AngryCorgi: Made from hand finished calf leather? Oh I feel better knowing they slaughtered a baby cow and not an adult cow for this phone. I hope the baby cow was a really nice friendly cow too. Had the calf won any 4-H competitions? Was it given beer and massaged constantly? Did the calf go to a private school? I only like the skin of baby cows that went to private school.
In case it was missed: I was actually just spinning a bit off from Jim Gaffigan's latest routine.
Made from hand finished calf leather? Oh I feel better knowing they slaughtered a baby cow and not an adult cow for this phone. I hope the baby cow was a really nice friendly cow too. Had the calf won any 4-H competitions? Was it given beer and massaged constantly? Did the calf go to a private school? I only like the skin of baby cows that went to private school.
Since when did hassleblad become a company that did "certifications"? This reads like an online diploma company.
I'll stick with snappycam until they match the ani-gif output option
The Name is Bond: The DR tests, it strikes me, don't really test DR. The only cameras that really pump up the DR significantly are the Fujis (DR400% etc, two stops extra in the highlights). These 'DRO' and sometimes 'HDR' tests seem merely to flatten the tone curve and lighten the darks. That's not DR.
"Both Adobe Camera Raw and Capture One recognise the DR mode tags in the Raw files, so render their output at the correct brightness, but neither applies the different tone curves necessary to incorporate any additional highlight information. This means so you'll need to manually adjust DR200 and 400 images to get the full benefit."
Yes, the built-in "DRO" setting is not a DR EXPANSION setting. It is a DR curve modifier. The DR400% setting (and the like) that you refer to is an in-camera push of an underexposed shot with a tone curve adjustment to compress more highlight info in an area below the clipping level, in essence. Hence why the resulting ISO setting changes with the expansion setting. DR200 = a 1EV push. DR400 = a 2EV push. The SNR drop at these settings confirms this, as fine details start to degrade. You are better off looking at section 9 "Image Quality" in this review for information regarding the flexibility of the raw files, as you would have to manipulate your files manually to achieve the same results. The good news is that the review demonstrates at least 3EV of flexibility, vs the 2EV offered by Fuji's in-camera cooking. Again, anytime you do this, the image will degrade to some extent. The X-T1 review covers the need for manual tone adjustment when shooting in raw as well.
Hilarious. I want a list of all the people who buy this POS so I can call them up and laugh at them.
Geez...the one thing that really stands out from the studio shot(s):
the FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA is one insanely sharp lens. Look at the micro-contrast from that son of a gun. WOW.
Throngs of Fanboys: "How did this camera get a Gold Award?!?! Gold Awards go to cameras I would buy and I wouldn't buy this one!!! I guess Sony drenched DPR in piles upon piles of cash yet again!! We all know that [insert other manufactuer] Rules!!! I'm canceling my DPR account right now!!"
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.