belle100: Wot! Video at a rate of 5 frames per second. My FujiFilm MX-700 back in 1998 can do better than that! And looks better too. lol
And the Fuji had 250 MP and full sensor readout, I suppose?
Francis Carver: Yeah, right.... Canon is feverishly "developing" this, that, and the other.
But meanwhile, what Canon actually HAS: pieces of overpriced, under-spec'd products pretty much obsolete on the day they hit the marketplace. So, who would really fall for this kind of lame-fake announcements from a rather discredited company like Canon?
So you're judging Canon's R&D capabilities by looking at their consumer products? And just because you aren't impressed by those products, any announcement of new tech developed by Canon must be fake?
justmeMN: Meh. $1,300 for a 1"-type sensor.
That would indeed be expensive, but I believe Sony ships the sensor with a camera body and a lens, among other things.
Frank_BR: Why doesn't Sony have so far the option of a lossless RAW format? Most critics say that this is just a Sony error, but the question is not so simple. To try to understand better, I did an experiment. I took the RAW files from DPR Studio Scene for Sony 7RII and Nikon D810, and compressed them with WinRAR. The results were as follows:
Camera.....RAW original....WinRAR compr7RII .........41.4MB...........38.3MBD810 ........74.3MB..........43.9MB
WinRAR is a lossless compression, so the RARs files contain the same information as the RAWs from camera.
Surprisingly, WinRAR managed to reduce to almost half the size of NEF file, but failed to appreciably reduce the size of Sony RAW. This shows that NEF is inefficient since it produces much larger files than necessary. There is room for a better lossless RAW coding. I draw the conclusion that a reason for Sony has been reluctant to use a lossless RAW coding is that the current processor technology does not allow high efficiency of coding.
"You may not have noticed that I used in my remarks the RAW files provided by DPR from its Studio Test Scene. And the only Nikon RAW files available for download are uncompressed NEFs."
And yet you used them to claim that Nikon's lossless compression is inefficient. You even referred to them as lossless NEFs, which only makes sense if you thought they were compressed. Why call an uncompressed file lossless?
The whole point of your argument was that by using the lossless compression of WinRAR, you proved that it was possible to significantly reduce the file size of the NEF. From this you drew the conclusion that Nikon's own lossless compression does a bad job.If you knew that the NEF was uncompressed, then what was the point of your argument? Of course you can reduce the file size of an uncompressed raw file by compressing it! You could do the same with an uncompressed Sony file, if they had provided you with one.
maxnimo: People still make prints?
Seems kind of outdated and wasteful of resources considering the growing abundance of tablets and 4K TVs with superb image quality and resolution.
maxnimo, there is no hostility to new ways of experiencing life from my part. Having a preference for an older technology entails no such thing.
Looking at prints and photo books, as well as reading books, is something I greatly enjoy. Staring at a screen for too long gives me a headache, and I mean that literally. Hence my preference.
Dillon Frazier: I wish they would price this similar to the canon 50mm 1.8
micro four thirds could really use an affordable standard prime around $100
"Otherwise f/1.8 is f/1.8 is f/1.8."
Yes, if we're talking exposure and light intensity. But not if we're talking about total light gathering. As you say, the larger room with the larger window lets in more light, which is directly related to the amount of photon shot noise and SNR, and hence image quality.
Sensor size has a larger impact on noise performance than pixel pitch or sensor tech.
Frank, you didn't compress a lossless NEF, you compressed an uncompressed NEF. To prove that Nikon's lossless compression is inefficient, you need to perform your experiment on a NEF file shot with Nikon's lossless compression setting.
MarshallG: I would like to understand if this compression is part or all of the reason why Sony sensors have a reputation for lower noise.
When I see noise in dark areas, it's really just slight pixel-to-pixel variations where the chroma variance is too great. If you blend or average the chroma values of the adjacent pixels, this noise pattern will mostly go away.
Sony sensors are used by several other companies, that don't use lossy compression. Nikon and Pentax arguably achieve even better noise performance than Sony, even when using the same sensor.
Lassoni: wireless cards? when it should be camera bodys that should be wireless? what
I agree that new cameras should have WiFi built-in, but many people still use older camera models that lack this feature.
So if I find prints more pleasing to look at than a screen, or think that an e-book just isn't as engaging to read as a 'real' book, then I must necessarily be afraid of change? Sounds like you just can't accept the fact that people have different opinions and preferences.
Osa25: This will bomb. The clue is the fake "social" which in fact is going to be steered by them and not users - thats what "curated " really means.
Easy to understand that Sony aims to save advertising spend like Coca Cola is doind withs its fake magazine website format, called " Coca Cola Journey":http://www.coca-colacompany.comThe phony social/blig thing is abig trend among brand managers these days. Howevet i'ts just not clear why the public would care about this thing.
It's a stream of selected photos that have been tagged with #SonyAlpha in various social media. That's what they mean by "Social". And I think the meaning of "curated" is clear to most people. I fail to see a problem here.
MustyMarie: Seems there could be a much more 'logical' manner to collect extra taxes/duty for Professional use cams than an import/purchase duty - maybe tax the actual professionals for their work and equipment rather than CURSE all users of cams w/ potential video use for those who do not want a 30min time limit ??
I guess EVERY problem is a nail if all you are a hammer - huh EU ? (or any other country!!)
But OTOH, can not see too many types of Pro video where you do not take a break within 30mins (change lighting, mic placement, bio break, makeup touchup, etc), more like a Scientific/Researcher use of more than 30min than Professional Video - no ?
All those 'behind the scenes' movie 'happenings' they take a 1-2min scene, then pause, re-view, re-take the scene, etc - not likely 30min scene either - so an Odd notion that the 30min limit is for Pro video, or makes a cam now a video-cam ?
Makes little to no sense to me. Am I alone on this ?
It's not about collecting taxes for pro video work.From an article on Tested.com:
"Back in 2006, the EU controversially decided to classify high-end digital cameras as video recorders, which attached a customs duty of 5-12% for digital cameras imported into Europe. The classification was decided not just based on digital cameras' improving abilities to record video through its lens and sensor, but their ability to record direct input from external sources like televisions. A home video recorder tax would theoretically offset money lost from users recording movies off broadcast television or cable onto digital devices, though the EU has never been very clear on the tax's intent. The tax's consequence, though, has been felt in every digital camera user looking to use a DSLR in place of a camcorder, as camera manufacturers would rather limit recording capability in software than raise the price of its cameras (or lower their margins)."
PhotoKhan: I can't see what all the excitement is about, regarding this test, specifically.
There are other features in the A7RII that appeal to me but I really expected more from the first use of BSI tech on a full frame camera.
Compared to the 5DSR it features lower overall chroma noise, true, but at clear expense of detail. In addition, the Canon keeps rendering more "contrasty" and pleasant looking colors at high ISOs.
If someone was offering me one of these two cameras, nothing else withstanding and just based on these studio tests, I would have to flip a coin.
Yes, what we are comparing isn't really raw sensor performance, but ACR conversions using default settings, which is like comparing JPEG engines. It's just that the JPEG engine is external to the camera.
The default settings doesn't treat raw files from every camera equally, and in many cases you can achieve a better balance between noise and details by tweaking the settings yourself. Not to mention tweaking colours and contrast according to your own taste. So downloading raw files and putting them through your preferred workflow is a better method for comparison, unless you always stick to the defaults.
wooac: Canon was once a leading camera manufacturer. Now it isn't even following well.
"Canon's mirrorless objective is to make a crappy product and sway people away from mirrorless cameras."
That would be a really crappy business strategy. If consumers would get the impression that Canon makes crappy products, that would be bad for the whole Canon brand, not just their mirrorless line.People wouldn't think: "Wow, Canon really makes crappy mirrorless cameras, so I'll buy one of their DSLRs instead."They would rather choose a brand that isn't known to make crappy products at all.
Hurricain711: yawn. My a6000 kicks its ass
Cameras don't kick ass, photographers do. ;)
BLongborough: As usual, the firmware is written by the janitor's cousin.
I know the janitor's cousin. He's quite good.
Mike FL: Fujifilm loves patches, kind of liking Microsoft.
Yes, they released a firmware update that supposedly should fix the "white orbs". It didn't, so they instead offered to replace the sensor.
vroger1: why are we so quick to forgive and forget? why should we get the m111 when the m was such a dog of a camera? can't photographers see that we were insulted by the release of the m? this one, thankfully will not sell either.
Forgive? Insulted? Come on, they released a camera, but you talk as if they caused you harm in some way. If you don't care for a product, then just ignore it.
TheEmrys: Only one lens and you would choose the Canon 35 L? Deeply disconcerting as there are at least 10 better 35mm options out there.
Well, you choose a lens in the context of the system you're using, don't you? Given that you own a Canon DSLR, most of the mentioned lenses aren't any options. Comparing lenses in that way presupposes that you haven't yet chosen a system.
SamTrekker: This will be under many a Christmas Tree! Good timing! Lets see that Christmas EOS M3 tv ad to come.... 🎄🎁📷
While I agree that the EOS M3 isn't the most capable camera in the current market, how can it be pointless? I mean, if you're interested in photography, then this camera is perfectly good for that purpose. And it's more capable than most consumer cameras we used five years ago, and those are still capable of producing excellent photos.