joebrenden: I wouldn't bet that amount of money on the lightening connector. Maybe it's allready gone next week. Or on the iPhone 7.
Four letters scare the DXO crew: USB-C.
@samfanReally, we can plug a mini USB connector into a micro USB receptacle? Everything works with everything?
Apple used the 10-pin connector for 9.5 years. That's a wee bit outside of every-couple-of-years.
Apple had just two proprietary connectors in over twelve years and during all those years, the cable and the charger were always separate devices, allowing you to plug other USB-based charging cables into the Apple charger or plug in the Apple lightning or dock connector cable into computers or USB-based chargers.
During much of this time, mobile phone chargers either used their own proprietary connectors, had a fixed connection between charger and cable and even later used a variety of different USB ports (I have four different small-USB-connector cables). Android smartphones from 2010 onwards made detachable USB cables standard (to allow charging and synching with a computer) and only for the last couple of years, things have standardised around the micro-USB connector.
sarit: Why'd anyone buy this at that price and not RX100 M2/M3 ? Or even LX100 / G1X ? Those are proper camera and with proven great lenses.
I won't buy it at this price, but I might buy it to replace my RX100 if it gets cheaper. Though very unlikely in its current version, the Lula report on it has brought to light too many issues.
John Vickers: Umm, So that's equivalent to a Full-Frame 50mm f/3.4, right ?Is that exciting ?
And you cannot mention, refer to, or apply equivalence without somebody saying that it is bogus. I still prefer people who make an unnecessary but correct remark over those that make incorrect remarks.
A speedbooster 'concentrates' the light the lens projects onto a smaller area. It doesn't increase the light gathering ability of the lens, it only increases the light collecting ability of a lens+sensor system if the starting lens covers a larger image circle than necessary for the sensor at hand.
Frank_BR: What the article did not say was that the picture of the luminous sign was pushed 5 stops in post-processing! If you doubt it, compare the picture in the article with the picture taken with ISO 200 and shown here:http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7450523388/sony-alpha-7r-ii-real-world-iso-invariance-study
No surprise that some artifacts appeared after such extreme PP. But a photographer does not need to push 5 stops, unless he has committed an extremely gross exposure error.
The article seems to ignore that the compression used by Sony is very effective in reducing the size of files. For example, the RAW files shown in DPR Studio Shot Comparison for ISO 200 have the following sizes:Sony 7RII: 41.4MBNikon D810A: 74.3MB
It is clear that the Sony 7RII stores RAW images at higher efficiency than the Nikon D810A, for example.
Any compression algorithm incurs a tradeoff between efficiency and appearance of artifacts. If you look closely enough, you will always find artifacts.
@FrankLossless is not the same has 'non compressed'. 'Non compressed' is non compressed and 'lossless' is a lossless compression (like a zip file). Nikon offers three option: uncompressed, lossless compressed, and 'visually lossless' compressed.
The problem is that without a frame of reference an f-stop is a meaningless number. The only thing it tells us is about the challenges in lens design. You can pick any frame of reference you want, but you cannot pick one frame of reference for DOF and another one for light gathering (well you could but you would have to apply it consistently saying, eg, that a FF f/3.4 lens has a f/3.4 DOF and a f/1.7 light gathering, which would be rather weird).
The same way ISO and relative exposure (photons per area) are meaningless numbers without a frame of reference because they are relative measures.
I never bring up equivalency until somebody feels obliged to pretend such things as an f/1.7 m43 lens having the same light gathering ability as a f/1.7 FF lens. You stay away from making false claims and I won't bore you with such complicated math as multiplying a number by two. I don't count photons until somebody else starts pretending that the laws of physics don't exist.
I have both a FF system as well as a m43 system (and mostly shoot with the m43 system these days). I have no axe to grind here.
You won't find the sort of artefacts that you find with this Sony in other cameras because other cameras don't use this kind of compression.
And a little bit of due diligence would have shown you that the D810a example of yours was comparing an uncompressed raw file. The lossless compression offered by Nikon reduces that to 40.7 MB. I'd call that very effective too. And if you go to lossy compression with the Nikon you get down to 36.3 MB. Corrected for MP count, the Sony raw file is just 2.2% smaller.
To achieve this 2.2% size reduction, you get high-contrast edge artefacts and a bit of deep shadow posterisation. If you think those 2.2% size reduction are worth it for you, fine. But demanding an option to waive those 2.2% file size reduction to get rid of the artefacts is something most people could probably get behind.
P.S.: I never bring up equivalence or harp on it unless somebody first denies it.
It's more exciting than the Sigma 30 mm f/2.8 for m43. What's less exciting is that we already have two f/1.7-ish 20 to 25 mm lenses. Panasonic and Olympus started off with having lens line-ups that largely complemented themselves (outside of the obligatory standard zooms).
But now we have two 25 mm with f/1.7 or f/1.8 and two 45-ish mm lenses with f/1.7 and f/1.8 (though one of them has IS).
I find it sad though that integrating photon count over a sensor area is a mental operation that some people have trouble pulling off. Light gathering is light intensity (aka f-stop) times the size of the area illuminated by the lens. Or even simpler: Entrance pupil time AOV (how large is the hole through which the light is gathered and large is the angle from the light is collected).
Frank C.: changing compression algorithms would probably make the cameras pig slow, Sony knows it, the pros know it, heck we all know it, kinda like wishing a V12 Ferrari be easy on gas but still deliver the g's
Unless that processing is hard-coded into the ASIC, it shouldn't affect AF and EVF performance. Having the option to have slower frame rates and longer blackout times for improved IQ, is something most people would be fine with.
I am curious whether most people can actually see the difference between 400 and 800 dpi.
Snikt228: It's stupid, but at least it might have had a chance if it was more vendor neutral. Only lightning connector, and only Apple?
Makes even less sense in Europe, they use iPhones considerably less than we do in the US.
France - 19%Germany - 18%USA - 36%
And those are IOS users, how many of those IOS users are on the latest lightning connector phones?
If we assume that iPhone 3G and 3Gs aren't in much use anymore but all iPhone 4 and later still are, about 60% of all iPhones have a lightning connector or about 400 million units. And among the iPhone users willing to pay $600 for this, I expect that number to be significantly higher. I'd say 400 million is not a number to sneeze at.
Sales numbers taken from: http://www.asymco.com/2015/05/21/schillers-law/
techjedi: Looks fragile and awkward to me. I don't know how this is an improvement over a good quality P&S that is in your other pocket. I guess instanct sharing over data connections might be useful, but a lot of P&S can tether to your phone anyway. I doubt the average user cares about the quality this is supposed to provide and I doubt a pro sees this as good enough to leave their other equipment behind.
I already use both hands for every photo in landscape orientation on my smartphone (because holding the phone and reaching the shutter button(s) isn't really possible). And with any compact I also use two hands (in both orientations). So, the two-handedness is not an issue for me.
What's an issue is the price. It costs as much as a Sony RX100 II. A plus is the instant syncing to the phone (that's the major downside of a RX100 instead of this, even with Eye-Fi cards).
brownie314: Wonder how long it will take CaNikon to realize there is a market for this type of camera. With cell phones destroying the bottom end of the market, it should be obvious that they should be looking for more high end markets to get into. This is an obvious one. But, not products yet.
Given how long it took them to react to the Sony RX1, I wouldn't hold my breath.
IvanM: IMO this is definitely a beautifully designed camera...got to give it to Leica, they buck the trend and when it works it works well!
Fortunately for us lesser mortals there is Canon 5ds/r, Nikon 810 and Sony A7r2 which all will come close to (if not exceed) the image quality the 007 can deliver..
but Its almost not really about image quality anymore, but rather how it fits into ones workflow, budget and the look one is after....there is something for everyone now.
Apart from colour errors like CA, I don't see how stopping down a lens could improve its colour. The colour is a function of the type(s) of glass used.
Retzius: I'll wait for the Endangered Species edition with white rhino hide covering and crystallized Panda tear LCD cover
I cannot remember a special edition of the Leica S (or maybe there was a single one). It's the M that gets special editions all the time thought there are also special edition X models.
BobYIL: Typical Leica: 30 x 45mm sensor with 1 (one) AF point for $16.900? Hi Seal and Medvedev! How are you guys?
All MF cameras except the Pentax also only have one AF point (thought the new Phase One body offers to switch between a larger and a smaller central AF area). Pentax really profits from being able to put an AF system with a much larger number of AF points (27) from their APS-C DSLRs into their MF body.
The MF market alone is simply too small (< 50'000 units/yr) to support the development of such AF systems.
Alan Mermelstein: Can you comment on how the camera handled shutter shock with the mechanical shutter? I'm a wedding photographer that often uses fill flash or is in high motion scenarios where I can't use the electronic shutter.
I've read Ming Thein's comments on the A7r II in the mean time. He praises the electronic front curtain but strongly recommends to stay away from the fully electronic shutter because it [adds noise that] reduces dynamic range by a stop due to the faster readout.
This not only pretty much implies that the electronic front curtain doesn't have any (or only very minor) detrimental effects but also provides the reasoning why the electronic front curtain alone doesn't add any noise really as it is only a resetting of the sensor compared to a read-out when using a fully electronic shutter.
danieljcox: AF Targeting Pad has been in the Lumix lineup since the GH3 and yes it is the fastest way to change AF position of any system out there. Now Olympus has it too. It's about time Olympus starts using touch screen technology. The Lumix cameras are superb in their use of this very handy feature of touching the screen to make things happen.
@danieljcox You are really getting repetitive. One might be even able to create a bot that comes up with the same posts as yours based on feature lists alone.