Araucaria: The sony medium format sensor is probably a lot better than this.
Same technology as the Sony FF sensors on a two thirds larger sensor should lift the low light score up by 67%.
Steen Bay: Well, if something sounds too good to be true... As far I can tell the QE of the Red Dragon must be quite a bit higher than 100% in order to get such a high SNR, and that's hardly the case.
The short version: If you got the same (low light) score (aka SNR here) as FF cameras who have a QE 50% on a sensor half the size, you need to be collecting 100% of all photons.
Now, the area is not exactly half as large but 1/1.8 as large, which puts the QE down to 90%. And if you are precise, a score of 2745 corresponds more to 47% and the area ratio is 1/1.78, which brings us down to 84% which is still unbelievably high. For the last five years the best cameras had QE between 50 and 60%.
The Low Light score of DxO is based on the maximum ISO which "achieves an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits". For all Sony- and Nikon-sensored FF cameras the SNR is determining criteria. And the SNR score mainly reflects the quantum efficiency.
whtchocla7e: "... the first camera to break the 100-point barrier isn't a full frame model from Nikon or Sony ..."
Subtle Canon diss, haha.
If you don't care about those measurements why did you even read this article whose only news content was the results of those measurements, let alone comment on it?
igorek7: It's nice to see some progress with the Nikon's professional "action" camera, and a brave decision to not increase the pixel count of the sensor.
Perhaps, video capabilities is the major upgrade. Video bit rates up to 1080@60p is a good addition, but limiting video stream to 42Mbps (10 min limit), and 24Mbps (20 min limit) is not. The D4s can now adjust audio volume as it records, which is good. Unlike existing Nikons, the D4s can now simultaneously output uncompressed video over HDMI and record to internal memory cards --great.
However, I'm asking myself, with all those D4s video improvements, why not to add a 4K video, like in Panasonic GH4? Why not to add a silent shutter, an electronic one or a rolling shutter? Many of Nikon D3/D4 are used in external-noise-sensitive environments, such as theater/public performances, etc.
I since had a look at the Canon 1Dx manual which can record longer at high data rates than would fit into the 4 GB limit. It automatically creates a new file once it gets to the limit. But that will be a completely separate file, ie, when you play them back again, you must start the second movie file manually (or use software to combine them).
babalu: ...in five to ten years any camera with a mirror box will be as antiquated as film cameras are today .
The E-M5 still is too slow for shooting people for me. Exposure lag is too long to catching fleeting facial expressions reliably. Most of that is probably due the contrast detect autofocus and switching to focussing on demand (ie, it focusses when pressing another button than the shutter or said differently it doesn't focus when pressing the shutter release) might solve it but I haven't used my E-M5 often enough for people to bother with it.
I have seen several explanations for the recording duration limit:1) Broadcasting rights for sporting events. Essentially if you use devices that can record for more than X minutes, you need to pay for different rights. But such rules naturally might have been true five years ago and having been changed since.2) Higher taxes on movie recording devices than still cameras with a cut-off recording time limit as the differentiator (Canon 1Dx has a maximum recording time of 29 minutes and 59 seconds, staying just below the 30 minutes mark).3) Maximum file size of FAT32 formatted memory cards of 4 GB. While exFAT (with much higher size limits) has been supported by the main OSes for, I think, seven years now, cards are still formatted usually as FAT32. If you multiply 24 Mb/s *60 s/min *20 min you get 3.6 GB. I would assume that cameras that have longer recording times save the movie file into a format that allows easy splitting into multiple files.
Eric Glam: OK. I just tried it on Windows 7 x64 with 24GB RAM.It is so frustratingly slow, that I think they should just quit and give Adobe the information to the Focus point and other "secret" metadata.Then we can all use ACR / LR, and be happy with it.
Focus point information isn't secret (at least Aperture can display it).
Cheezr: ok i officially give up! you got me Barney!so where is the link to read the interview?if i click interview it takes me to a list of interviews and if i click the d4s title it takes me back here, if i click any of the labels above the "you may also like" they just circle around but afaik there is no link to the interview.
If this is a test i surrender and maybe this is why there are only 5 comments, something broken???
The interview is in the captions beneath each image (it took me a while to find that as well).
dcdigitalphoto: I don't really understand why a power house camera like this doesn't have a basic setting that appears on other cameras. I'm talking about TvAv where you set the shutter speed and aperture and the camera works out the ISO required. I have found it extremely useful shooting sports.
Since the beginning of Auto-ISO on Nikon DSLRs (at least since the D3/D300 in 2007) that has been a feature of all Nikon DLSRs [that had Auto-ISO, and at least all the higher end ones had Auto-ISO]. Which means you rushed to judgement based on zero knowledge about how Nikon has used Auto-ISO for many years. You would have to have just google Auto-ISO Nikon and you would have found descriptions of this among the first results.
Just a Photographer: Why should we still use Eye-Fi cards now in most places we can use a 4G network?
Next to that in todays world not only your phone has wifi already, but most (consumer) camera's have wifi too.
Few years ago these cards came in handy, but nowadays aren't these eye-fi card mostly redundant? Its only a matter of time before Eye-fi will be out of business.
You mean now that cameras can directly connect to a 4G network and upload their images? Or in what other does 4G help getting images from a camera/card to somewhere else?
pwmoree: How to shoot RAW and at the same time send small jpegs to your tablet or PC I have never been able to find out. If you shoot large jpegs the transmission is rather slow. I liked the X2-pro but because of the above almost never use it.
What is ludicrous about sending raws to the CF card and jpegs to the SD card slot? It's one of the three modes dual card cameras usually offer:1) Overflow2) Mirror3) Split JPEG & raw
MayaTlab0: "I think we did too much too fast, and made too many models."
I believe that's the first time I've seen a camera manufacturer acknowledge that aimless, numerous and boring iterations are detrimental to this business. It couldn't be a stronger contrast with Sony's interview a while ago.
"Our biggest challenge is customer awareness, and customer education. We think that at least 50% of the market could be mirrorless in the future, but what’s missing is awareness on the part of the consumers about the benefits of mirrorless."
I absolutely disagree with this assessment. If customers can't understand the benefits of mirrorless, perhaps it's because camera manufacturers, including Fuji, have made a pretty poor job at exploiting them. For example, no mirrorless camera manufacturer has yet produced a large sensor that covers portrait and landscape formats in various ratios while keeping the camera horizontal, something a DSLR can't do because of the mirror box and viewfinder prism design.
Really, what is wrong with using a Sony A7 or A7r with APS-C lenses? Making it a 24 x 24 mm sensor instead of a 24 x 36 mm sensor will not make dramatically cheaper. Why would people buy a 24 x 24 mm Sony mirrorless and use it as an APS-C camera but not a 24 x 36 mm mirrorless and use it as an APS-C camera? Why isn't this happening already. What is the big difference 24 x 24 over 24 x 36 mm would offer?
I am all for adding the option of vertical APS-C crop to any FF camera but why am I the only who is even just suggesting it?
I don't deny the ergonomic benefits, I just think they aren't large enough that a lot of people will be willing to pay for it. Think about it, what you want is FF camera whose sensor is less wide but has the same height as a FF sensor. Take a FF camera and use it with APS-C lenses, the only thing that would needed to be added is to allow a vertical APS-C crop on top of the already existing APS-C crop. Except for having to do that portrait crop yourself (easy in LR or Aperture) and not having viewfinder markings. Ask yourself why you or others are not doing that already. Or ask yourself why none of the FF cameras have that portrait APS-C image data crop and viewfinder masking. All that is needed can be done with a firmware update.
The answer why nobody does this is that once you have paid for a FF sensor, you also want to use. I've never heard of anybody who uses a FF camera mostly in APS-C crop mode.
I never understood the appeal of paying for a full frame sensor but then shoot it at APS-C in order not having to rotate the camera for portrait orientation pictures but if that is fine for you, whom am I to argue.
Taking a portrait-orientated 2:3 crop from a FF sensor yields pretty much exactly an APS-C sized area. And I have never really heard of people doing that (occasionally in post, somebody will do this but very rarely that was the intention when taking the picture). Sure, a square 23.55 mm would be sufficient, ie, instead of paying for sensor that is 2.34x larger, you'd only need to pay for one that is 1.5x larger. But if we take the rule of thumb that a FX sensor costs about 10x that of a DX sensor, it gives us about three times what a DX sensor costs. Compare that with a sensor can accommodate from 16:9 to 4:3 with the same diagonal which only has to 13.3% larger, or using the same exponent, 40% more expensive
Zeisschen: With the a6000 news just prior to this, it's hard to believe both product pictures are made in the same year 2014. Compared to the modern Sony design this camera just looks like a cheap plastic tool from the 90s.
One thought I had is whether part of the reason mirrorless has such a small market share (and a non-rising one), is because Nikon and Canon do not offer much if anything at all in the APS-C (or 43) sensor size class in terms of mirrorless cameras. Generally it is thought the other way around (because mirrorless has a small share, Panasonic and Olympus has a small share), but what if the marketing, shelf-space, public awareness and image of Nikon and Canon is so large that most people looking for a larger (aka 'better) camera or an ILC in general decide to go to Canon or Nikon before thinking about mirrorless vs. DSLR?
zither: OK, everybody acknowledges the sharpness (score) is partially because of the A7R 36mp sensor. But what about A7? I think it's more fair to compare this FE 55/f1.8 on A7 with 50/f1.4 on Canon 6D and Nikon D610. They are the most popular (affordable) FF cameras + standard prime lens bundles and the overall prices are in the similar price range as well.
I think we have to remove the NEX-7 as a reference point, lots and lots of lenses do poorly on it (off-center & wide-open).
FriendlyWalkabout: @DpreviewDxo also reviewed this lens on nex-7. I don’t understand how it can get a phenomenal 29/36 mp resolution on the A7r while only getting 15/24 mp result on the Nex 7. I understand the nex 7 has anti aliasing filter, but it wouldn't make that big a difference would it? I see the very cheap canon eosm 22mm lens scores a relatively better 13/18 mp. Please help me understand.
The NEX-7 sensor seems to have microlenses (and possibly complete pixel design) that reacts badly to any oblique light. You can find test after test of fast or wide-angle lenses that do poorly off-center.
Dan Wagner: For me the presence of a video or any camera in the shot, so close to the subject changes the context of the photo. It's all subjective. Without the camera I may think the man is in a dangerous situation -- perhaps climbing to a safer spot, or where he can go on the offensive. When I see the second camera I may think, oh there's a video guy around in addition to the photographer who shot the image, and then it seems to me less likely that the man is in the middle of an important moment. At this point in time, everyone knows you can't do this kind of image altering for news events. I feel bad for the photographer, I'm sure he knows better. And he certainly worked hard to get his shots and put himself in danger -- I have no idea what the consequences should be. It's also a pretty obvious cloning. Oh well...
It's all about what we think, it's all about the implicit message. As I just said above, if the shadow of the photographer or his feet or fingers had been in frame, nothing really changes about the actual situation but we perceive it differently.
It is the photographers job to convey a message, we expect the photographer to tell a story. We just want that story to not be an invention, we want that story to have actually happened and we create some basic rules to make it harder to lie (no removing or adding elements to the scene).
mikesco: While I agree that integrity of an image is important, in this case I see no difference from the function of cropping and cloning, it is simply the removal of unrelated content. Cropping in some situations could do a lot more to remove context from a photo than the cropping did in this case.
Because it would be propaganda to convey the impression of actual military action going on in Syria?
I agree, this should not have happened as a matter of principle. But this is not distorting or falsifying what is actually happening there, it just reduces the value of this particular image as possibly being shot in a situation where there was less danger than is implied.
Every image is a crop from a 360º view. For such an undramatic picture, it only becomes deception if the key message of it (its implicit message or provided via a caption) is not true. The caption 'Fighter taking cover' doesn't become untrue just because there is another camera in the frame, by virtue of having an image there was at least one camera close to the fighter. What if there had been a shadow of the photographer? I would not say it is ok to clone out the shadow but changing the crop is 100% unproblematic.
nerd2: FF body + 50mm 1.8 lens has better IQ, more control of DOF and is way cheaper overall. Stupid people are stupid.
As much as we can compare DOF between lenses of different AOV, the PanaLeica offers more shallow DOF. It offers the DOF of an 85 mm f/2.4 lens on FF. Combine the 50 mm f/1.8 with a 1.7x TC and you get an 85 mm f/3.1 lens.