absentaneous: can someone explain me what's the difference between mobile photography and photography? and why don't people say DSLR photography, compact camera photography, m4/3 photography, laptop photography, PC USB webcam photography, etc.?
Yep, they put the word "mobile" their to make them stand out from the rest of the photography world in a sort of "hey look at me!" way.
I wonder if even 1% of the target customers of this phone care for such technicalities in a review.
Stailick: Thank you for the hard work. Been waiting for a review like this.
I would like to point out that there are some inconsistencies in the final rating of the product. Specifically, when comparing to the G1X, the RX1 has a lower High ISO rating. Perhaps you have put the camera in the wrong category?
Have you considered going with absolute scores? No need to adjust anything, better performance = higher score, just like those DxO ratings.
Only feminists would find this insulting. As a guy, I wouldn't mind a tablet with a rugged/angular build and comes preloaded with apps for sports/bikes/gadgets/sexy ladies.
Nikon: 1/800s f8.0Sony: 1/800s f8.0Pentax: 1/640s f8.0
1/3 stop difference.
Inflated ISO rating --> "good" hi-ISO performance
And before you say it's only a third of a stop, remember that cameras these days are very close to each other in IQ. A difference of 1/3 stop translates to around 200 points in DxOMark sensitivity score around the 1000 score range (where most APS sensors are at)
The rules don't say anything about post-processing. To what degree can we manipulate our photos here? Light processing only or anything goes?
Plastek: "within less than half a year, we became number one in Europe."
- I call that: BS. Number one in what?! 1" mirrorless ILC segment? LOL.
Cause certainly not in mirrorless market as general. Sony with Panasonic take first 2 spots there, Olympus goes 3rd, Nikon? Somewhere behind.
That's the sales ranking for 4/2011 to 3/2012 (Japanese fiscal year)
Check the Germany, UK, France, and Russia entries. I assure you Brand A and Brand B aren't Nikon.
Granted these numbers come from Sony, but they are officially from the company and not from the mouth of some PR guy, so I would put more weight on them.
kapanak: Well, so much for a sub-$2000 Full Frame DSLR.
Both shoot full HD, yes, but D600 only does 30p, while A99 can do 60p.
What a clever way to promote a product (new Macbook). The title itself makes it kind of obvious.
ET2: K01 uses even stronger RAW NR (that you can't turn off) than K-5. See SNR graph of K01 vs K-5 on dxomark.
The RAW NR starts at ISO 3200
So they're deceiving the customers, that's what. People relatively new to camera hardware, who assume that RAW means raw and untouched data, will look at these comparisons and conclude that the RAWs of K-01 look almost as good as those from the D700 and make uninformed purchase decisions. Other companies might be doing this, too, but nowhere near as much as done in the K-01
onlooker: Rubenski wrote:> Post processing this will always look fake because you miss the graduality of shooting wide open.
Wrong. These tools (that have been available in many forms for ages in Photoshop and other packages) require patience and a lot of work. Set up different distance masks (very carefully and patiently) and increase blur progressively. That way you will have graduality. Yes, it is possible, and no, it is not a "quick fix".
> these kind of tools are only made for the big crowd that will never make a really good picture anyway.
Such arrogance rarely indicates greatness, so I looked at your site. You should not be throwing stones at others.
Nice selective quoting there. The full quote should be
"Everything you can do IN camera better do it IN camera."
I read it as: everything that can be done in camera should be done in camera.
SaulTh: That is not 16x the resolution, it is only 4x the resolution i.e. resolution in each of its two dimensions -- it is 16x the *area*, or 16x the number of *pixels*. It is best to talk in resolution terms, that is the width or height of the sensor in pixels, since that determines the true ability to resolve detail, or crop/zoom while maintaining detail -- the total number of pixels is of lesser use as its relation to resolution is affected by the aspect ratio of the sensor, and resolution is proportional to the square root of pixel count -- silly to talk in total pixel count.
"Resolution" is frequently used to refer to pixel count. A 16MP camera has double the resolution of an 8MP camera, etc....
Gianluca101: In the last days this tool it's became totally useless... if you try too download the images from raw or jpeg you can find that
sony nex-7: iso 6400 - f8 - 1/2000spanasonic gx1: iso 6400 - f6,3 - 1/1600scanon g1x: iso 6400 - f7,1 - 1/1000s
from sony to panasonic there's a full EVfrom sony to canon there's a full EV and 1/3..
WHY? WHY? WHY?
If I have to guess, that would be because the GX1 and G1X have inflated ISO ratings. Their 6400 is more like 4000-5000. The upside is that the image look cleaner because the amount of gain is less than the rated 6400. The downside is the accompanying slower shutter speed which isn't at all reflected in static comparision tests like this. It's a win/win tactic.
RLPhotoAndImaging: OK, so if they use the same APS-C sensors that are in their DSLRs, why can't they also use the same lenses? If Canon released a mirrorless body that used my EF lenses, I'd probably buy one. Until then, I'm enjoying my S100 and plan to buy the G13. My EOS system remains as my pro-gear.
NEX cameras can use A-mount lens with the right adapter.
Fujifilm Finepix F30: Try this. Upscale the ISO 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 and 12,800 test shots of the 18 megapixel Canon 550d to 24 megapixels. Compare the upscaled version of that dSLR to that of the Sony Nex 7's native 24 megapixel output. View 'equalized' (same megapixel) comparisons at 100%. You'll be surprised that the dSLR outperforms the Sony Nex 7. I really can't understand why dpreview makes such sweeping statements claiming 'Nex 7 has the best IQ among APS-C cameras bar none' when a lower megapixel (18 megapixel) dSLR clearly produces better output and retains better detail upscaled to 24 megapixels from ISO 800 and up than the Nex7 has in its native 24megapixels to start with.
Nobody scales up an image. Try the same test but scale the 24MP down to 18MP. If the NEX-7 still looks worse then you might have a case.
Edit: post side-by-side comparison too, or it's just your word against DPR's and everyone knows whose has more weight.
ksgant: I'm sorry, I guess it's me, but this is like the other offerings by Sony, just a noisy mess. While I applaud the form factor and them trying to approach the digital camera form in a new way, I just can't get past the IQ and bad handeling of noise.
But as I say, I seem to be alone in that regard as it's getting praised all over the place...with people seeming to just look past the noise.
The NEX-7 has higher DxO Mark rating than D7000 and 7D, so there is merit in the conclusion.
JackM: I think I'll stick with my 7D for real AF and 8fps at full res. I think I'll stick with my 5DII for the low light and shooting with primes. And both for the selection of lenses. If I want something smaller, I'll get a camera that fits in my pocket.
Close enough for people who only consider things in their opposite ends.
"I'm driving a Hummer. If I want to save gas, I'll get a bicycle, who cares about these cars with high miles-per-gallon?"
skytripper: Someone please remind me why a small NEX body is an advantage if you're going to hang a big honking lens on it, making it essentially the same size as any other DSLR?
What is the advantage of an SUV when you connect a big honking trailer behind it for vacationing? Might as well buy an RV.
surfingringo: The reviewer mentioned more than once that the x10 offers a shallower dof than a dslr with kit lens. Is this correct!? I dont know how to calculate that, but it doesnt sound right. I know that kit zooms are slow but an aps-c sensor is sooo much bigger it thought they would still be capable of a shallower dof than this fuji. If the reviewer is correct in this I think you can sign me up! Appreciate some confirmation of this by anyone in the know!
The X10 only offers shallower DOF at the focal length not offered on the usual 18-55mm APS-C kit lens (ie >83mm FF equivalence). But then again in these situations the APS-C shooter can just move a few steps forward to get the same composition, slightly different perspective and a shallower DOF.