Kinematic Digit: I refuse to buy or recommend any Lacie products anymore. They have one of the worst failure rates of their products out there.
The service support doesn't exist with them with issues, and in certain cases (such as out of warranty), they will advise people to buy a new product for 15% off instead of repairing problems that have been well documented and mentioned by other including on their own support forums.
NEVER BUY A LACIE PRODUCT until they have fixed their QA issues, warranty issues, and put in place a proper after warranty program.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=WD+failure+rate#seen -> 695 000http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lacie+failure+rate -> 37 400
So, what's your point?
dialstatic: Many (hopefully) sarcastic comments here about how this lens would be a poor choice for an APS-C photo camera like 'it's not f/2.8', but I truly don't understand. Not being a video shooter, I wonder why this lens is so desirable for video. That's not a value judgment by the way: I know next to nothing about video and I'm honestly hoping to learn something here. Is it the incredible range? I would think videographers would use multiple lenses (as in the 7D mk video). What would be a typical use for a huge zoom like this one? And while I understand enough physics to see why they don't make a 50-1000 zoom 2.8, I wonder why this slow (...compared to photo zooms) aperture is apparently unproblematic for video. Can anyone explain?
Video shooters don't use PD-AF (at least until recently) and thus are not bound by the f/5.6 (or f/6.3 or f/8 for some cameras and some AF points) limit. And the on-sensor PD-AF likely can be more liberal with minimum f-stop limits because they have so many pixels to choose from that they can implement PD-AF 'sensors' with different f-stop limits.
riskinhos: T5.0-8.9 lol.
The 'slow' f-stop is there to keep the lens small and light enough, not to add DOF.
dark goob: I applaud DPreview for not mentioning "equivalence" in this article, and for not calling Super35 a "crop sensor".
I'm glad we've finally evolved beyond calling things "full-frame" vs. "crop". Clearly, when Canon's most advanced optics by far are made full-frame relative to Super35 (24.9x14mm), which is much smaller even than an 16:9 APS film frame, we are finally in the future where 135-format's long dominance over the cultural milieu has ended.
Maybe now DPreview would be open to switching to using Range Factor terminology. This lens is a 2.01:1–41.08:1 Range Factor. The ratio is D:W, where D=distance-to-subject, and W=width-across-frame. I.e. a 1-foot ruler will occupy the entire width of the frame left-to-right from 41.08 feet away at 1000mm. With the extender it increases to a max of 59.76:1.
"Compare" this to a Canon SX60HS which has a Range Factor of 0.62:1–39.55:1 on its 1/2.3"-format (6.2x4.6mm) sensor, which is a 27% crop of Super35.
Not referring to FF is all fine and well but then the starting point should not be the focal length (which on its own doesn't say anything about the AOV) and f-stop (which equally on its own doesn't say anything about the low light performance).
The starting point should be AOV (expressed in degrees or percentage as you suggest) complemented with the aperture size (or more precisely entrance pupil) with the addition of the size of the image circle (or the sensor format as a proxy for it).
And how would we know that they've fixed their issues? You obviously wouldn't be able to tell us since you don't use their products anymore.
Anecdotal evidence is even worth less the less specific it is in regard to the timeframe, product range, and experienced issues. If you know of any non-anecdotal data, we'd be glad to see them.
GabrielZ: The iPad Air 2 is quite an impressive upgrade, even though I was hoping for an even higher 3x res screen to take it to nearly 400 ppi. But the new laminated display with antireflective coating is a worthy improvement in its own right and seems to solve the Air's only real display drawback - the visual quality out in sunlight and under bright lights.
As for the iPad mini 3, that was a real disappointment! They shouldn't call it the mini 3 but more accurately the mini 2+. Apart from Touch ID and that optional gold finish its the same model as last year, with that sub-par colour gamut display (you can see the difference in colour quality between the mini and the Air) and inadequate performance nowadays of the A7 SoC for this application.
In six years and six iOS devices, I never had to do a repair that required a restoring. And btw, all six devices are still in use.
And the oldest iOS device I still use personally, an iPad 3, doesn't really feel slower now than it did under iOS 5, 6 or 7. The only area where I feel the hardware is insufficient is having a lot of tabs open in Safari.
The different storage size options add a twist to that.A mini with 64 GB cost $600 yesterday, today it cost only $500 (in the form of the iPad mini '3').
If you ignore the 16 GB iPad mini '3', the line-up makes almost sense (before -> after):16 GB: $399 -> $29932 GB: $499 -> $39964 GB: $599 -> $499 (plus you get TouchID).
It's essentially a $100 price drop across the board, with the top model also getting TouchID. And at highest price point, $599, the storage got doubled.
Photato: All this is good but why most of these Smartphones are still using 4:3 sensors?I hope the next iPhone use a 3:2 Aspect Ratio sensor instead for more efficient utilization of the Image Circle and the 16:9 display.
The question how many smartphone pictures actually get cropped by the user to all so dominant 16:9 screen aspect ratio. What matters is the aspect ratio users display/view their images, which doesn't have to be the aspect ratio of their screen.
designdef: Makes me very happy I swapped all my Nikon gear for the Sony SLT-A99 Full Frame Mirrorless, two years ago! Looks as if Nikon may catch up in a year or so?
It has a mirrorless viewfinder.
And he failed to mention the very large frame coverage and number of AF points of the on-sensor PD AF. Better AF frame coverage is something you cannot do with an optical viewfinder.
Dyun27: As amazing as this camera sounds, the 28 megapixel crop sensor would worry me. It's already challenging not to introduce motion blur to the 16 megapixel D7000 sensor with longer lenses, it's definitely challenging with the 36 megapixel full frame sensor of the D800 and the D7100 24 megapixel sensor.
At 28 megapixels with a crop sensor it means having to use higher ISO settings, faster shutter speeds and using VR whenever possible. At that point I'd have to start taking a monopod or tripod wherever I go. Only the shorter lenses would be easy to use.
@Dyun27Why get any camera with more than 4 MP? Unless you have a 4K monitor, all your images viewed on a computer will be downsized to 4 MP anyway. And unless you manually create copies of your images, there is zero need to every manually do any downsizing. You just open the image and whatever application is opening the image will do the downsizing in real-time for you, without you even having to think about it.
In regard to motion blur: A 28 MP sensor has only twice the linear resolution of a 7 MP sensor. Thus, compared to taking an image with a 7 MP sensor, you only need to shorten the shutter speed by one stop to get the same amount of blur when viewed at 100%.
Paul Guba: Not that familiar with Samsung DSLR cameras. Is it a proprietary lens mount? What other lenses would one be able to get? I am actually surprised as the market has to decreasing so to invest money in developing a new camera system seems a bit out there.
This ain't no DSLR, this is a mirrorless camera, comparable to the Sony A6000 or Fuji X-T1. And yes, like everybody except (m)4/3, it has a proprietary lens mount. They have quite a number of lenses but they are essentially shut out of the third-party lens market (except probably some MF options). But then no mirrorless system has really received many lenses from the big thirdparty lens makers (still to small a market compared to DSLRs).
James Booba: As a 7D owner the 7DII is for me the reason to say goodbye to this company for a while (after 16 years).
There is the inevitable rule that those who are unhappy will drown out the ones that are happy. Thus you hear the Canon users that are unhappy that Canon released an APS-C instead of a FF camera as Nikon did. And you hear the Nikon users unhappy that Nikon has released a FF instead of a APS-C camera as Canon did.
forpetessake: There is already largely improved alternative to QX1, with similar weight, size and a bit more expensive, but a lot more functional -- A5100.
Still smaller but not significantly bulkier. Carrying the QX1 or the A5000 in jacket pocket is not a big difference. And once assembled, the A5000 is much nicer shooting experience.
TheWhiteDog: I just noticed the QX1 has a 1.5 multiplier so that loses me, no wide angles(except extreme ones that would be too big for this rig and would give at most an equivalent 24mm) Might appeal though for remote use with long teles but that would be cumbersome and I wouldn't trust the security of the setup. Too bad. But I am sure the concept will be refined in the future, SONY is always pushing the boundaries and that is no bad thing.
Weld an A to E mount adaptor to this module and you have a unit that can accept A-mount lens. A dedicated module for A-mount lenses cannot really be smaller than this module+adaptor as the physical length from lens mount to sensor plane is fixed.
If assembling this module (incl. lens) with a smartphone (stored in separate pockets) is acceptable, then assembling a lens and A5000 (stored in different pockets) isn't too much of a difference.
sffoodie: These aren't compacts at all. I owned the canon g1x m2 and it was not only far too big to be considered a compact but it weighed even more than my m43 system camera and that is one of the smallest in this group. The cameras you have compared here are in somewhat of a no-mans land. They are bigger than a compact but offer less versatility than a system camera of similar size.
@GaryJPBut the G1X is size-wise no competitor to the RX100, 66 mm thick vs. 36/38/41 mm, that is more than 60/80% thicker. 60 to 80% is very noticeable difference.
ObelixCMM: Compact?Lumix FZ1000 is bigger than Canon T5i, Nikon D5300, Pentax K-3....
On the APS-C cameras Treeshade mentions, a 16.5-270 mm would cover the FZ1000 AOV. We have a Nikon 18-300 mm, a Tamron 18-270 mm, a Tamron 16-300 mm and a Sigma 18-250 mm that come close or even slightly exceed that.
Ido S: And just as you published that, the Fujifilm X30 is announced.
What is the average life-cycle time for these six (or seven counting the RX100) cameras? One two two years max. Which means at any given time, on average one of the cameras is between one to two months away from its replacement. Seeing that between camera announcement and full-production model shipping one month might pass + testing will take some time, such a review will likely be out-of-date within one month or so.
@GaryJP1/1.7" sensors are noisy at base ISO, the RX100 isn't. That is enough reason to get a larger-sensored camera if one is available in a pocketable size.
And I also own cameras from a number of vendors: Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Ricoh, and Sony (though the Ricoh and Panasonic are currently retired). This is not about being a fan of one particular brand.