Dave Oddie: The geometric equivalence (apertures, dof) is well explained and is how I thought it all worked.
The interesting bit is about the equivalence of light, or should I say lack of it.
As the article says "a simplistic measure of standard deviation from a common patch suggests the noise isn't solely related to sensor size, either"
I have always thought those stating that a smaller sensor such as 4/3 was definitely 2 stops (or whatever) worse than FF were totally ignoring the capabilities of each sensor.
We all know generally smaller sensors are noisier than larger ones but by how much can't be stated by a simple equivalence rule.
At the end of the day what matters is the results regardless of format. If they are acceptable to you that is all that matters.
I also think most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in non-low light shots when viewed properly and not pixel peeping and could choose a format based on the other characteristics not noise performance.
Just to be clear, Fuji doesn't make sensors any more. That 16MP sensor in the Fuji XT1 is by Sony.
Fuji does make processing computers, likely for Nikon and Leica, and Fuji.
No, there's no exact formula, and the processor matters too, as does the firmware running that processor. These other elements likely being the reasons that Fuji and Nikon seem to get more out of Sony sensors than Sony. Leica too, at least with the X-Vario, not so much the T raws I've seen and shot, at least yet.
All of simple maths involves substitutions and those only work if all aspects of A equal all aspects of B, and that "all aspects" thing really only exists in the human mind.
steelhead3: Sony production is over taxed.
What does this have to do with Sony? It aint a Sony sensor.
vFunct: It isn't surprising that these are sold out. Nikon makes the best cameras.
Other manufacturers need to learn how to make cameras as good as Nikon. Right now, they are junk compared to Nikon's.
So many idiot photographer think a larger sensor is better than a smaller sensor. They do not know anything about art, and think photography is an engineering problem.
Anybody that thinks photography is an engineering problem is a terrible photographer.
Marty4650: Nikon has accomplished the seemingly impossible.
They are selling a toy camera for the same price as the high end Nikon D7100, and now they have a waiting list and irate customers who have back orders!
You gotta give Nikon a lot of credit for this. I know I am impressed.
Any thing particularly wrong with the Olympus and Panasonic m4/3rds bodies? Or lenses?
They work, they can take high IQ pictures, some of the lenses are excellent, a few are extraordinary. Many of the Panasonics shoot very good video.
camerosity: I wanted to look at one in a shop a few weeks ago. They had ONE in the box, but I wasn't ready to buy so I didn't ask to see it. I wish they had one on display. Just wanted to see how it felt. I'm still very enthusiastic about the V1 though, having purchased three of them (one new, two refurbished) after the fire sale. Have many Nikkor 1 lenses too, including the 6.7-13mm and the 32mm 1.2. Wonderful optics.
In the US, even the big deal retailers don't have display copies yet.
Horshack: This is like apologizing to a child for being out of broccoli at dinner time, out of soap at bath time, and out of toothpaste at night time.
And what about kids who like broccoli? There are plenty.
This is a good, if expensive, camera system, lenses and sensors included.
If it's not for you, there's the Sony RX100III, and the Samsung NX mini, with a limited lens selection and nowhere near the AF speed, but a better high ISO sensor than either this Nikon or the Sony. And the Sony is not exactly cheap.
Then the Nik-One AW1 remains the only tough camera that takes interchangeable lenses and has anything but a tiny sensor.
Nick932: There is a waiting queue to buy this camera!!!
The X Vario is nicely reviewed by customers at B+H's website.
I very much liked the colour I got when I shot some sample DNGs in Oct. 2013.
It also cost $2100.
Danny: A camera with a price-tag like this.. it should at least deliver a special 'edge' to an image. Why do I fail to see the amazement in these examples?
It was what Leica handed out at a demonstration. Pretty much worked out, but for example no 1/3 stops in the ISO and no way of exclusively turning on only the EVF--even from the menus, so not like the Fuji XE2.
I didn't check the firmware number.
Dave Deacon: Keep thinking Portillo will appear in one of the steam pics. For anyone from outside the UK who likes steam trains and the history of them, talke look on Amazon for the BBC's Great British Railway Journeys. Michael Portillo is a historian-politician and does a great series using George Bradshaw's guides of Britain and the Continent. Like much else in the world today, this little island invented it...
Right there is a distinction between the UK and England. However the UK still didn't invent above and beyond other regions.
So I've interpreted things correctly. And not one of my claims is based on belief.
"subtle" is still not the same as "clear". What you may mean is the subtle difference hints at something beyond England. A fine point. But still wrong about the British Isles and invention.
Have you looked at raws?
And I admit that raws I shot with the 23mm lens weren't extraordinary, but they were excellent. So excellent like raws from a Fuji APSC X body with a good Fuji lens, and not quite as good as raws from an Samsung NX body with the best Samsung NX lenses.
The images that I shot with the T 23mm lens were sharp across the frame.
(Sony Nex APSC cameras don't really come into play even with the Zeiss lenses--perhaps with the Sigma lenses, but I've not tried those Sigmas. Having also been disappointed with Zeiss Sony A7S raws, I'm inclined to think that Sony is doing something to weaken the raws.)
But I didn't shoot raws with the Leica T zoom, and I don't know how upto date the firmware was in the T body that I tried.
Grogly: DPreview has done a disservice to their readers with this article. Equivalence between formats comes down to only one thing, depth of field. An f/2.8 lens is ALWAYS and f/2.8 lens for exposure. Here is why this is true without all the technical mumbo-jumbo. Let’s do a thought experiment.
Suppose you went down to your local camera store and bought a hand held light meter to use with your various format cameras. Once you get the meter home, you discover that there is no setting for your 6x9 medium format camera or your 35mm digital camera or your 16mm film movie camera. There are only settings for ISO, f-stop and shutter speed. Why? Because for exposure, all that matters are those three settings, completely independent of what format you use. By the way, that light meter still works with your digital cameras, provided their ISO/SS/F-stops are correctly calibrated.
So feel free to discuss the merits of DOF, or whatever other comparisons between formats, but leave exposure out!
I'm just shocked to see someone bringing up such a thing as a hand held light meter. (Well not). And I'll have to use that argument next time someone starts to go on about "light gathering".
However, as best as I can tell the article avoids "exposure".
Most saying "smaller sensors don't handle noise as well" mean that all other things being equal, sensors with more densely packed pixels don't handle noise as well.
And I realize that you're sort of getting at this in your own terms, but it's still a mislead to say that people say "smaller sensors don't.."
Think of it this way, with Sony sensors of the same generation, and same physical area, the Nikon D610 is a better high ISO camera than the Nikon D800.
Fotogeneticist: Electronic viewfinders are a step down from optical viewfinders anyways. That big screen in the back with a Hoodman over it makes a really nice viewfinder. Like a ground glass focusing screen on a large format camera.
All I can see is try out an A7 and see if it does what you'd want.
Right, one of the problems people have with even good EVFs is being able to see subtle variations dark areas of the image. So that dark sky+stats in the linked example could be better seen with a DSLR's VF or even better with a rangefinder's VF.
However, more important is if the sensor sees the stars in the dark sky and then in the orange part of the sky. And you can't tell if that will happen until you record the photo--much easier to experiment with digital than with film.
Funny thing is that here "like much else" pretty much means "most"--and is in no way "a subtle and clear distinction".
Also "subtle" contradicts "clear", often.
Yes, you are absolutely correct that I should not have used quotation marks around "most", but the meaning is still the same.
Some things were entirely invented in England, some co-invented, and some not at all.
Have you used the EVF on the Sony A7?
Or the Olympus EM1--likely by Sony?
Or the Fuji XT1--also Sony?
Or the Leica T--supposed to be Epson?
Or the Samsung NX30? (And yes this last lags in shadows a bit.)
Now I can see why you'd not want to use any EVF for hours on end, but that's not how many people use cameras.
EVFs generally draw less power than the rear display screens, which is what you'd have to use on a mirrorless body if you weren't using the EVF. (With the caveat that you can use an OVF with a lens of fixed focal length.)
Unlike DSLRs, good EVFs are easier to use in lowlight and can readily display more useful information that the VF on a DSLR.
Are EVFs better in every situation, or even the majority of situations? Likely not, but it very much depends on your needs.
And EVFs have vastly improved in the last 12 months.
RobertSigmund: I am impressed. With the Sony A 7 S, one can still recognize objects where the others show nothing than mud. A breakthrough?
The A7r does not do particularly good detail at ISO 25600.
That point is real easy to verify.
Probably because the D4s is very expensive. The Canon 1Dx is also not included. And the 1Dx is a significantly better high ISO camera than the Canon 5DIII.
The real questions are why not the Nikon Df and the Canon 6D?
About as exciting to look at as a Christies catalog.
Wubslin: Another failure from Nikon. I guess I should be disappointed, but I can't even muster disappointment any more.
How Nikon are still in business is a mystery.
I'm sorry I'm not aware of any tests like that, I'm sure some have been done, but how publicly the results have been shared is the question.
Could you rent a D800 for a weekend and try out your lenses? I realize that would cost $200 and you'd have to put the price of the D800 on a credit card hold, or have upto date insurance for such transactions.
Or good photo gear stores, in the US at least, will have demo copies for customers to try. Go to the store when it's not busy and ask about trying your lenses on the store's demonstration camera, and of course bring a card. Clearly you can't do hours of testing or likely go out doors, but it should get you some sense and is the cheapest way.
Reichmann over at Luminous Landscape just posted a first impressions review of the Pentax 654Z.
Sir Corey of Deane:
You're point being?
Some things were invented in Britain, some not. It's the "most" that be the problem.