Bernard Hill: What about Olympus E100RS? Only 1.2Mpx but it captured photos *before* you pressed the shutter. Once it was half-pressed the camera started taking photos, and kept the last five in a circular buffer. Make a full press and the buffer was kept and of course the current view was recorded. And the next photos until you release.I can't understand why no-one else has used this concept (or do you know different...?) but it's great for action shots waiting for a particular event such as a bubble bursting.I eventually sold mine because my thing is landscape shooting and it didn't do a lot for that <g>
Don't the Nikon 1 cameras have a similar feature? I'm pretty sure that they do.
CNY_AP: What I don't understand is that the Nikon 5200 for example is highly rated by DxoMark, but when I look at high ISO shots in the Comparometer tool, I think the various Canon 18MP sensors fare well against the Nikon (in terms of detail retention versus noise).
Better example - Nikon D3200 is very highly rated in DxoMark, but in the T5i review, it looks awful. The review says so, not just me:http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-t5i/canon-t5iA.HTM
So I wonder if DxoMark doesn't measure sensor performance correctly (wrong methodology). For example, maybe Nikon simply blurs their images more, hiding noise, but losing detail.
Or maybe Canon has superior firmware/processing which overcomes/hides their sensors' inferiority. But in the end, if the images look the same, what does it matter.
In the DPR comparometer you're looking at raw files converted to JPEG using the default settings in Adobe Camera Raw.DxO's test results, on the other hand, are based on analysis of the unconverted, undemosaiced raw files. They look at numbers, not images. They do this to avoid being dependent on any particular raw conversion software, and come as close to the hardware performance as possible.
Hubertus Bigend: I'm not in the least sure that I understood the principle correctly, but wouldn't such a device, no matter to what specific setting it was configured in a specific moment of time, always somehow act like a polarizing filter screwed onto the lens, procducing more or less unnatural images?
No, this is not a polarizing filter, that filters out light that is polarized in a certain direction. It just changes the polarization angle of all incoming light.
BlueBomberTurbo: Couldn't they just take Panasonic's approach to video, scaling down the entire frame instead of line skipping? No moire at all on my GH2, and it's infinitely sharper and more detailed than my old D7000 and current D7100...
I hardly think the traditional optical companies, like Nikon and Olympus, make their own processors, or other electronic components. For example, Chipworks writes this about the Nikon EXPEED 3 processor in D5200:
"The big chip of note is Nikon EXPEED 3. It is a package-on-package configuration featuring Samsung K4B4G3146 4 Gb DDR3 DRAM on top. The EXPEED device is fabricated by Fujitsu and is a big piece of silicon at 8.7 mm x 9.4 mm."
It also has a microprocessor and image sensor by Toshiba, and other components by other companies.Sony, Panasonic, Epson, Texas Instruments and others also supply components for other companies, so I hardly think the optical companies are limited with respect to the hardware available to them.
arhmatic: We all remember the Hasselblad Lunar and Adobe Creative Cloud.The articles were ok... I almost passed them.
Then the comments... Hours and hours of fresh, original entertainment.Priceless!
And let us not forget about the "white orbs".
Ronie-AAA: Get out of town... if you don't want to disclose the manufacturer of the card than the whole thing is pointless, the picture is nothing to write home about.
Or perhaps he didn't want to be accused of already having made a deal with the manufacturer. There are always a lot of sceptics, who would think that this whole story was just an advertisement in disguise.
Sam Carriere: Give me a break.Is there absolutely NO photography equipment for you to cover or review?
I'm completely unimpressed with this camera as well, but give DPR a break. Canon sent them a press release and they published it, just like they always do when new cameras are announced. I don't think any review has been delayed because of this.
Photato: Nokia has a 41MP sensor. Canon decides 12MP is best for enthusiast Cameras.Wonder who is right in regards to pixel density?
For me, "enthusiast" means more physical controls, better build quality, a fast and sharp lens, manual exposure modes, the option to shoot raw and use accessories like flashes, filters and converters. I'd rather see an improvement of lens sharpness than more megapixels.
At last! I've been holding off switching to digital for 20 years, but now Canon has made the camera for me.
Sergeg: It's almost inconceivable how some of those designs got past the drawing board in terms of ergonomics and aesthetics. Technological advances aside, when you consider the form factor of the typical smart phone today, and it's still camera and HD video camera capabilities, then product design is obviously subject to the same evolutionary processes as all art forms.After all, the ancient Egyptians only portrayed their world in 2D.
My first DSLR 10 years ago, was the Fuji S2Pro, which I still have, relatively little has changed in DSLR design in the last decade by comparison.
Sometimes people in forums like this complain about the form factor and ergonomics of modern cameras, saying that the manufacturers should try other types of design, like making cameras that handle like rifles or hair dryers or whatever.Someone even fantasized about a ball-shaped sensor on a stick; just hold it up in the air and let it record light from all directions, and do all the rest (including zooming and focusing) in post-processing.These people seem to forget that the manufacturers already have tried and rejected lots of different designs. Sure, nothing wrong with being inventive and visionary, but why change something that works (for most people,anyway)?
Edit: I was just struck by the possible consequences of people walking around pointing gun-shaped objects at each other. Cause for rejection right there, I think. :D
clicstudio: Gorgeous and amazing photos! They almost look recent.Makes u realize the "real" photographers were those, 70 to 80 years ago, who shot manual and film and without an LCD screen to help and no photoshop.I really admire them and the glimpse of Americana their photos show. Color makes the whole difference. Thanx for sharing!
No, they were not B&W originals; they were shot in colour.
yabokkie: to my eyes, GX7 doesn't have better noise than Pana's previous sensor in E-M5, though Oly may cook raw files more than Pana.
Panasonic still use their own sensors in some cameras, so they haven't "gone Sony" completely. Canon make their own sensors, but they also have used Sony sensors in some compact cameras.Sure, the GH3 is their "flagship" model, but I see no problem with Panasonic using a Sony sensor in it. There is some evidence suggesting Olympus use a Sony sensor, and since GH3 has practically identical image quality in raw, it's most likely the same sensor.
And just because Nikon use sensors from Toshiba and Aptina, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have turned away from Sony completely. Nikon also designs their own sensors, which are manufactured by Renesas, and they have done so for many years, so they've never used exclusively Sony sensors.
We simply don't know the reasoning behind the choice of sensor maker; there could be both technological and business-related factors influencing the choice of one source over another. That goes for all camera components, by the way, not just the sensor.
Well, I don't know the truth either, of course, but I see no reason to doubt that it's a Sony sensor. Especially given that Olympus and Sony have stated that they will exchange technology, now that Sony has invested heavily in Olympus.As to the volume, Olympus use the sensor in their entire m4/3 line-up, and Panasonic most likely use the same sensor in GH3.But as long as we don't know for sure, your guess is as good as mine. We'll have to wait for the results from Chipworks.
Regarding "ISO cheating", you should read these two articles:
Someone in the m4/3 forum sent an E-PM2 to Chipworks for analysis. The final report haven't been published, but they did say that the markings on the sensor were consistent with a Sony chip.
Live MOS is in fact an Olympus trademark, which may not imply a specific sensor maker.As for the readout speed, Sony would have made a sensor that meets their customers' demands, possibly (but not necessarily) using Panasonic tech.The sensor performs noticeably better than previous m4/3 sensors, and is in fact on par with Sony APS-C, if one takes the smaller size into consideration.
Panasonic and Olympus don't base their businesses on cheating, at least not more than any of their competitors. Care to elaborate on that? I know that you talk alot about "F-stop cheating" and "ISO cheating", but that really is a misleading way to put it.
yabokkie: the new sensor brings some hopes that there may come: a 51.6MP EOS 3D with 0.2 stops better performance than D800, a 20.2MP EOS M with about the same SNR performance as NEX, with fast PD-AF and quality lenses at much reasonable prices, for example, EF-M 22/2 is sharper than E 24/1.8 at 1/4 of price.
though the new sensor still has less dynamic range at base ISO, it's obviously less worse, improve a lot from previous Canon sensors.
"0.2 stops better performance than D800"
What photography-related problem will this solve for you?
Martin Datzinger: I welcome that you redistributed everything to get it more in one plane and generally smaller because we thankfully don't live in a 4MP world anymore. Just wondering how you'll deal with backwards compatibility. Reshoot with every still sold camera? Seems like a lot of work to do!
I'll miss the colorful feathers of the last version, I can live with the new color resolution test patches though. What bothers me is that there seems to be no shadow performance test such as those those overshadowed puffy little balls anymore. The faces? I don't know what to judge from them. They are obviously prints, which means DR limited, off-colour and thus very unnatural looking in the first place. I guess the symmetry is to rule out lens misalignments? Please use the ColorChecker Digital SG instead of the (unnecessarily big) simple version, that is contained within the SG anyay. One last thing: Could you make the whole thing retina screen ready? Pretty please?
I guess the point of the faces is to see how the cameras handle skin tones. How do you know that the prints are off-colour and unnatural-looking? I seriously doubt that DPR would have used them if they were. Have you never seen skin tones faithfully reproduced in print?
KariIceland: Has ANYONE else noticed that compact cameras are being made WORSE in image quality on purpose the last 2 years? Canon powershot SX150 is being one example, this camera being another?I can't help but think camera manufacturers are using WORSE hardware and selling at the same price just to reduce loss & in turn pushing customers AWAY who would WANT to buy a compact camera.
People want inexpensive cameras, but they don't accept that the manufacturers cut any costs or make any compromises in order to offer them just that. Go figure.
Funny how some people are saying that lenses should work out of the box, and that we shouldn't accept that manufacturers release sub-standard products using the consumers as beta-testers. You clearly have no idea why AF fine-tuning is sometimes necessary.
It's nothing wrong with the lens, because it may work properly with another camera body. Likewise, it's nothing wrong with the camera, because it may autofocus correctly with another lens. They're both made within manufacturing tolerances. It's the specific camera-lens combination that requires AF fine-tuning.
It's impossible to manufacture such complex devices as DSLRs and lenses, and get the micro-alignment of parts exactly the same in every copy. There's always slight variation from copy to copy, which means that every combination of lens and body may not work optimally.
Daniel Clune: Humm looking at the images from these it looks like the Nikon is better yet you say its one of the worst? I downloaded the pic of the clock for the Nikon and the TG-2 and the Nikon is clearer, sharper and has more detail. I also noticed both pics were taken on the same day almost same time. 5-31-13 aw110 at 5:16 and TG-2 at 4:16. So there fair to compare. Then if you use your image compare thing on the review of the TG-2 going through the various iso ratings again the Nikon sure looks like it has more detail throughout the whole iso range. So confused about image quality rating in this comparison. I found a review on yotube that also thought the Nikon had best image quality. What am I missing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btcljWkpg5U
The Nikon apply more default sharpening, giving the impression of more detail.