datiswous: It would be nice to see some comparison shots from other camera's with similar/other sensors and lens ranges. I don't know what's ok and what not for this group of camera's.
Personally I find the photo's generally look ok (but not great) when not viewed full screen, probably good enough for small prints or on a website, but not great/bad if you want to crop some.
My first thought at seeing these images was, "Ugh!" (and I'm an Olympus fanboy--I own 4 Olympus cameras), but then I checked them against my Canon travel zoom and they look about right for this class of camera.
If you want to check them against other manufacturers, look for reviews of "travel zooms".
I love this class of camera. They are small, and you can take shots of just about anything. If you are printing at 8x10, the shots won't look as good as with a better camera, but the difference is slight. Printing at 4x6, the shots will look as good as from any camera, and you can crop.
It's not a camera for pixel peepers, but if I had to carry one camera for a bus/walking tour of a place that I knew I was never going to visit again, and had to capture all kinds of shots, including far away monuments, etc., I'd probably leave the "better" cameras at home, and carry something like this.
ecm: Are people really not interested in having a viewfinder any more? Or do Canon and Nikon think that "we don't need no steenkin' viewfinder" is the only take-home message from increasing mirrorless camera sales?
I bought a mirrorless because of the small size, and then went back to a dSLR because of the lack of an integrated viewfinder..... accessory viewfinders SUCK.....
There are mirrorless cameras with integrated viewfinders. Look at the Panasonic G and GH series, Olympus OM-D, etc.
I've been doubtful of this camera from the first, especially in the corners at wide-angle, where I'm sure that they will have to stretch a far too small image circle. Leaving the viewfinder out is just a huge omission. Optical, electronic, I don't care, but there needs to be a viewfinder. That ISO 8000 cat does look good, though. This camera can take some nice pictures. I appreciate that the review was balanced.
It's in your pocket.
sam james: I am a professional video person and what I am noticing is at ISO 3200 the compression artefacts seem quite visible, comparable to the older 5D Mk2. The 5D Mk3 was about 1 stop faster so this kind of noise would only be visible at about ISO6400. Then what we see in this video is that once the brightness is lifted at around 25,000 ISO the noise issues are less obvious because noise is always more visible on darker areas. I definitely agree that this seems to be shot to underexpose at ISO1600 to amplify the difference at 400,000 ISO. My guess would be that we could actually see quite a lot at the Sony's 1600ISO with not too much noise and the ISO above about 12800 would not really be necessary.Anyway, it looks good, not dissing this camera! Though my Canon c100 has less noise than this at all of the ISO levels up to 52,000 though so I'm not totally amazed!
Help me understand how this video was "shot to underexpose" at ISO 1600. The aperture and shutter speed are listed on the video and consistent for all ISOs, as they would need to be in a comparison of this sort.
Are you talking about post-processing? Why would a "'professional video person" confuse terms?
Akpinxit: I would really like to see how 409600 ISO , full size still image looks like
Right, because that's how you evaluate the IQ of every camera, by pulling stills from the video footage.
Sdaniella: the iso 1600 seems grossly underexposedthe person working under dark skies can evidently see fine under the bright night skies (city lit or dusk lit after sunset?) with back turned from the fire
if the moon was out (it didn't appear so from lack of harsh shadows, unless it was overcast: stars not visible means it is overcast skies) it would be very bright blue skies identical to midday sun on a clear day.
likely video was captured well after dusk with enough light to see without fire (as the busy person shown indicates) on an overcast evening, rather than full moonless clear skies starry night. any civilization nearby means overcast evening skies quite bright to see without fire. distant lights on horizon tells us it's at least dusk (after 8 - 8:30pm)
it will be awhile before SONY catches up to Canon sensors, which already can capture on video in realtime both flying fireflies or shooting stars (in the dead of night without moonlight or city light)
Hey Canon Shill-
Didn't you used to post under a different user name, with the same picture?
aruk5: The only major plus point I can think of about the A7s is something which is not been mentioned [or has it?] which is that its sensor has a very Low pixel density of 1.44 MP/cm² which is a rarity in cmos sensors these days! Almost every cmos ff or aps-c sensor has pixel densitiies above 4 but this one has 1.44 which makes it very interesting. Even the a7/a7r and nikon d800e have pixel densities above 4.
Incase you didnt know lower pixel densities give you images which have more detail and sharpness but there are many who dont accept this as problem is the megapixels have to be kept low in order to achieve a low pixel density and large megapixel nos are the in thing to selling dslrs and ilce systems these days. So if they come out with a camera with low megapixels and a low pixel density then instantly people assume its an inferior product!
I don't care too much about high Megapixels, but I'm sure you're right that a lot of posters praised them in one camera, then praised low Megapixels in another...
As far as processing, yes, your 24 Mp camera will probably do 30 fps some day, but if it were 12 Mp, then it would do 60 fps, of if it were 8 Mp, then it would do 90 fps. You will always have an advantage in processing time from a lower number of Megapixels.
Choice is good, no doubt. But I have thought for a long time (WAY before this camera came out) that the next phase in the camera wars will be about performance and functionality, not resolution. We are WAY past the resolution needed for99.99% of printing needs, even at 12 Mp and even cropped. I made excellent 8x10s out of a 2 Megapixel point and shoot, and I've seen billboards out of a 5 Megapixel Fuji. 24 Mp? or (!) 36? No thanks. A camera like this with increased functionality is much more appealing to me than the D800, for example, or the other A7 cameras.
Lots of wildlife videos are shot under low-light conditions, or even at night. A lot of photography is about acquiring information, not necessarily art. My first digital photographs were taken through a microscope in a biology lab.
But even for artists, I think the implication of this camera is cleaner video at lower ISOs, too. I would bet that ISO 1600, 3200 etc. is cleaner than it is on competing cameras.
EDIT: Also, whatever the burst rate is on your camera is affected by the size of the files. If you have a 24Mp camera with 8 fps burst (I'm guessing), you would have significantly faster burst with 12Mp. It might be as much as double. If you think about 4K video, as on the Panasonic GH4, that is essentially a 30 fps burst mode with a file size of 8 Mp! That's what you're missing out on by having to have 24 Mp files. I'll bet whatever your current camera is could do a burst mode of 30 fps with 8 Mp files, if it had been designed to use its processing power in that way.
You are completely right. 12 Megapixels is more than enough, and marketing drives the race to 24 and 36, etc. Megapixel cameras. Here we get clearly better performance, because the larger Megapixel cameras CAN NOT sample their sensors completely this quickly. Usually the ways in which larger Megapixel cameras are crippled or underperform are more subtle, and missed by average users who just re-bleat marketing speak.
When I download images from new cameras from dpreview to examine them, usually the first step I take is to downsize them to 7 or 8 Megapixels, to look at them as I would truly use them, process them, etc. on my computer.
2) Aperture was f2.8. There are a lot of cheap f1.4 film lenses out there that could be adapted, which would get another two stops!
dosdan: In this class of camera, I find it strange how much time DPR devotes in their reviews to a camera's JPEG engine output. With the high DR & resolution capable from modern sensors, the "enthusiasts", who would seem the likely market for this type of camera, are probably shooting raw to take maximum advantage of the image capabilities.
You might be right, but I've seen plenty of people take the other position. People who shoot a lot, like wedding photographers, don't always have time to post-process hundreds of photos a day. A lot of professionals have made the point online that they only shoot jpeg for that reason. I prefer jpeg. I shoot jpeg + raw, and most of the time don't post-process the raws. The minimal gain in IQ is not worth the time spent in most cases, as I see it.
"The K-3 is a very likeable addition to what was once a really interesting sector of the market..."
True enough--a nice camera, but this sector of the market is not where the most interesting innovations are happening today.
Full-frame mirrorless, 4K video, etc. trump what is at heart just another well-spec'ed and well-performing APS-C DSLR.
Of course, if the shoe fits, this is a great camera. I would certainly be happy shooting with one!
Donnie G: The good news is this camera won't be sold in the U.S.. Thanks Nikon!
l_d_allan hasn't priced 1 system lenses if he thinks that getting cheap bodies is "good news". Slow, kit-type zooms are going for $400-500 at B&H and Adorama.
This camera system doesn't do it for me. No viewfinder and slow, EXPENSIVE lenses are the reasons. The cheap bodies are what the supermarket industry calls a loss leader; they get you in the store with an underpriced item, so that you buy everything else from them.
bobbarber: I'm concerned about the camera owners, but more concerned about the people who have to work manufacturing this stuff. Wouldn't they have come into contact with the compound in question in a liquid state, and not once, but over a prolonged period of time?
Apparently you live in a world where chemical hazards are limited to touching substances.
Things work differently on my planet, where noxious chemicals are inhaled, etc. during manufacturing processes.
I'm concerned about the camera owners, but more concerned about the people who have to work manufacturing this stuff. Wouldn't they have come into contact with the compound in question in a liquid state, and not once, but over a prolonged period of time?
nevada5: I was always impressed with the IQ right up to the edges with my G1X. Image #0135, the corners make me wonder what's going on here???
On a camera with a lens this size with these specs, it was predictable. At wide angle, they are stretching the heck out of an image circle which likely does not even fill the frame.
If you could see the uncorrected pre-raw image, it might look something like a fisheye lens with black corners.
Joseph S Wisniewski: Wonder how many uFT lenses will cover the 25.3mm Super35 image circle.
Weird. If Panasonic hadn't recently dumped all their JVC Kenwood stock (they were JVC's largest single investor for half a century) I'd say "oh look, a Panasonic subsidiary has joined four thirds".
But right now, it makes no sense.
Also, many many FF lenses are adaptable to m43, pretty much everything.
Johannes Zander: 4k is not enough! I wait for 16k.Until then I I am happy with HD.With me not resolution is lacking but the skil and the crew and additional gear. For me as an Amateur the Nikon V1 is just fine.This modular camera is for the pros with crew.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
Isn't 16k in one dimension? You might need a desktop computer attached to your camera to get enough processing power...