Actually, one would expect that, given the advantage of using a sensor that is 201% the size of the RX100, the G1X mk2 would be 1EV better in regards to SNR. The results of the comparison tool do not bear this out though. If you set the G1X mk2 to ISO3200 and compare it to the RX100 mk3 at ISO1600 (1EV difference), the RX100 mk3 looks better. So while the sensor is larger, the advantage is smaller than if the two sensors had similar technology/efficiency. This is a result of Canon not spending any apparent effort to match other sensor manufacturers' sensor efficiency. This is apparent even when comparing JPEGs, despite the fact that the Sony JPEG NR engine is among the worst available.
simpleshot: It looks like the noise on the Canon G1 X MK2 is significantly less than that of the Sony.I'm not really surprised because the Canon has a much larger sensor.
At ISO3200 and ISO6400, the Canon is a bit less noisy, whilst 100-1600 don't show any appreciable difference. ISO12800 is crap on both, so I really can't see myself using either there.
That is a significant improvement over the RX100 mkII. Impressive sharpness for a freaking video frame.
AngryCorgi: Given that f/5.6 on a 20MP 1" sensor introduces diffraction-based softening, am I correct to assume the excuse for the RX100 mk1 holds true here too?: "This was the best compromise FL/aperture we could use."
That is the 35mm-equiv-aperture they are showing. Stopping it down to f/5.6 would have the 35mm-equivalent of around f/16, where any sensor recording more than 9MP is going to visibly show diffraction softening. This sensor is a 20MP sensor. Shooting it at f/5.6 automatically hamstrings it for no apparent reason.
RX100 Pixel Diameter = 2.4µm, f/5.6 Airy Diameter = 7.5µm
It's simple math, people. When the Airy Diameter is more than 2x the Pixel Diameter you get visible diffractive softening. In this case, its more than THREE TIMES the diameter!
Diffraction doesn't care what the FL is.
Given that f/5.6 on a 20MP 1" sensor introduces diffraction-based softening, am I correct to assume the excuse for the RX100 mk1 holds true here too?: "This was the best compromise FL/aperture we could use."
vroy: This is very useful for morons that wouldn't protect their costly lenses by filters.
I'm with Ken. Long ago, when I first bought an SLR, I had a concern about protection of the lenses...then after actual use I realized it wasn't as big of a deal as some make it out to be. I've also bought old Nikon Ai lenses that have had scratches on the front and it doesn't affect IQ at all.
But back when I didn't know what the hell I was doing, I probably thought people not using a UV filter or some such to protect their investment was a moron.
AngryCorgi: And I thought Sony's JPEG engine was crappy. I'd never shoot JPEG with a camera that performed this poorly.
I'm ill-informed?? I guess all three SONY cameras (NEX-3, RX100, a3000) I own are freaking liars!! I'm sending them back ASAP!
How can you be so freaking arrogant as to say someone's opinion, a person you know exactly nothing about, is somehow ill-informed??
Welcome to the internet, where the clowns come out to play!!
And I thought Sony's JPEG engine was crappy. I'd never shoot JPEG with a camera that performed this poorly.
Shoulda been the bronze award...or maybe the balsa wood award. Hate the IQ of this camera.
HowaboutRAW: It would be better if Lytro gave DPReview a beta body with beta software and DPReview played with both for month.
Instead we're getting independently created sales brochures from the company.
I saw one of these beta bodies a few weeks ago. Seems more promising than the first, but I could not shoot and then keep files to play with later at home. Not like the software is available to the general public yet.
I'm with you there. The pricing is a bit too high to entice casually interested photographers/hobbyists. I think the original Lytro's $400 price tag not succeeding is a good indicator of this.
I think you misunderstand what I meant. You are 100% correct: the analysis that is applicable is not necessarily applicable to the light-field cameras. If someone looked simply at the surface of it (the output resolution for one), this camera will fail. This is a camera that is attempting to target your emotional side or tap into a very specific area of your artistic side. Numbers won't do this camera any favors as direct comparison is simply not possible in any meaningful way.
Not gonna happen. This is all about getting testimonials, not having it analyzed. It will never sell based off an "analysis", but perhaps they can sway you this way.
AngryCorgi: I'm on the edge of my seat here. When I read "company does something that's never been done before" in relation to optics design, I'm intrigued as to whether that move led to success or failure. Can't wait to see some samples from the new optics.
Where on Earth did that pro-Canon rant come from? Nobody was dismissing the alternatives. How on Earth is pondering an unreleased camera's performance an indictment (or otherwise) of its direct competition?? Sometimes I think you guys really need to try harder to remember to take your meds.
Why pay for something when you can bully someone into giving it to you for free? I seem to have missed the part of the story where the billionaire Walton family offered the widow ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY for the originals. Is there more to the story or is Wal-Mart actually trying to scare someone rather than pay them??
I'm on the edge of my seat here. When I read "company does something that's never been done before" in relation to optics design, I'm intrigued as to whether that move led to success or failure. Can't wait to see some samples from the new optics.
I'm starting to think Sony and the MFT duo are the only manufacturers listening to the consumer. Shame on Canon and Nikon for being complacent and failing to include real innovations.
Leiduowen: Still no time-lapse recording? Sony, you're not listening!
Ouch. That ought to do.
This is how it's done, aesthetically at least. Hope it performs to match.
Holy cow. Sony just showed the world how to design a camera. That is genius!