Little-known fact: the irridescent colours of butterfly wings are produced not by pigments, but by nanometric structures on the scales' surface that reflect different colours of light, much like the microscopic pits on a CD.
God, I love nature.
sportyaccordy: Why not just do 4 sensors... R, G, B, luminance
Less filters -> more sensitivity; more resolution too.
*cough* Every colour video camera since the days of tubes...
Loved the Staff Riding doc - but I just took a look at the NYT High Rise thing and although it's good, the rhyming commentary makes it sound like a fairy tale, which makes me doubt its veracity. Also, if you try to go back to a previous section, the commentary goes out of sync by a whole section or more. Disappointing.
peterwr: "With a 13MP *1/3.06-inch* Sony Exmor CMOS sensor..."
FFS. When are camera manufacturers going to start quoting sensor sizes in millimetres? This 1/x.x business is needlessly confusing. OK, so maybe that's the point - big numbers sound more impressive to the inexperienced, even if they have a 1 over them - but still, millimetres (or even millimeters) would make imaging chips a lot easier to compare. It would make it easier to estimate the 35mm equivalent focal length of the lenses, too.
C'mon DPReview - how about you start doing it unilaterally? You're influential enough that maybe you could change industry policy.
Hi Lars - how come DPR *doesn't* quote sensor sizes in millimetres? It would make comparisons - which is what the site is all about, after all - a lot easier.
"With a 13MP *1/3.06-inch* Sony Exmor CMOS sensor..."
Wow. I know it's a long 'un, but really - I thought lenses were supposed to be better than this nowadays?
No viewfinder = no sale. Pity, because apart from that and the lack of weatherproofing it looks like a pretty good bet.
BarnET: You guys are from dpreview. Come on dig up some info of that 4k gh3.That can be the only decent scoop of CES this year.
It's featured in photo #6 - along with about all that can be said about it at this stage. Exciting, nonetheless, and puzzling that DPR haven't made a headline item of it.
And this is on a photography news site because...?
bigdaddave: Nice & retro but it does show Nikon is stuck in the past and OH so expensive for what it does. A camera for Leica lovers
Nah - it's got far too many doodads for a Leica person. But that's really what it should have been - an FM/FE with a screen on the back and an aperture wheel for modern lenses. I'd (almost) have paid this price for that.
WTF? This is a huge ball of wrong. It should have been a digital FM/FE, with all the compactness and straightforward manual controls of those cameras - and maybe just an auto shutter and one control dial for the aperture on later lenses. *
Instead, we have a bloated, overpriced, overweight D7100, albeit with an FX sensor, and no video capability. A "fusion" of the worst of both worlds instead of the best. Ouch indeed.
I'm a huge fan of Nikon (I still own an FM2 and a bunch of AI lenses), but I struggle to work out who's going to buy this camera, I really do.
How crashingly disappointing.
* That, after all, is what a Leica is (and the FE used to be), and they sell as many of those as they can make, even at the price.
Shadow2: Here one stuff to think about...
If you are getting married and you check some photographers to record the day of your life will you Hire the photographer that use is brand new iPhone 5s or the one how has a DSLR...
And remember also that quotes: It's not because that you own a Nikon that you are a photographer...
Ask for their portfolio or reference for their work because if the product is bad you will not be able to share these precious moments...
GO Pro or GO Low
I'd take a decent photographer with an iPhone over an incompetent Saturday boy with a DSLR any day. In the end, it's about getting the pictures the bride wants, not complying with some kind of imaginary union regulations re megapixels, dpi, dynamic range etc.
Dccps: I agree that the DSLR's days are numbered. I don't know if it will be five years or ten or more, but we are surely seeing signs of their ultimate demise. Sony's new A7s are demonstrating mirrorless technology moving into larger sensor territory. Olympus' new E-M1 is redefining the limits of EVF technology as well as the potential of smaller sensors with respect to image quality. And Apple and other smart phone manufacturers are putting imaging technology into the hands of countless users out there, so pixel peepers beware, the best camera is and has always been the one you have when the image is there. There certainly are reasons for larger sensors and big heavy gear, but mirrorless is here, and here to stay because gear is so much less of a burden that more photographers will use it and the technology is getting scary good. Remember that high gloss high-res magazine spreads have already been created from small sensor cameras - not all but some, so technology marches on.
Agreed. We're hearing the same arguments today that were aired in the 1940s by the users of 5"x4" press cameras when 35mm and 6x6 came out.
Photography isn't just about ultimate image quality, it's about the usability of the kit and the ability to get the shot on the day. If a camera is small, light and fast, and gets the shot at an adequate image quality for the eventual output format, it will end up being used to the detriment of the older, heavier, more expensive, less agile technology, unless - and only unless - a particular characteristic of DSLRs such as image quality, speed and/or lens selection is the primary consideration.
So MILCs will become the format of choice for enthusiasts and photojournalists, and full-frame/medium format DSLRs will be the preserve of fashion photographers, landscapers and well-heeled willy-wavers (and videographers who can't bring themselves to use proper video cameras).
gil: I am not a pixel peeper and the pics looks ok in my office monitor. Details were there at the size of my monitor and while colors were not outstanding, not bland or muted either. Overall ok but I agree that these kind of pics could be taken as well from a cheaper NEX 3 series or from a mid-end P&S around $500-$600.
"Overall ok but I agree that these kind of pics could be taken as well from a cheaper NEX 3 series or from a mid-end P&S around $500-$600."Well, the RX10 has that Zeiss constant-aperture lens, and a bigger sensor than a P&S, plus it's weather sealed, which neither the NEX nor most P&Ss are. It's aimed at a different kind of shooter. And I'm sure if you did pixel-peep, you'd see the difference clearly, especially in the corners.
Nukunukoo: Nikon Rumors has rescinded all reported specifications, including pricing. The video above is in truth a new set of Nikon binoculars, great for the Scottish landscape. The images are so clear that it leaves a perfect picture in your mind...
No, it's a camera - there's a brief glimpse of it (or a substitute) in Episode 2.
Bjorn_L: What an incredibly well specified superzoom. Larger sensor, relatively fast lens, weather sealed, seems to at least give a nod to manual controls. I am not in the market for a such a device but if it is good at video I might get it regardless to compliment my DSLR.I think I'll wait for an indepth review with the dxo ratings and such before I get too excited. We've all seen well specified disappointments before.
It's in the spec, near the bottom - it says "environmentally sealed". It doesn't say what standard the sealing is, though...
AppleDuck: It's great seeing Joanna again. I think Phil and Joanna did an excellent job getting this site off the ground as it quickly became the cream of the crop during the early days of digital photography.
Seconded. What became of them - did they retire as multimillionaires when they sold DPReview, or are they still involved?
Very nice. If it wasn't called SmugMug, I'd use it.
Timmbits: I wasn't impressed with that "review" or "tear down". All he did was remove a few screws and the outer shell... something 8-year-olds do with stuff.
So you'd be OK with an 8-year-old taking your lenses apart and putting them back together, right?
peterwr: Please let it be a reboot of the Digilux 2. With a Micro Four Thirds sensor. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicadigilux2
@historianx: Of course - please forgive my lax terminology. *slaps self* :-)