Mark B UK: I would like to see someone, ideally Olympus, launch a tough compact that shoots RAW files. How hard can it be?
And note the listed bit depth for the Olympus XZ-10; irony 12 bits.
This is very likely the same sensor that was used in the Oly TG-2. But this camera is usable at ISO 2000 because it shoots RAW. And higher ISOs sure are useful below the waves. And in the rain.
And no the TG-2 isn't useable at ISO 800--too many jpeg artifacts.
Keytsa: Enough with all that Raw stupidity... Why would anyone use raw on these small sensors?! It would be same 8-bit pixel information as jpeg.
The major camera manufacturers invest substantial sums toward refining their image processing technologies. It's what they're most proud of as the hearts of their cameras and a key part of their proprietary competitive weaponry. Processing systems such as Canon's DIGIC system, Nikon's EXPEED system, and Fujifim's EXR system integrate the operation of the camera with the lens and sensor in an attempt to optimize the recorded image.
Using only Raw files from your camera is analogous to buying an uncooked meal from a fine restaurant, preferring to season and cook it at home.
It's the unwillingness to try that's so bothersome.
Because that 8 bit tiff you can get from the raw data sure looks a lot better than the 8 bit jpeg. And the extraction to that 8 bit tiff sure allows much more control of things like WB.
Why not try the process with a raw from a small sensored camera, say the Olympus XZ10, instead of making up incorrect reasons that you'd be right.
Note the sensor in the Oly XZ10.
Know plenty about bits.
You clearly don't know much about photography, why are you commenting?
Jpegs aren't simply about fewer bits; they're about compressed (tossed) data. An 8 bit jpeg usually has about 1/4 the data of an 8 bit tiff made from a raw. And the tiff sure looks better.
Note: Both examples are 8 bits per channel.
Albeit, yes there are better jpegs. However WB alone completely makes my point.
And remember this camera is for use beneath the surface.
Right jpegs are decent from say a Nikon D4, but color and NR sure is easier with raw.
No you can't. And anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know much about digital photography.
Uses for raw other than noise reduction:
Greater exposure adjustment.
Much greater colour control--a point related to WB, but not the same.
Better highlight control.
And your restaurant point is unrelated to the subject, so is not "like". (Here the problem is that small jpeg only cameras rarely produce fine anything.)
So you clearly don't know much about raw, why are you commenting on its use?
tmurph: The nearest competitor is the Panasonic GX7...not the G6 then, strange one that, considering they are both DSLR type cameras whereas the GX7 is more like a Olympus Pen.
The Samsung 85mm f/1.4 is optically the equal of good Leica and Zeiss lenses. The best Fuji lenses are not. Yes, the best Fuji lenses are very good, but no, not extraordinary like this particular Samsung.
Perhaps Samsung will launch a tough version of the new NX Mini, with a few waterproof lenses, AND RAW.
Greg VdB: Still no RAW? Neeeeeext!!
The lens moves when it zooms on an LX7, so that's going to be much bigger.
Drop the bits things, there's much more WB and exposure adjustment possibilities with raw files than with any form of jpeg.
And then colour and then of course a bit more noise control.
And many fewer artifacts.
So several reasons for raw and a small sensor, no matter the bit depth.
Akpinxit: Judging by samples , there was no need for new model\sensor release : same soft JPGs with "glowing" high saturated details (reds , blues) , same fine detail artifacts , added with clearly visible CA and bad corners (party lens fault too) , as for RAWs - can't see much difference (not even advantage) from D7100 or 70D in terms of ISO noise or details .
Which new, 2014, Nikon APSC sensored bodies are using Sony sensors?
And how does one confirm this point without an announcement from Nikon or a scanning electron microscope to read the foundry marks on the chip?
dinoSnake: I still find it laughably ironic on how many reviewers complain about the locked exposure compensation dial...when it was Nikon's standard for over 40 years. And just one of the reasons why I DIDN'T buy a Nikon film SLR.
When the locked exposure dial was Nikon's standard, everyone thought it was "normal"; now that Nikon no longer uses the lock, everything thinks that is "normal" - in other words, everyone accepts what is most commonly handed to them [by Nikon] and learn to frown on the alternative.
I checked, and it's only the 1/3 setting that locks on the exposure dial.
So basically: Not a locking exposure dial.
I believe the dial is only locked in “A”. I’ll check to confirm. But this point was raised and explained months ago.
Valiant Thor: I needed a basic camera for selfies and facebook/twitter photos and this was perfect! A little hard to use and heavy, but not too bad. Be sure to get the fisheye lens for that classic duck face look, plus it makes your arms look thinner.
Really, you have a D4s?
Sure it's not the D4, you know the one that's out and available.
"This looks great for selfies, and I plan on getting the fish-eye for the duck visage look." That phrasing would make your joke work.
anthony rayner: The main thing I'm interested in is the "jello effect" problems that the CMOS sensors have. During mountain biking I find the the "medium frequency" vibration causes significant jello waves in the background and the sky. The Gopro 2 and 3 are pretty sumilar in this regard. There are a few global shutter CMOS products starting to appear, and theoretically that will stop the issue, or maybe a higher resolution CCD sensor could be good, but these current non-global CMOS's are not very good. They seem to be getting better, and I presume that could be because they are increasing the scan rate...so it is possible that the Panasonic handles it better than the GoPro, but just not sure. You'd almost have to shoot them side by side on a mountain bike to know for sure. I looked at the promo and I didn't really see situations that created too much medium frequency vibration (skateboard was probably the closest)...Does anyone know how well this new camera handles the jello effect?Cheers,Tony
I don’t think anybody has handled this new action cam from Panasonic yet.
Do users of the older variation from Panasonic (HX A100) report the problems you’ve experienced with the GoPro camera?
AndreSJ: WHERE IS THE 16-50mm f/2-2.8!!!!?
No body is going to be surprised that this camera performs well and its limitations are just higher then the NX300 as it is an updated and refined version of the same sensor.
I want a test of that beautiful S-Lens!!!
I disagree, I think that it's possible to make the generalization that the optically best Zeiss, Leica and Samsung lenses are easily optically better than anything from Canikon.
The best Fuji and Olympus lenses surpass Canikon too.
Right there are many more Nikon, Canon and Pentax lenses available.
Not commenting on weight.
davidbarbour: whenever I read these comments, it seems 99% of the people have never used the Df….I now own two, they are lighter, far quieter, smaller than the D700. I sold my zooms and the best feature is that with fast AIS lenses, I can easily focus on the ground glass…I never use Auto Focus, far faster to focus on the ground glass. I hardly look at my menu and the overall body construction is superb…I have shot for 42 years and this is an exceptional camera for travel, coverage of events, weddings…the high ISO quality is exceptional…use the camera and you will love it...
It matters what you're trying to shoot and the lenses you plan on using.
It also matters if the best dynamic range (also dependent on the lens) is really important to you.
Gionni Dorelli: I saw this camera in real life a few days ago. The touch and fell and its look reminded me of a Chinese knock off of a Rolex watch you can buy in Canal Street.
The Df is slightly better at high ISO lowlight shooting than the D4, and the Df can be set to shoot more quietly than the D4, so those are reasons to use the Df instead of the D4.
The Df is of course also lighter and less expensive than the D4, so those are two other reasons to buy it instead of the D4.
Making things smaller and just as functional costs monies. Note that the Leica M240 is thicker than the Leica M6.
Rbrt: Ultra wide angle lens may show a wide field of view but is not good for details like license plate numbers.
There are dedicated dash cameras for cars. A Korean company, using the name Lukas, makes some of the better ones, using Sony BSI sensors.