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.
@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.
noirdesir: Is this large-sensor compacts? Or viewfinder compacts? Or also 1/1.7", raw-capable compacts? Or compacts above a certain physical size? And why exclude the elephant in the room, the RX100?
It seems this is a collection of cameras that stand out in some way or another. Or maybe it was to have one or two contenders in each interesting category. (a) compact, 200 mm, viewfinder, but 1/1.7" (P7800)(b) compact, fast-ish lens, 1/1.7" (G16)(c) compact-ish, 200+ mm, viewfinder, 1/1.7" (Stylus)(d) compact, large-ish sensor (X-20)(e) smaller than a ILC+superzoom, 200+ mm, large sensor (FZ1000+RX10)(f) smaller than a superzoom + Large sensor (G1-X)
I guess the G16 trumps the LX7 because it has a longer zoom? And the G16 trumps the RX100 because it is cheaper? And the X-20 trumps the RX100 again because it is cheaper? And the G1-X trumps the GR and Coolpix A because it has a zoom.
As it is probably obvious, I posted the above without having read the conclusion page. Whey the RX100 didn't get its own page (even if it were a copy and paste from previous RX100 reviews) in this group review, remains unclear to me.
Maybe category was larger than compacts but smaller than superzooms (+larger travelzooms).
Is this large-sensor compacts? Or viewfinder compacts? Or also 1/1.7", raw-capable compacts? Or compacts above a certain physical size? And why exclude the elephant in the room, the RX100?
Leandros S: It wants to be a Foveon when it grows up.
I'm not sure how stationary subject and camera co-occur with high-ISO usage.
johnbandry: At what point would the resolution of the captured image outdo the (current technology) limits of ability of printers to print it? In other words, what is the maximum number of pixels a high-end printer (of any technology) can output onto a single sheet of paper?
That's in one go, without chopping the image into pieces to be printed separately and then reassembled, as in a billboard.
Printers work like scanners, one line a time. Which means you can already print a long a print as you want (limited by paper length and ink cartridge capacity). And instead of keeping the paper stationary and moving the printer head, it is not too difficult to move the paper. You'll only be limited by the maximum paper size.
In a sense, this is like weaving a carpet. What is the maximum carpet size that could be woven?
Johannes Zander: What! No PSAM dial... No articulated screen... No hot shoe to mount standart flashes... I think I keep my D800, also the pohone part is very badly implemented.
Not that the D800 would have a PSAM dial or articulated screen.
Why would they limit the unit to 9.5 mm drives. It is not that a six millimetre thicker unit (allowing two 12.5 mm units on top of each) would alter the nature of such a device much. In a laptop that can matter but not in an external enclosure.
deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.
There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!
Mark, can you name any consumer-facing photo application that once offered and has now ceased raw support?
Apple knows how many iPhoto users shoot raw. Since Photos is not more consumer-oriented than iPhoto, I don't see that ratio going down much (I'd rather expect it go up somewhat as some Aperture users will choose to use Photos). As long as that ratio stays at a certain level, I don't see why Apple should discontinue 3rd party raw support. What would they gain except for saving a small amount of money? There are clear technical and feature advantages of Apple merging iPhoto and Aperture, most importantly allowing them to create a library designed from the ground up to be syncable. I don't see a similar big application shift that would be helped by removing third-party raw support while keeping first-party raw support (and expanding it with plugin access to raw data).
I can see them drop raw support if it brings them clear benefits but I don't see those benefits.
So, Apple is adding raw support to 'Photo Stream' because they plan to abandon raw support?
The update is also available in Mountain Lion.http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1757
Almeida: What is the equivalent aperture godmanit?!
Equivalence is a very simple idea, it, eg, tells us which lens has the same AOV on the different format. But maybe nobody cares which FF lens covers a similar AOV than this lens.Most people don't know how to calculate DOF based on optical laws (and neither do I), and what they don't understand is a priori not believed and dismissed as irrelevant.
But you don't have to understand the optical laws. It's pretty obvious that you cannot gain DOF without loosing light for a given lens and sensor size. You could call this the 'preservation of information', either you get more stuff in focus or get more light which means less noise. It only makes sense that you cannot break that relationship when changing sensor size. When there is little light, you either have a low DOF or a noisy image, there is no way out of that.
Thus, if we get the same amount of light on a different sensor size adjusting the f-stop, we also must get the same amount of DOF at that f-stop.
SirSeth: Why the cost? Just curious. It seems like a good lens but I thought Ricoh was trying to bring affordable medium format to morals.
The total ILC market (mainly APS-C + FF + m43) was 17 million units last year. The total MF market was 6000 units (units meaning cameras). That is factor is factor of almost 3000 times smaller, lens development costs have to be repaid from a much, much smaller number of lens sales. Production will also less automated and optimised due to the much smaller number lenses.
nicolaiecostel: The aperture is not equivalent for anything, it's a fixed value. The DOF equivalence is a different thing.
People thought that if Pentax brings a cropped MF sensor to the market, in a oversized DSLR body, at 2.5-5 times cheaper than a Hassy, Phase One, they found the chicken with the golden eggs. They forgot that MF glass is MF glass expensive and all things MF come at a price.
So here you are, having just spent 5000-8500$ on a "bargain" MF Pentax, wanting to buy a modern, bespoke wide angle and realising you have to shell out 5 grand on either this zoom or that other wide angle they anounced, and that you're stuck with a cropped MF sensor that you can't remove from the camera and use in other cameras, that has 1/125 flash sync and you shoot on SD cards with limited teathering.
Why didn't they put a central shutter in the lens ? It would have been much more usefull than that OS they put in, seen the ISO and the fact that MF users shoot in controlled, stabilised environments.
The focal length is not equivalent for anything, it's a fixed value. The AOV equivalence is a different thing.
Here you go. If you want to be a smartass, I can be one too.
Hugo808: "in our experience it's most problematic if you're taking pictures that include fabric."
LOL, not much of a handicap for me I hate photo's of people. Bit of an own goal for a medium format camera though, fashion, weddings etc.
Technology isn't a smooth progression is it?
It ain't worse than other medium format cameras since to my knowledge they all come without an AA filter.
J Jarecki: Hasselblad could have done this years ago. I sold my whole V system at firesale prices because digital had become of age. Now, after the fact, they produce a back that is outrageously priced. RIP Hasselblad.
Hasselblad actually did this years ago (five to be precise) with the release of the CFV-39 which even had a larger sensor: 36.7 x 49.0 mm (instead of only 32.9 x 43.8 mm of the CFV-50c), not to speak of all the Phase One and Leaf digital backs available for the V system.
Jon Holstein: I hope they decide to make a "D710", to be a mid FF model. With a nice amount of real time control, and vastly improved AF-system over the D610. If possible, a bit higher bitrate, and probably around 24MP resolution. Kinda a FF version of the D7100.
I think they can put the D610 to rest, and introduce a more entery level FF. They could skip the focus motor. Have less real-time controls. And probably lower burst-rate than the D610. Like an FF of the 5000 series. (but with two dials, instead of the single dial of the 5000 series).
And really, they should do a Df MkII. The auto-focus system really let that one down. Especially considering the low light capability of it's sensor.
The merging of 800 and 800e, plus some smaller updates, were in line of what I was expecting in a form of a D810.
Yes, but nobody yet is able to offer a FF camera for less than $1000… and it is not the cost of the AF system that is the major reason for that.
dave: Nikon is adding the features that are in the new Sony A7 series. Use a D lens and take it out of auto mode for recording video to manually adjust the aperture.
You don't need a 'D' lens, just a lens that is not 'G'. You don't need a lens with a distance chip, you need one with an aperture ring and that includes the plain 'AF' as well as the 'AF D' lenses, or even a MF lens.
There is little point in introducing another AF system between the D6x0/D7000/D5300 and the D8x0/D4 systems. Nikon doesn't need to spend money to develop a forth different DSLR PD AF system.
One can argue that nobody wants to spend $2000 and get an AF system that offers less than the 51 point coverage and thus an entry-level FF DSLR ends up in no-mans land of being too expensive for what it offers.
Higher frame rates, lower base ISO, better AF etc. are all welcome but the area were the D800 had a real deficiency is manual focus via life view due to its line-skipping sensor read out - any word on whether that has been improved?