivalent should be no problem
The GM1 doesn't have any image stabilization. None. Nada. That feature is found in Panasonic lenses. And if you're taking about the 12-32 it is only the antiquated Mega OIS system rather than Panasonic's more state-of-the-art Power OIS system.
I'm certainly not saying that it isn't useful but it is somewhat outdated by today's standards.