Robert Soderlund: D800.. which one is measured here, the camera or the lens itself? Pretty hard to compare lenses when the tests are done on different formats and cameras altogether.
Must have some sort of a standard, as in same camera for every lens.
They compare it against the Sigma 35/1.4 tested on the D800. And then by comparing the the Sigma tested on Canon vs the Canon tested on Canon, make some inferences of the Nikon vs the Canon. What more could they do?
I have given up on the click-less wheel and use it only for focussing (and maybe zooming). Easier to use the wheel on the back for things like the f-stop.
Carsten Pauer 2: Is there a Reason why the fresh Nikon D4S has less DR as a 6 Years old FinePix S5 Pro ?
Well, DxO aren't journalists, they are a company that measures cameras and lenses to generate the data they need to provide the best raw conversion and lens corrections in their raw converter. As a promotion of their product (and a service to the community) they present the results of their measurements for free.
They don't test cameras and lenses to provide lens and camera reviews. DPreview generates its revenue from ads along their articles and the forums. DxO generates its revenue selling its raw converter (and selling their expertise to other companies).
If an airline company published weather data collected by their aircraft, would you criticise them for being a poor weather service?
The thing I love about the iPhone 4 and 5 hardware design is that I don't need a tripod, just a flat surface.
mister_roboto: That's only a f2-2.8 ff equivelent- pffft ;)
Using the the latest 50 MP CMOS sensor, it is only a crop factor of 0.77. But for the 60 an 80 MP CCDs, the crop factor is 0.64 making is a f/2.6-3.6 lens.
And so what? Overall there is only a small percentage of cameras for which DxO discovers NR applied to the raw data, and almost exclusively only for part of the ISO range. Thus the error in their backcalculation of the data before that NR is pretty small.
DxO is not accessing data the normal user doesn't have access to. They start with exactly the same raw files as you and me. They compare the data before NR is applied (which for a small set of cameras is taking a state as a reference that is not accessible) but for the higher ISO values where this is done, basically every user would apply some NR her- or himself. They don't compare how good an image looks with NR applied but the quality of data being fed into the NR process.
In a sense this is comparing the properties of raw vegetables even if most people will eat them cooked. This is best way because cooking cannot add nutrients and thus the vegetable that is better raw, will be better cooked (for the same cooking).
richteed: Agree with all comments. I had to stop watching after 20 seconds as i was feeling sick. If this effect has any merit it would be better deployed with a curved gliding dolly contraption of some kind with a single decent videocam. As an ad for the Nokia phone, this backfires spectacularly.
I get the impression that most commenters that report sickness consider this effect an important argument why this project is ultimately doomed to be pointless.
So, a minority of people have a negative but essentially harmless physiological reaction to a product. Unless people are forced to use the product, the only relevance this has is that the product possibly should have a warning label.
Valiant Thor: $1949 for the high-end model (8GB RAM 512 SSD)!Please.
A closer comparison is the MacBook Air, the 13", 1.7 GHz i7, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD costs $1749 (adding the type cover, the difference is then >$300). Obviously, the MBA is thicker and heavier, even after adding the type cover, and you cannot take off the keyboard and it has no touch support.
Neal Hood: Count me on the side of the 24-70 lens. For portraiture, just crop in raw to equate it to a 100 lens. It will work superbly and, I bet the outcome will be better than if taken with at 100 on a 28-100 lens. So there is a work around for the shorter mm lens on the series III, however there isn't much of a workaround if you really need 24 for a shot. 24mm adds more opportunity and capability than one might at first think.
And in terms of noise, you'd get an equivalent f/4 100 mm lens, ie, still half a stop better than the previous model. Of course, this sort of cropping only works perfectly when your crop is centered. Otherwise, you simulate a 100 mm shift lens.
VENTURE-STAR: As a picture taking tool, it's not as good as several considerably cheaper DSLR cameras. It is also way too expensive. No doubt the new version has the same very annoying control wheel with no indents and the short zoom is ridiculous.
This camera really only has size going for it. For all you well-heeled photo equipment buyers who are more concerned with the appearance of gear than actually taking pictures,, enjoy! I think I'll pass.
I am concerned with having a camera that is better than my phone camera with me 90% of the time. The quality of a RX100 image is infinitely better than the one of the photo you did not take because you did not have a camera with you.
And just ignore the front control ring. You don't need it to operate the camera efficiently. And if you prefer the previous lens, I'm sure the older model(s) will be available for quite some time.
@MarcLeeDemanding that a cell phone fits into your pocket at the expense of screen size, computing power, text input etc. (compared with a laptop) must also seem like a ridiculous idea to you.
rickztahone: I understand the frustrations with the lack of clicking dial, but you also have to realize that a large market of buyers are now looking at these type of cameras for video work. If they were to exclusively use this camera for video work, they probably wouldn't want a clickable zoom range now would they? They would want as smooth a transition from one focal length to the other. At least this is my take on the situation.
The zoom range is stepped (about 20 to 25 steps) even if you use the 'unstepped' front control dial, at least on the Mark I. The f-stop is stepped between 6 and 16 steps depending on focal length (1/3 stops). The focus distance is very likely also stepped (but with a a higher number of steps).
Even for zooming, you turn the dial a little bit, nothing happens, you turn it a little bit more and it jumps one step, you turn a bit more again and it jumps three steps.
Theelderkeynes: Maybe its my eyes but not for the first time the 'equivalent aperture comparison chart' has alll the accessibility and user friendliness of a freeze dried parrot. Minute colour differences compounded by thin lines make it darn near impossible to interpret. Do better Dpreview, make some of the lines dots, some broken, some a mixture and/or make them thicker and don't make the colours very alike. Then we might be able to understand it a bit better. Better still let your designer loose on the problem but please sort it out! Soon....
Indeed, I frequently have to combine prior knowledge (ie, knowing what the curve should roughly be for a given camera) with the legend to mentally label the lines one by one. It might not always work but where there is space, putting labels directly on the lines can help a lot.
cheetah43: A fast 35mm-105mm equivalent lens would please quite a lot of people.
And a 24-85 mm even more.
Dimitris Servis: Looks like a great camera but the slow shutter and no way to trigger a flash but optically is a big tradeoff for the EVF... I actually find evfs terrible compared to the nice large tiltable screens
And people carry a wireless flash system around and then combine that with a RX100? That combination surely must be used by only a tiny minority.
Bahrd: "so there's no means for fitting an external microphone. "
Probably I am not the first who notes that there exist USB-microphones (or headsets).
But you'd be the first to tell me that cameras recognise USB microphones as sound inputs. That doesn't mean that none of them do, but compared to USB microphones, it would be the first time I hear about.(1000 comments might be a new record for articles on this site, which itself is an indicator how much attention this camera is receiving.)
D1N0: F4 is more compact and lighter than F2.8. On Full frame it is adequate on APS-c a bit slow. Price point is a bit high though for a less well known third party manufacturer. I wonder
I think we all know that we all know this. No need to pretend otherwise. And if you want to be precise, 4 divided by 1.5 is 2.67, or even more precise 4 divided by 1.52 (most non-Canon are closer to this than to 1.50) gives f/2.63.
You can set any shutter speed you want at any f-stop for any sensor format. If 'speed' only means shutter speed with no other limiting criteria every lens has the same 'speed' because every lens can be used with every shutter speed.
Fast always meant: Allowing for a fast shutter speed for a given scene at a desired quality level.
With electronic sensors, ISO is the conversion factor from the number of electrons per area collected in the photodiodes to a brightness level. If images from different sensor sizes are viewed with the same magnification factor (from sensor do display size), then the same ISO means the same number of electrons per display area.
LarryLatchkey: 'Sony's optical designers...'? I thought it was Zeiss glass. Is that just a licensing agreement for the Zeiss brand name?
How I have heard it described by company representatives is that Zeiss has to 'approve' the optical design. So, Sony cannot just license the Zeiss label and put it on any lens they want, the lens has to pass muster with Zeiss. I am sure that already includes some communication between Zeiss lens designers and Sony lens designers during the design phase.
I feel that to some degree, the faster lens looks better on paper than in reality. Sure, at 50 mm it is half a stop faster, at 70 mm a full stop faster and 'at 100 mm' (assuming a simple crop) still about half a stop faster. However, at 28 mm it is a stop slower, ie, if you really need f/1.8 you have to go down to 24 mm now (of course, if you cropped 24 mm f/1.8 to 28 mm you'd get f/2.1, which makes me wonder, if 17 MP and the lens quality at a 1.16 crop are sufficient, shooting at 24 mm and f/1.8 and later cropping to 28 mm equiv. should give about half a stop better low light performance, or maybe the f-stop curves are not quite that accurate to allow for such a conclusion).
xt1isdabomb: Honestly...I'm enjoying my iPhone to Aperture combo so much, I wonder what the point is. Yes, the Sony is superior for out-and-out IQ. I give it that much for sure. I've had the first RX100 since when it first came out. But even with the Mobi Wi-fi card I just don't use it that much. The iPhone is good enough for most photo opportunities.
One thing for sure...Adobe is DEAD to me.
Getting images from the RX100 to my iPhone, iPad (and computer via Aperture) automatically as it happens with PhotoStream for photos taken with the iPhone or iPad would be one big feature I would wish for.
Can the companion iOS app do this with Mark II and III? Can they use background app-refresh to periodically poll the camera to receive images? I guess the primary problem is that the iPhone won't be connected permanently to the camera's WiFi network. Things might work if both camera and phone are connected to the same WiFi network.
Using Eye-Fi cards and ShutterSnitch, things work in principle but ShutterSnitch doesn't offer background app-refresh.