Joe0Bloggs: all this talk about equivalence and nobody even posted the equivalent fl and f-stop for APS, the only valid format for comparison since there are no full frame mirrorless. Apparently multiplying by fractions is too difficult for these guys.
43mm f/1.2 mFT = 58mm f/1.6 APS150mm f/2.8 mFT = 200mm f/3.73 APS
So what do Sony and Samsung have that is "equivalent" and at what price?
>I know of no technology used for 4/3" cannot be used on APS-C sensors. maybe you do.
As a matter of fact I do, it's called... lenses! lolApart from the 43 f/1.2 and 75mm f/2.8, there's also the 12-35mm f/2.8 constant zoom. APS only needs f/3.6 to match f/2.8 but does APS mirrorless even have a f/3.6 constant normal zoom? No... Bet lots of Sony and Samsung shooters are wishing they can screw the 12-35mm f/2.8 on their camera indeed...
It took you a whole day to think up this nonsensical rebuttal?
Let me spell it out for you:SLRs are not relevant in this debate because their added bulk and weight puts them in another class of buyers.There are no "equivalent" mirrorless APS lenses that can compete with either of these newly released lenses. The closest to the 43mm f/1.2 is the Sony 50mm f/1.8, and that's too short to be a proper portrait lens on APS and slower to boot.
All anybody has in the ~200mm APS range is a bunch of slow superzooms.
But you knew that didn't you? Otherwise you'd be rebutting with actual lenses rather than this nonsensical drivel.
> (including SLRs)
Thus completely missing the point of my post.
all this talk about equivalence and nobody even posted the equivalent fl and f-stop for APS, the only valid format for comparison since there are no full frame mirrorless. Apparently multiplying by fractions is too difficult for these guys.
peevee1: Hm, look at the sample photo 12 (wine cellar). ISO 1600. Color noise is clearly visible on the wall even at screen resolution, yet noise reduction is also pretty strong (see the labels on the barrels). I hoped it could be better. :(Nice, useful camera, I just would not shoot above 1/4th of the maximum resolution (5 mpix) with it. Which is plenty in almost all real-world usage anyway.
Actually looks quite clean zoomed in to 100%... except for some low frequency chroma noise which didn't get cleaned up. The predominance of low frequency noise explains why you can see the noise at screen resolution. Hopefully this can be cleaned up in RAW or a firmware update. As the chroma noise pattern looks quite regular it may be a calibration problem in the readout.
Joe0Bloggs: I was going to calculate the equivalent apertures of a few recent wide aperture compacts and compare them--cool that dpreview has already calculated the whole lot for me!
"*Effective aperture, in 135 film terms - this gives an idea of the depth of field control offered by the lenses when the sensor size is taken into account."
Pity they didn't go on to point out that given equivalent sensor technologies, having a larger (smaller number) effective aperture also gives you better low light performance no matter what the size of the sensor or the actual f-number on the lens is. So e.g. we can expect the RX100 to do better in low light than the G1X, Nikon 1 with f/3.5-5.6 lens or even m4/3rds and even 1.5 crop with kit f/3.5 lenses.
e.g. given a scene that meters ISO1000 f/1.8 1/60s on the RX100,we'd get (holding shutter speed constant at 1/60s, aperture at the max for each respective format's lens)ISO2420 f/2.8 1/60s on the G1X with 2.25x larger sensorISO3780 f/3.5 1/60s on a Nikon 1 with same sized sensorISO3780 f/3.5 1/60s on a m4/3rds with 1.94x larger sensorISO3780 f/3.5 1/60s on a 1.5x crop Nikon with 3.05x larger sensor
In each case the sensor size advantage of the larger format is more than offset by the slower lens and the higher ISO that you have to crank to. It takes an f/2.4 lens on 4/3rds to equal the RX100 at the wide end, f/3.2 on 1.5x crop.
I was going to calculate the equivalent apertures of a few recent wide aperture compacts and compare them--cool that dpreview has already calculated the whole lot for me!
ponyman: Can't help thinking that 24mps is around twice the ideal and hugely detrimental gimmick for a supposedly 'serious' camera.
Of course, I also thought at the time that cranking resolution up to 22mp just so you could get binned 1080p video would be barking mad. Not to mention that 24mp binned 2x2 is still 8mp worth of data (although only 2.6mp worth of resolution), so if you can have a processor that crunches binned output from a 24mp sensor to produce 1080p video, you can also use it to downsample full resolution output from an ‘only‘ 8mp sensor to 1080p video...
Well, I noted several years ago that 2x2 pixel binning on a bayer sensor cuts resolution to 1/9th, so for 1080p video, if you want to bin instead of pixel skip (which massacres low light sensitivity and introduces aliasing artifacts) or downsample from full resolution (which no sane onboard processor would be capable of) you need a minimum of 18mp, or 22mp on a 3:2 sensor for an 18mp crop. Looks like this Sony sensor would be the first generation of sensors at least theoretically capable of this.
MOF (Sydney) wrote: > You need to realise that this is a sculpture located on a roundabout in central Sydney (the newly fashionable wharf district) and that the council paid quite a lot more for it than a new car would have cost.> > Nice photo though all the same.
LOL! :) Thanks for the info, hope I can get to go see it in person if I visit Sydney. (I used to live there)
Nice shot but what's up with the name???