Kodachrome200: I am amazed how many people think the monkey actually took the photos. The guy made up a story to trend online.
Dead right, ..... what a tangled web when we set out to deceive. Kind of divine justice really.
Giuseppe Fallica: Leonardo da Vinci, many centuries ago, had realized that the mechanics can copy from nature. And if the eye retina is curved, there is a reason...
maybe not, but square windows were not much of a success ...
Joseph S Wisniewski: The picture showing the eye is either deliberately deceptive or totally misinformed. The radius of the eye is many times tighter than the Petzval surface of the eye's lens. That is why much of the retina forms a flat tension surface in front of the curved eyeball. The optical system, as drawn, would be substantially worse than a flat retina.
Eyeballs are round because eyes tilt and pan. That's all there is to it.
I think the bath water is the electron thing, second order effect, curved sensor will be a significant improvement at the ideal focal length, and less at others ...... but interestingly may make old planar lenses less useful ? how sad, if you want to be with the "in" crowd, you will need new optimised lenses, ideally with manufacturer's correction programs to match, finally make all those old lenses obsolete ? . I agree it is surprising it did not happen on phones first.
........ I have thought this was a long time coming - Minox did this 50 plus years ago in their spy camera's squeezing the film on a curved plate to simplify/improve the lens ........... all heading toward a spherical sensor with tubes above each pixel - then the game is over.
Reinhard136: Ok, so we have a camera about the same size as a Canon SL1, which takes pictures which are almost as good as the SonyRx100ii. I wont be trading my RX100ii, while it has a little less zoom than the Rx10, it pictures look slightly sharper, probably from the less ambitious zoom, and it fits effortlessly in the smallest pocket. When you don't need something small, doesn't a proper SLR, do a lot more, in a very similar package and without blackouts etc ?
........ you can have the last word on that one - repeating ourselves now
Paul Kersey Photography: One criticism I have of these reviews; they all feature ratings based on things the reviewer perceives as important. These choices aren't necessarily shared by others. For example, I could not care less about a camera's video function or features. Secondly, I never use flash in my photography. Thirdly, don't care at all about lack of touch screen, in fact, didn't want it. No level gauge? No worries, don't need it. Get the idea here? Personal biases which are natural lead to different ratings based on feature preferences.
Incidentally, I have read reviews elsewhere that address the new evf is better than the former one on the Nex 6.
:-) , might be fun ......... and playing with the factors would be a great alternative to going outside and taking pictures ......
lens is small already ..... body is the prob
I can see you really like the camera. If it were smaller, I would like it too, and it would be a more significant camera, and I suspect its success would be more long term.
thanks Richard ....... which opens an intriguing but geeky possibility - easily done with a spreadsheet : if you published your individual 12 assessment criteria scores, along with their weightings above them, people could then change the weightings to suit themselves - rich people could put 0 on price, and IQ people could put 10 on IQ - imagine how hard it would be to whinge about the DPR awards then - you can give your favourite camera a gold award, and find out something about your own preferences at the same time ...........
Yes it does . I like the story of Minox, the designer fashioned a piece of wood into the largest size and shape he could comfortably hold in his hand - then worked out how to make it into a camera - definitely a darn great design ........ Seems a pity we want shapes which have been set by film cameras, at the expense of average ergonomics, and excessive size, and which is now largely irrelevant to sensor based cameras. There have been a few attempts, to think outside the box. Prefer to see the ergonomics people have a go, than the marketers....... but you can understand the conservatism, to jump away like the first lytro could easily end in miserable sales, in a tepid market.
Agreed, the big size was more about what the marketing department thought would look cool, and the RX10 does look cool. I expect Nikon hope you are wrong about there being no demand for 1 inch sensor interchangables. I suspect the slower acceptance for Nikon is around the same problem you mention, which goes back to the initial comment about the RX10 being too big - the Nikons are as big as 4/3, so apart from a bit of a saving in lens size why would you bother. I expect we will see them bring out smaller bodies too, if they want to stay relevant.
......Yes, constant 2.8 is a very nice feature, but keep in mind if you can change lenses you can put on a 1.4 if you like, or even if you have a slower lens than a 2.8 performance may still be better via superior ISO on a larger sensor. No doubt it is a nice camera, but I suspect the body size is due more to marketing it as an SLR, rather than the best they could do, the amazing r100 iii, is a landmark triumph in that regard. I think the GM1 or even the Nikons makes a lot more sense than this one, only a matter of time before the r100 or one of its brothers gets interchangeable too, and then this one will look pretty portly.
Reasonable point, I admit I did not look at that - but keep in mind the extra bit of lens is also paid for by the fact that you can swap lenses around on a dslr to a smaller/faster package, and of course, you don't need quite as much zoom in an "equivalent" lens, ie the larger sensor gives you the same result, with a shorter lens and some cropping.
.... my son just bought a watch/phone - works fine, surfs the net, takes fotos, small etc. $150.Please sony, make the M3 5 mm longer, include a phone, and save the world a lot of trouble ...........
ZWTang: It's a little bit better than RX100 II. This is how Sony squeezes your money. I'm tired of its game. Sony, why not try your best to surprise people and get the market? Do not fool customers. I'm waiting to see how Sony a77 II works as I plan to upgrade my a57. I was very optimistic but now... If it's the same way as RX100 III, I'll go for Olympus/Fuji/Panasonic. Sigh...
yeah, know how you feel, 12 months since I bought my mii, and now this wonder machine, hard not to feel miffed. Probably should have some empathy with the desgners/manufacturers though - could they really have done the viewfinder on the mi ? or was there a genuine year or two's development in that ? Sony is not making a lot of money at the moment either, can you really blame them stretching their models to maximise return ? Should we be happy it is an exciting time with new developments around every corner ? a mature market place, with 10 years between cameras is certainly a lot more relaxing .........
SeeRoy: Comment 1843. One thousand eight hundred and forty three...It's just another overpriced small camera folks.
...... It is a minor Photographic Milestone, that will force the others to lift their game a quantum. Hundreds of designs are trying to fill this niche, and Sony just leapt out of the mire. You might have been able to argue the GM1 was fair competition than the ii, but now there is daylight (ie. in the viewfinder) between them, real cameras have viewfinders. Why would sony charge less for something which has no competition ? It is a bit sad that not everyone can afford one, but those that can pave the way for those that cant, cheaper will follow. I will stick, reluctantly, with the mii, but if money were no object .........
zakka: Disappointing IQ. Same goes with the optic which is basically a 28-70mm f/2.8 constant, with a 24mm at 1.8. Impressive given the still relatively small size, but i can't help to be a little bit disappointed. Not to mention the ISO performances. Sharpness looks OK, which is a good point.I would probably go for a GM1 or a G1X in spite of their bulkiness though.
........... or a Canon 1 Dx. The R100 is all about bulkiness, building something bigger, that does as well, and has no viewfinder is not much of a challenge.
mauijohn: Finally after a year of hagling sony personels agreed to adapt a 24mm to the wide end of their not so pocketable camera with a price just right with a bright lens through out. But the zoom is a little bit anemic. Why can't they make up to 120mm like canon s110 or longer zoom is beyond me. Just my thought.
......... or look at it another way, it does have a 120 zoom, and beyond, just crop, and still end up with a better picture than the Canon.
Mirfak: The camera has an aperture of f1.8-f2.8 at 8.8mm-25.7mm and NOT at 24mm-70mm. Instead of calling out manufactures for the utter deception of not scaling the aperture when they scale the focal length to full frame, why does DPR support and promote this practice?
It's a total disservice to the readers of this site. Instead, you should help readers by indicating the true aperture conversion that must be done.
I think it is a very clever practise, although if the quasi standard had settled on factors, or angles it may have been more rigorously correct, and better for people who had not grown up with 35 mm film - it is of no value to know whether a lens is 16 to 50 , but calling it 45 to 20 degree tells you something, as does saying 0.8 to 2.0, tells you which lens to bring with you . It is probably the young non film people mostly who are grumbling, and maybe not without reason ...... why learn an arbitrary standard.
I have one, fair review. You don't really need the remaining parts of the review, the test photos will be pretty much like the Nikon 24's or Pentax K3 or Nex 7, and the rest of the details are subjective or you can guestimate. I bought the Nex 6, because on paper it was close to the best thing at the time, it died traumatically but for some reason I did not miss it. I don't think it went to silicon heaven, as it had no spirit. I appreciated again how good the old Pentax K20 was, you just enjoy pushing the button . Got the A6000 on the same basis, on paper remarkable and pretty well the best sub full frame out there, a little more soul, but still a bit more like taking a photo with a camera phone than the clunky old, feels good in the hand Pentax. Lens availability and no body stablilisation a little annoying, but blue sky will be combining the system with the sony full frames when they become a bit more viable.