Snikt228: It's only a tiny fraction smaller than the Sony A5100 and very near the Sony a6000 which are both APS-C 24MP. Seems like it's time to ditch that old M 4/3?
That doesn't follow.
There's no m4/3s camera with more than 16MP.
And this 16MP 4/3s sensor doesn't struggle until above ISO 6400, which is where the Sony sensor also starts to have problems.
11 is not an insignificant percentage of 99.
Right, the A5100 is a bit smaller than the A6000, but unlike both the A6000 and the GM5, the A5100 does not have a built-in EVF.
And the optical quality of those Sony lenses remains a problem. A problem that Olympus and Panasonic just don't have.
norman shearer: This is a very niche camera that will only hold appeal to those who a) prefer the m43 lens lineup and b) covet the small size.
For everyone else the A6000 is only a tad bigger if you limit yourself to small primes and has a much better spec and sensor. No contest really.
That's a funny definition of a "tad bit bigger".
The Sony A (APSC) system really doesn't have lenses to match Panasonic and Olympus here.
Nope, it's a good bit smaller than both of those Sony cameras, and yes I've handled all 3.
Also why engage in the more pixels is better delusion?
HowaboutRAW: The Lollipop OS supports raw, right?
But the question is have you used the XZ10? (Doesn't seem so. And I have.)
Not have you read a review? And that means shooting the XZ10 in raw.
I didn't comment above about the XZ1, why do you think I did? The XZ1 is in fact very good, but bigger. Though I suspect the XZ10 has an even better lens. But you see, I won't claim to be real familiar with the XZ1, or 2,
No, the RX100mark1 and mark2 do not have a particularly good lens, except when set to very wide.
I'm not saying the sensor in the RX100 isn't good, I'm saying the lens in the first two models isn't real good. Not news.
Right, generally bigger sensors help, and it does help the RX100, all models.
So that's misdirection on your part.
I don't have to check the reviews of the XZ10, I've shot test shots with it--more than once.
When I say the lens is really really good, that's from experience.
I don't read reviews in great detail, and never read one for the XZ10.
Why do you constantly assume I've not handled the camera I comment on? Making this assumption is unwise. You've made this assumption before and were wrong then.
In many instances the XZ10 produces better image quality than either the RX100 or the RX100II, because the Olympus' lens is so much better optically; it's also faster. (Note the RX100 model I left out.)
Raising the point about the XZ10 is NOT off topic since you went on about small sensors not being suited for raw.
So you are entirely wrong here.
Mike FL: You want Phone news? Here is the one:
"Xiaomi's new flagship smartphone sold out in 3 minutes"
Yes, it is not TYPO about "sold out in 3 minutes" for:
"The total number of units sold has not been revealed, but a Xiaomi VP said on Monday that there were 220 million reservations for the device."
In the early 1980s everyone thought the Japanese were going to be a massive presence in computers.
Well, by the late 1980s it was very clear that wasn't going to happen. Even if many Japanese companies were involved in hardware development (though never the CPUs) and that for so unclear reason software eluded them.
The introduction of the iPhone caught other big players off quard, Ericsson, Motorola, and Blackberry--even Microsoft.
Samsung made sane choices and uses an OS that's basically been reworked for the last 45 years. And today another party, Google, does the work to develop the version for mobile devices.
Why Sony can't simply copy Samsung is a bit of mystery.
mediman30: Sony, it's time to rock the boat again, we are enjoying it...release the A9 soon! Yipeeee!!!!
I've said plenty, there you go again making things up.
You can do the test or you can skip it, but the point is not nothing.
munro harrap: D750 AA and low pass filter?D7100, same res, half the price, no AA filter-better detail acuity and visibility, than ANY Canon, but why do Nikon continue to put filters in front of their sensors? WHY?Why go back to the dark ages. Why did they ever fit them at all?It is a good question.The 5D Canon is better at making images than is the D3, or the D700, as was the first Canon 1Ds, due to their having weak AA filters.You can see the difference even on a normal typists 1920x1080 monitor.
We should be sold machines without AA/low-pass etc filters, and then have them fitted IF we are unhappy, not have to pay a fortune to have them removed, or wait until the odd rare model appears without one.
Instead these greedy folk programme in obsolescence decades before they make anything, force you to pay upfront for software without which you are stuck with jpegs (and no jpeg 2000) and cant use the camera!!!!
AS bad as the banks.
Nope, my point is well substantiated, we've gone over this before.
DXO uses software models to derive many of its "results". So not hardware testing.
You can look at the DXO website and dig around for that kind of thing, it's reasonably easy to find.
Then the "score" doesn't account for the lens used, and it's not always clear if the image processor is taken into account.
Those facts are massive substantiation.
Example, and this is a well known failure of DXO: If anyone paid attention to DXO sensors scores as serious, one would think the Leica M9 has low image quality, whereas it has amazing image quality, including sensor performance, through ISO 1000. And it's a CCD.
DXO is posting underdeveloped models and treating them a strong conclusions --this is why the scores are next to useless.
In the past you specifically have hinted at having access to more information from DXO, well that isn't the same as the DXO score and you've never shared that better information.
An iPhone is assembled in China. The screen is likely made in Korea, possibly China, but certainly engineered by LG or Samsung.
The CPU is Apple, likely made in Taiwan.
The various other chips are engineered by the likes of FreeScale, Qualcom, Intel and Texas Instruments.
CPUs for Macs and PCs are not made in China. And CPUs are by far the most important hardware.
I have no idea how well or poorly this X phone you're promoting is made. But likely best if it doesn't use a Chinese CPU.
You don't have to believe, that's fine.
You've already made a bit of fool of yourself.
When you post I'm going to repeat my point. And I don't share my raws. So you'll have to actually handle the gear.
Your repeated misrepresentations about what gear I've handled don't do your reputation any good. It is to say the least bratty.
You read a lot like a Sony A fanboy/gal who likely hasn't used many cameras other than say a single example of a Sony A7--and now I won't believe any gear claims you make for yourself.
The Olympus XZ10 has a 1/2.3" sensor and it shoots amazing raws. It's helped by the very very good lens.
And in raw it could realistically shoot at ISO 1600.
Let's hope Olympus replaces this amazing still camera with something as good, but with good video.
The lens on this camera must have been a deep embarrassment to the Sony RX100II types.
Just for white balance ALONE raw makes sense, no matter the sensor size.
You're not the first to be wrong on this subject.
It's a constant refrain from those "explaining" why Olympus shouldn't put raw in as an option on the tough cameras, and it's just as incorrect here.
The fact remains that the high ISO performance of the D3 is much better than the 5D.
Now about DXO sensor scores, they're next to useless.
But in this case, right the D800 sort of equals the D3 for higher ISO work, except the D800 colour above base ISO is really washed out. So it's not at all a serious high ISO camera.
And the D800 has an AA filter.
Plenty of D3 bodies are still working just fine, and that body released in what 2007?
Cane: Can you imagine the outrage in the horse forums when the car was introduced?
The press conference is a different point altogether.
A sports magazine, or website, still needs technically difficult photos for serious sports coverage.
Both the automobile and the horse drawn carriage carry people. So the car versus cart thing is silly. (Car versus horse is more akin to digital images versus film images.)
krassphoto: Unfortunately, Kodak is not a Kodak anymore, even if it says "Kodak" on it. It was sold out, and now whatever Chinese company that bought it is piggybacking on it's name hoping to sell their sub-par crap. Too bad, I loved Kodak...
First the Motorola chip division most certainly still exists as an independent company, it was spun off as Freescale years ago. (I think it's based in Austin, TX.)
Then Google owned the phone division for a while, and likely still owns many of those patents.
So not at all like Kodak. No big part of Kodak exists under a different name anymore, while Motorola does.
The Lollipop OS supports raw, right?
Jim Evidon: This is what happens when the bottom line becomes the only reason to operate a business. When you have the company run by the bean counters rather than by the product oriented management as was the case at one time, then the only thing that matters is increasing profit margin over what it was in the last quarter.
This is the demand of the investment community aka Wall Street. Theinvestment gurus on Wall Street make a prediction as to what the next quarter's profits and dividends will be. If the company doesn't make that mark even though it may have increased it's profits over the last quarter, the company is deemed to have failed and the stock price drops. This is what happens when the decisions are made by the street instead of the company's product division.
It is all going down hill fast and it seems to make no difference what product the company makes as long as it can cut costs to artificially inflate the profit line to keep the investors happy.
Welcome to the new reality.
And the worship of the investor class is part of the problem.
Microsoft stock hasn't performed real well in years, it's isn't simply Ballmer or the fiasco of Vista. It's that people who grew up using computers are now in charge of making mass purchasing decisions.
Also there weren't mass layoffs at Microsoft while Gates ran it day to day.
Investors in the remnants of the Time magazine empire are likely to be disappointed.
And has nothing to do with SI firing photographers.
No, one is talking about banning photographers, or the internet.
Cars in 1900 were an oilly mess.
If we cared about Orcas, we'd probalby ban the screw drive propellers on ships in 2015.
Not news that new tech can introduce problems, and still nothing to do with SI. The internet didn't kill SI, the fact that SI can't generate revenue from the internet through its own stupid policies is the problem.
Several Nikon D cameras, for example the D4, D3s and D4s, and likely the D810/800, D3/D700 can shoot to tiff.
The Canon 5D doesn’t come close to the Nikon D3/D700 for high ISO performance.AA filter or not, image sharpness, which is far from the totality of image quality, has much to do with the lenses used.
It’s pretty safe to assume that for several decades to come photo software will open Canon and Nikon raws. Now there may not be some significant improvement in how those raws are processed.