- Where are all the leaves?- They were utilized in making the tobacco.
Photo with a deep meaning. Addictive.
Such type of shots were pretty noisy back in the days with Canon G10.Same Mp, same sensor size, now with better NR.
Is it hase or excessive NR that ate up all the grass?
I like this shot.. American flag on the field. UFOs? Like back in 90s and cornfield circles :-)
I like this V2.It really resembles old-school Nikon 8400 compact camera.Back in 2005 it offered 2/3' sized 8Mp sensor coupled with superwide 24-85mm lens which was bright even for todays standard f2.4-4.9.
New V2 has pretty much the same size and weight after attaching the lens.And I expect IQ to be even better.Coupled with 32mm(86mm eqiv.) f/1.2 Nikkor lens it will be a killer!
I also see that new testscene has 4:3 format.How will it affect testing 3:2 format sensors? It may not show soft corners/CA for lenses mounted on them.
My G1X does better job even at ISO8000http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6479708377/photos/2232555/iso8000-chroma-noise-test-g1xSome may not see the point to pay for the FF unless one needs that shallow DoF
Comparing to the old, new test scene has no dark/shadow areas.It lacks objects in the shadow or objects with sophisticated tonal/color range like bottles in the old scene.Most subjects are very similar high contrast objects with small details.Also it lacks glass objects which are usually prone to reflections.New scene may not give real-life representation where some of the objects will always be in the shadow.I thought it is important.
This is the quality one will get indoors in dim litt rooms.Live with it. Does it worth $2800?
Just kidding.I believe, one could safely lower the ISO to 6400 in this shot.However, how good it would look with ISO6400? Probably still not very good.
Is it done using MFNR preset?Do I see horisontal noise banding?
Anyway, looks very decent for ISO12800
This is exactly what I thought.To be able to capture low light images with deep DOF one will need to resort to f8.0.FF advantage over APS-C gets lost.I could use ISO2000 and f5.6 1/60sec on my G1X and get similar or better results both - in noise and DOF.
maniax: in the past 100 iso/asa was considered fast. Yet, beautiful pictures were made by famous photographers. Nowadays people just care how it performs on 6400 iso or higher.You think you can shoot better pictures if you have 256000 iso grainless?
I'm sure its a very nice camera in all aspects, its just that for me a camera that limits you makes me more creative.
You are completely right.
If "less than APS-C" G1X sensor can do clean ISO3200-12800,expectations for a FF should be even higher, shouldn't they?
RE: "johnbee (13 min ago)RE. You think you can shoot better pictures if you have 256000 iso grainless?Hell ya!"
It will allow us to shoot in the situations where we could not take any pictures before.
Less grain/NR artefacts = better looking picture
Everyone who posesses "creative eye" will appreciate improvements in HiISO performance.
With my compact APS-C Canon G1XI shoot noisefree ISO3200 imageshttp://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6479708377/photos/2077715/my-iso3200-shot-lamp?inalbum=my-g1x-photosAnd even ISO12800 ones are pretty usable.http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6479708377/photos/2185047/my-iso12800-shot-toronto-taxi
If I thought about buying D600 and upgrading to FF,I'd expect it to deliver results at least on the same level as my tiny G1X with 28-112 fix.
Nowadays, good ISO3200-12800 performance is a MUST, especially for the FF.
mgm2: This is a great system. The availability of the adapter puts it head and shoulders above the RX100.
At ISO100-400 there will be no much difference for med size prints.But there will be huge difference in the zoom range in favour of this tiny beast from Pentax.
carlos roncatti: any words on what f/stop at 35mm? thanks
LX7 f1.7 at 33-37mm
Another example will be
LX7 vs RX100 at 66mm f2.1 vs f4.0 in full frame equivalentf10.6 vs. f10.9
LX7 will provide more blurred background at 66mm and further zoomed,but not 87mm as the graph suggests
Problem with this chart is that f-values in the cameras do not change continuously they do it in the steps different for different products.
For example, for RX100 there is f1.8 at 28 mm, f2.0 at 29mm, f2.8 at 34mm.for G1X there is the same f2.8 all the way from 28-34mm.
In fulll frame DoF equivalents 28mm f4.9 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of RX10029mm f5.4 vs f5.2 = slight advantage of G1X34mm f7.6 vs f5.2 = G1X wins hands downand not in the 36mm point as shown by the chart
(based on the DPReview testshttp://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/3http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/7)
This chart should be corrected from scratchto incorporate the reality,becase in the current version it misrepresents the data.
See the CHART:
OK, listen up everyone. I've taken the data found on page one of this review http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx7 and put it onto a log chart.
This way we can better appreciate the combined (relative to 135mm) aperture per zoom, and better compare among the cameras in this category.
Intersects, and where the lines come close, gives us a good indication of where an advantage changes, and of where some become similar.
Too bad I can't embed the graphic in this post.
Cheap big sensor compact paired with the spotting scopemay yield better results while staying on a very light side: