Uncrop! https://youtu.be/2aINa6tg3fo :)
HB1969: 2003: ISO800 is terrible! I wouldn't shoot anything above ISO400 with that camera2010: ISO25600 is pointless! I wouldn't shoot anything over ISO1600 with that camera2016: ISO3mil is shockingly bad! I wouldn't shoot anything over ISO200K with that camera
(the years and ISO might not be accurate but you get the idea)
@HB1969 I disagree, ISO 25600 on the 5DII (its maximum ISO) is very usable for small images (you can even read some of the text in the test scene) while with the D5 ISO 3M you can barely see the test scene in the thumbnail.
Again where to cut the ISO off is subjective, but to claim ISO 3M as a regular ISO setting (not even ISO boost) is a little disingenuous.
In this case ISO3M really is quite bad, I'm not sure I've seen a top ISO setting with such a high noise level, there's basically no detail there. 2009's Canon 5DII ISO25600 looks miles better. Yes it's always going to be subjective where to draw the line on maximum ISO setting, but Nikon are taking the biscuit a bit here.
On the other hand there is a ~2 stop noise improvement in general, which is nice to have.
uzzy88: What's the point of having a small sensor with same aperture lenses than aps-c?... m43 area is lower, they should push more the brightness of the lens.
They should be able to do longer zoom with higher sharpness and brightness than aps-c, as we see in the 1-inch compact camera market. This would be appealing for switching to m43 system.
It's been a long time since DPR did a lens test, but m4/3 standard zooms appeared to be sharper than APS zoom lenses wide open, especially in the corners. Also this lens is a 5x zoom so you're getting extra reach compared with the usual 3x 3.5-5.6 zooms.
Mike FL: It is sad to see Panasonic is aged and going down.
It was a good camera maker.
BTW, Olympus has Beauty mode for years for all P&S, but not in the newer OMD that I guess Beauty mode is not too popular.
FWIW, below is OMD EM5 Beauty mode:
"It is sad to see Panasonic is aged and going down."
Why, because they have a line that is targeted at a particular demographic who happen to be quite big camera buyers in Japan?
This isn't replacing the G, GX or GH line....
Jefftan: Most interesting product from all company thus farsurprising it takes so long for the 1 inch sensor to be put in a super zoom10X zoom much more useful than other large aperture 1 inch sensor camera
Price is high but it probably would fall to $500 eventuallyI will buy, good product
There are lots of 1" superzoom cameras already, all the others are just "bridge camera" style rather than compact.
mosc: I was super excited!
Maximum aperture F2.8 - F5.9
And then I wasn't
Well it's a 10x zoom pocket camera so you're not realistically going to get anything faster than that for a long time, and these days there are plenty of 1" f1.8-2.8 cameras with shorter zooms to choose from.
win39: This is kind of odd. Medium format is great because of the larger sensor. It makes up for the lower resolution of a medium format lens. Back in the day when lenses were rated in lines per mm a good medium format lens would resolve 45-50 lines per mm while a good 35mm lens might resolve 80 lines per mm. The difference was that there were lots more mm of film with the medium format. You completely lose that advantage putting a medium format lens on a small sensor.
I can imagine plenty of niche uses, such as someone with an MF camera and several MF lenses for studio work who also has a full frame Sony for video being able to utilise those MF lenses better when doing video work.
ThePhilips: > That's what we call 'perceptually identical' to the original.
We have seen such optimizations several times before.(*) Details which are blurry/washed out/etc become even more blurry/washed out/etc. The problem with them, specifically as the photography goes, that it would turn "barely useable" image into "useless".
(*) Though first time without reinventing the file format.
P.S. The comparison is misleading too. It misses the JPEG's own compression strength. One should compare the image quality of the JPEGmini against the standard JPEG files compressed to the same file size.
"One should compare the image quality of the JPEGmini against the standard JPEG files compressed to the same file size."
I did that test myself quickly in Photoshop, when saved at an identical size the Photoshop JPEG looks identical to the JPEGmini version.
ThomasH_always: I do not think that this is "newsworthy". We have had several jpeg variants presented in the past, with the same claim. For example Jpeg2000. All of these failed due to lack of support. And than we have the png these days, created due to the patent-scavenging practice of a Forgent Networks company, and prior to that, Unisys's attempt to monetize on the patent.
For me the deal breaker is the 8-bit color depth in jpeg. Whoever is used to work on 14bit, or the older 12bit raw files, will not use such file format. The difference in processing latitude is drastic and obvious. Size of the customary jpeg files on the web is these days almost meaningless.
What I actually want to see is a lossy compression format with alpha channel support widely adopted in browsers. PNG is great for icons, but if you want to create something photographic with an alpha channel PNG quickly gets too big for web use.
I've done a quick test, and I feel like JPEGmini isn't actually doing anything. I opened the G_G_straight.jpeg file in Photoshop, used the Save For Web feature to reduce the size down to 2.7mb and compared it to the JPEGmini version. They look identical. At 100% I couldn't see any difference, and when I zoomed right in they both have exactly the same level of artefacts. The encoding is slightly different with the JPEGmini version being perhaps a touch less sharp.
It really seems like it's just saving a regular medium quality JPEG, unless the special feature is it decides what the minimum acceptable quality level for an image automatically by analysing it?
CameraLabTester: Consumers want a simple gadget which produces results that make them happy.
The smart phone gives them that.
But Google glasses, 3D glasses, VR helmets make them unhappy.
Using the cloud to manipulate images that they own make them unhappy.
Lytro should discover what makes people happy.
When has an average "consumer" ever been unhappy throwing all their stuff on the cloud?
Andy Crowe: If you're already allowed to submit a resized JPEG then how could they possibly know if you've edited from a JPEG or RAW file? (ignoring EXIF because it's so easy to change)
According to the summary they're allowing photographers to resize, crop and even adjust levels in post, but only allowing those edits on an OOC JPEG.
2eyesee: Weird decision. My experience has been that it takes no more time to edit a RAW file than it does a JPEG.
But the weird thing is not that they're not accepting submissions as RAW files, it's that they're saying they won't accept JPEGs that have been generated from RAW files. An edited JPEG from an OOC JPEG file is identical to an edited JPEG from an OOC RAW file in terms of how much effort it is for the publisher. The extra effort of working with raw is with the photographer in this case rather than the publisher.
If you're already allowed to submit a resized JPEG then how could they possibly know if you've edited from a JPEG or RAW file? (ignoring EXIF because it's so easy to change)
Swordfish: F3.5-6.3. Ahahahaha.
The difference between f5.6 and f6.3 is 1/3 of a stop, it's completely inconsequential.
Eagle430s: SO canon finally released a camera with an evf (something that sony and Panasonic have done a few years ago)..and what is canon giving us? A camera with 1" sensor that is more expensive than sony a6000 with its excellent aps-c sensor.. For me as a semi-pro photographer image quality and low noise are very important , something that 1" sensors will not stand a chance against the newer aps-c sensors. I think canon should hire a new r&d department and start looking at what the other brands are offering the last years.Just because is Canon brand does not make it a super camera anymore
To be fair a Sony RX100 IV with a 1" sensor is also a lot more expensive than an a6000
What exactly were you expecting from a kit lens? (a collapsible zoom no less)
Interested to see full size samples, but I strongly suspect something with a large sensor/lens like the RX100 III will give better quality images for less money.
ArtAlt: It's our own fault. There was this huge chorus of voices asking for "uncompressed" when we really should have asked for "lossless compressed".
I'm sure Sony would use lossless compression if the cameras could handle it, their lossy compression scheme is so simple that it would barely add any CPU overhead at all, making it more complex to support lossless compression may be too much for the existing CPU to reasonably handle.
On the other hand I always though they would change to a hybrid system where it used the lossy compression for most the image and switched to blocks of lossless compression for just the high contrast areas...