Should be wider, brighter, and sharper. Telephoto on this type of camera is nutsy. If you want a portrait camera you'll use something else anyway. 48mm can be covered with a 2x tele adapter from 24mm.
stoffer: It would be awesome if you would bring the issue of the lossy Raw compression up with Sony and bug them a bit for a resolution. I have the a7rII and the image quality is awesome IMHO, but I would like the peace of mind of having a lossless raw compression as an option.
I think this piece, which they will certainly read, puts it rather bluntly. DPR pretty clearly says "your sensor itself is as good as any FF but it is held back to some degree by lossy raw RAW". I'm sure they'll notice it on the cons list and in some reflection of their raw image quality score.
I'm not going to comment on the representation of one kind of shot or another for camera evaluation people always bicker about but I have to say the compositions in this shoot are particularly nice. Some good shots in this batch, well done. Inspiring to look through.
Alpha Jack: I understand the method and why it would be helpful in some situations to underexpose, but how far can you overexpose and not blow out the highlights? It seems ETTR is advocated often on this forum by users of many makes. My own experience with my ancient a700 with it's limited DR is that I can recover over exposures better than under exposed images. I do get that it is apples to oranges since we are starting with a dark scene, but I think more users will benefit more by seeing the potential to see into shadows in daylight shots than to recover illuminations at night.Are there compression artifacts when pulling shadows from day lit images?
Yeah, this SHOULD be true but in practice it's not. I'd love to hear some more discussion as to why. You would think center of the camera's dynamic range should be at the exposure point with as much room up as down.
The fact that the camera is at it's limits on the top end of sensitivity with so much left below though is actually important in expanding the dynamic range beyond the original shot. Knowing you can lighten by a specific amount allows for specific "under-exposure" to maximize the range. If the DR was centered around the exposure rather than simply below you'd have to pull highlights AND lowlights and metering the scene to get the most of both would be a royal pain.
Scales USA: While the images are ok for a low cost point and shoot, for $1300, there is a huge disconnect.
The ISO 6400 portraits were so noisy, that when I saw them, I thought something was wrong.
I had been thinking of getting a one inch sensor camera, but have scrapped that idea.
Again, ISO6400 is pretty high for an f2.8 lens with good stabilization. You're either talking about an exceedingly dark scene or some really fast action.
It's f2.8 so you're not going to need ISO6400 nearly as soon as you would on an APS-C DSLR with a superzoom lens. You shouldn't compare it to those cameras at ISO6400. More realistically you'll shoot those at f5.6 if you're lucky which is two stops slower so compare the APS-C at 6400 to the RX10m2 at 1600.
ISO on it's own is a meaningless number. Insistence on comparing high ISO performance across cameras with different sensors and lens apertures is archaic. Time to start thinking more about total light, shutter speed, and sensitivity to define capability not ISO.
Franco8: Why do you call it a full frame its a 35mm sensor. A APSC sensor is a full frame APSC sensor.A 4/3 sensor is a full frame 4/3 sensor.Just call it as it is a 35mm sensor
it's not a 35mm sensor. It's 36x24mm. Simplifying it to one dimension rather than WxH obscures the aspect ratio but if you assume people understand it's a 3:2 ratio sensor it's probably best to call it a 43.3mm diagonal length sensor.
35mm is a terrible contextual term too. "35mm" 2 Perf Techniscope is less than 1/4 the area you're trying to refer to. "Super 35mm" comes in 2, 3, or 4 perf forms and crops and you also have so called "Academy Ratio" 3:2 sizing and of course what you can very directly confer as 35mm "full frame", the 36x24mm variety.
Full Frame is as good a term as any failing actually talking about physical dimensions don't you think? 35mm is a detestable choice because it seems to imply a physical dimension, which it does not, and it can also mean a variety of sizes.
Anastigmat: That is long overdue. Manufacturers have been profiteering from artificially high prices on FF DSLR cameras, refusing to lower the prices even though the sensors do not cost all that much to make. The old excuse made about 10-12 years ago was the FF sensors were prohibitively expensive. Sony has in fact successfully made even larger medium format CMOS sensors so economically that most manufacturers have switched to them. It takes a slump in the DSLR camera business for manufacturers to finally reduce prices on FF models, but only at the low end, and we are given plastic bodied low end FF models as punishment for not spending more money on more expensive FF models. FF cameras need to come way down in price, and APS-C cameras should be phased out completely. There is no reason for APS-C models since most DSLR cameras are large enough to accommodate FF sensors.
I hope something like the A6000 endures in the future. I don't want to have to deal with the size of full frame lenses for the marginal increase in capability they offer.
Randy Veeman: Wow, at ISO6400 RAW looks every bit as good as the latest Sony APSC camera and maybe a bit behind the D7200. Well done!
IBIS makes this one the winner.
I agree. The D7200 at ISO6400 looks much more of a match for the GX8 at 3200. The new m43 sensor looks a full stop behind the best high-ISO non-FF camera on the market. Not surprising given it's size.
Lassoni: I'm curious whether it's phase detect or only contrast detect auto-focus. If it has good autofocus for movement like samsung nx1, then maybe it could be interesting.
Contrast detect only but they have a system that determines relative focal position from out of focus areas based on knowing their own lenses. Only works on their lenses but does help.
Also, contrast detect systems are not particularly slow on modern mirrorless system cameras built from the ground up for CDAF. The lenses have fast motors and the sensor meters very quickly.
On the third slide there, would it be possible to extend the graphs showing essentially what would be a crop? The area of the sensor shrinks and the "reach" increases. Perhaps with a dotted line in the same color? I think this would really help people understand that a camera is not incapable of "reaching" detail past it's maximum focal range.
RPJG: "offering the attractive option of a 25-49mm equivalent F1.3 lens (F2.5 equivalent in full frame terms)."
When describing equivalence for f numbers, I wish you'd separate out the two separate factors, i.e. exposure equivalence and DoF equivalence.
The more iso invariant cameras become (which they are increasingly achieving), the dumber and dumber it is to refer to fstop without context of how wide a sensor the lens overs.
"Exposure" is a film concept that needs to evolve to the digital world where ISO is just a parameter you can pick AFTER shooting in a lot of ways.
Babka08: 24-600, people. And a big sensor exposing it. What do you expect?
handholding 600mm equiv is crazy. At least let me steady it on my face.
Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.
Weia: Interesting. that '1000 times less light than on earth' is something one doesn't realise.
It's also 10 years old without regular servicing and 3 billion miles on the odometer ;)
MrLynn: Color me somewhat disappointed. I use my Rebel T2i/Tamron 18-270mm combination a lot in the canoe and walking about, often for birds, and last fall was all set to spring for a Canon SX60 (better EVF than the SX50, but worse IQ reviews). Then I saw an FX1000 at Best Buy and loved its bright EVF and the idea of the larger sensor. But it wasn't a 'superzoom'.
When I heard that the FZ300 was imminent, I hoped that it would expand the well-reviewed FZ200's zoom, keep Leica optics, and maybe even increase sensor size. But that didn't happen.
I might still get an FZ200 when the price comes down. My 270mm with the SLR's sensor is close to 400mm 35mm-equivalent, so 600mm equivalent should gain me a little, maybe enough, as it's hard to steady the camera when the canoe's bobbing.
Still, I wish the new FZ300 were 900mm or so, even at the cost of losing the f2.8 aperture at the long end. But I suppose Panasonic didn't want to tread on the heels of the indifferently-reviewed FZ70.
If they say they go to 2000mm, that has nothing to do with reach. A single pixel at 10,000mm is actually pretty crappy reach. Reach is a figure of a diffraction free resolution at a given focal length. Equivalent focal length isn't everything.
The FZ300 is really a 108mm lens. You call it 600 because you're equivalence it. To do that you also need to equivalence the fact that 12mp isn't much detail by today's standards and 1/2.33" sensors don't cover much area.
Your T2i with a F6 270mm lens HAS MORE REACH THAN AN FZ300!
A LOT more.
The whites look much closer to daylight in the high ISO night shots compared to the regular 810. They remind me of the A7s. I threw that in the comparison and it's close, but the 810A is even better.
FZ1000 costs similar money to teh 150-600 (which opens only to f6.3 at 600mm). I was trying to highlight the capabilities of each option for you comparatively if all you cared about was reach. You make some big assumptions comparing across cameras like that but diffraction at a focal length is only related to physical aperture (not fstop directly) and pixel pitch so it makes a decent measuring stick.
I'm not saying the 150-600 meets ayn size requirements but it's cost considering you can use it with your existing camera is not comparatively out of range. If you're not willing to carry around a bigger piece of glass than the zoom going to 270mm APS-C you already have you're not going to get noticeably more reach.
So, effective light per pixel math for you assuming all the sensor pixels are equally sensitive per unit area and the lenses are all equally sharp and your target fills less than 10% of your APS-C frame:focal length equiv * sqrt(resolution) / f-stop * cropT2i/270mm (270*1.6*sqrt18)/(1.6*6.3) = 182
FZ200/FZ300: (600*sqrt12)/(2.8*5.6) = 133FZ70: (1200*sqrt16)/(5.9*5.6) = 145FZ1000: (400*sqrt20)/(4*2.7)= 166T6 + existing lens: 270*sqrt24/6.3 = 210T2i+150-600 = 600*sqrt18/6.3 = 404
So I'd say best bang for your buck is go get a 150-600
All this fuss about the sensor... it occured to me if you want to do 16:9 4K from 4:3 ratio your minimum resolution is 3840x2880 or 11mp. If you use something like a 12mp sensor for 4K (Example A7s), you can get away without pixel binning and cropping (toss a few pixels here and there for digital stabilization).