Jos1974: the first serieus review of the D750 on the internet!
This was the thing many people wanted to know, honest without blowing things up like other websites are doing a lot.
“seems like we have reached the innovation wall for current CMOS sensors.”
“there appears to be between 1/2 of a stop to a full stop of advantage on behalf of the D750, depending on where you look.” 750vs610
“a result of smarter noise reduction, rather than sensor improvements.”
And in my raw shooting experience, the D750 is significantly better at higher ISOs than the D610.
So that website is wrong, or only referring to jpegs.
It's not helpful that PhotographyLife.com shares no raws for download.
Further suggesting that website isn't familiar with digital cameras "'a result of smarter noise reduction, rather than sensor improvements.'” Processors, and the software running the processors and sensors are important too.
The D810 also improves a good bit on the high ISO performance of the D800. And Sony's A7r can't keep up with either, even though it basically uses the same sensor.
Raizen J: Correct me if I'm wrong. I think D750 is a new product line instead of an update of the D610/D600.
wassim al malak:
Neither the D610 nor the D810 has the high ISO capacity of the D750. It is way oversimplified to say that the D750 is a combination of the D610 and D810.
Laslen: Samsung is trying, at least. More than can be said for Canon. However, Sony is definitely the future of DSLR/MILC video.
Possible. But this is more of still camera, and Sony has big still camera/lens problems.
DouglasGottlieb: I guess they think that a more Fuji X100 style model would cut into M or T sales.
This camera should have an integrated EVF.
Or be much smaller, like the Ricoh GR.
Yes, good Fuji lenses are plenty good optically.
munro harrap: In the Uk they cost £1700, that's £550 more than the D610 which has the same resolution, but lacks Face recognition AF due to the low-pixel count sensor. The price difference is considerable. Is the image quality better? I have really no idea at all.
Whether this new machine is better in UK averaged lighting conditions over a year, remains to be seen
The D750 is a better high ISO camera than the D610, so that's better image quality--may not be important to you though.
One would have to shoot with the D610 on the same day, at the same time, at the same settings with the same lens to determine if the image quality at lower ISOs is the same as the D750.
SkilakDeZoo: I cannot see anything I would say WOW e.g. based on D750-DSC_1434-ISO_100.acr picture, full size, which was taken with a prime 200mm at F2.0, I hardly can say where the AF point was hold or even notice the DoF. The pictures taken with F8 -11, a time wasting to comment. Most of the pictures are what I can get from D7100 except the size. I only perceive FF better with regards to DoF / frame size ratio over APS-C and somehow noise, is there anything else? If the AF point array is the same as D7100 then nothing to rave about.
Harmonics that digital audio engineers ignored for years is part of it.
EduardoKleinFichtner: Elegant and amazing! If you do not like, do not buy. But do not complain, please. Leica is Leica.
The problem for you is that Leica is doing quite well.
You've confused 2004 with 2014.
No what I'm talking about isn't only a turntable thing.
And the terms overtones and overtones are very real physics of sound.
Figure it out.
No, raw is not:
"It is a mean to help you to figure out the settings in your camera and then you can shot with smaller size files."
This claim is simply wrong.
You can look up overtones and undertones, it's vinyl thing, or more advanced digital music play back. You really should know this.
Sidath Senanayake: I think my RX100 (version 1) does considerably better than the samples here. And that's with looking at 20MP at 100% rather than 12MP.
I was hoping that the image quality in this camera would justify it's noticeably larger size (compared to the RX100 series). Sadly it looks as though that isn't the case :(
Yeah, so? Jpegs aren't raws. Also not news to me that some of the files are derived from raws.
Anyhow, extract to tiff if you care about image quality.
So, you've not answered the questions:
"What raws from the LX100 have you extracted, and with what software?"
"Have you looked at the out of camera jpegs posted at both Imaging Resource and PhotographyBlog?"
What on earth are you talking about?
Raw is really helpful.
Also from audio are overtones and undertones, and higher resolution files if digital.
I don't vilify jpegs from cameras with good jpeg engines, like many Canons.
But raws are of course much more adjustable.
Having raw samples from reviewed cameras gives me a much better idea of the overall image quality and high ISO capacity of the camera under review--and jpegs above base ISO often add artifacts that I prefer to do without.
Right about the iPhone, that was a different string of comments about this LX100, there someone had gone on about how it was best to compare the LX100 to the iPhone, and couldn't accept that some would only ever shoot raw only with the LX100. I didn't review the comments thoroughly enough.
mpgxsvcd: For me the LX100 is an alternative to buying the 12-35mm F2.8 lens for my GH4. I compared the LX100 to the GH4 sample test images and the LX100 looks like a great match for the GH4 and my 35-100mm F2.8 lens.
The GH4 has slightly better RAW noise characteristics but I like the color reproduction and lens of the LX100 better than the 12-35mm F2.8 m4/3s lens.
I think the LX100 is a home run. The 1 inch sensor cameras don’t look so great next to it now that we have seen some RAW files.
So by that logic a normal high def display is 1080x1900x3. I've never seen that asserted, except perhaps for something like an HP DreamColor monitor.
No, Panasonic doesn't need a higher resolution sensor for the LX100 or GX7.
Look at how many 16MP mirrorless APSC bodies there are.
Beyond about 5MB: More pixels rarely equals better image quality.
Right the ability to crop (a version of digital zooming) can be helpful.
GPW: Just like their cameras, they receive minor updates and bug fixes
Just a Photographer:
The point is that the A7S which on paper should be the high ISO king isn't even close to the Df or D4S.
And the OP was asserting that Nikon only does minor updates. So I picked this "new" Sony camera which is an improvement for Sony, but except for shooting silently and video it's not that big a deal--whereas it should be.
Higher ISO shooting is one of the areas digicams improve in. Colour 35mm film was never really usable beyond ISO 800.
Clean higher ISOs, with good colour, open up many possibilities that didn't exist as recently as 2008.
phazelag: The Sony RX100 Mark three and the Panasonic FZ1000 images look cleaner and more detailed than the LX100 and G7X at 3200 jpeg. Look at the brushes. I never put my cards on these tests, but it is interesting that Canon doesnt seem to even match Panasonic and Sony using the same sensor.
I also had higher hopes for the LX100, but this furthers my confidence in my RX100m3 and FZ1000 a great team.
Your first post doesn't have anything about the Pana FZ1000 in it.
The A5100 is part of the set of studio shots; the FZ1000 not.
The FZ1000 can't really be pushed beyond ISO 1600.
Actually from raw, at ISO 3200, the brushes are, as expected, a bit clearer from the LX100 and A5100 than the Canon or RX100III. Anyhow deep shadow is the test for high ISOs.
You seem to forget that the LX100's sensor is a known factor from the GX7. Put a good PanaLeica lens on the GX7 and it's easy enough to shoot at ISO 6400, have my own samples, however ISO 6400 is pushing things for the RX100III.
Yeah sure, I'm annoyed.
But rubbishing cameras that don't do what you want without any adjustment to the file later is silly.
What on earth does: "but I assume you use RAW as you have no clue how to take itl" mean?
TheWhiteDog: REALLY! DPReview is doing a major disservice here. Who would buy an a5100 and use it with a $1000 prime lens in a mount that is not even native to it. I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of a5100 purchasers will only ever use the kit lens that comes with it- and that is how it should be tested. I understand you want to show what the sensor is capable of but that has no basis in the reality of how the camera will be used.So throwing that out of the mix, I like the Canon least, its lens performance has compromised the sensor, I guess getting an extra 30mm on the telephoto end compared to the RX100Mk3 has had an effect on IQ. As for the SONY vs the LX100, the SONY has more detail(expected with the extra pixels) but the LX100 has much lower noise, especially at higher ISOs(again, expected). If choosing, I like the LX100 best, it is an "all arounder". Great job, Panny but the SONY is no slouch. Love the Panny's controls far more though(no PASM dial needed)!
So would a Zeiss Otus 55mm be "silly" for studio samples from the D750? Or just something not so great like the native Nikon 85mm 1.4?
Would something like the extraordinary, but native and not $4,000, 85mm 1.4 be used for the studio samples from the Samsung NX1, the NX30 just used the not great kitzoom?
There are Fuji XT1 and Olympus EM1, and even Panasonic GX7 examples that follow the line of thinking about the Samsung NX. (In other words, who really wants to see what the bad kitzoom with the GX7 can do--put a PanaLeica 25mm lens on there.)
Actually yes you did, quoting: "but it is interesting that Canon doesnt seem to even match Panasonic and Sony using the same sensor." It's the "and" in there that causes the meaning of the sensor being the same in the Panasonic LX100 and Sony RX100III.
Now it may not be what you meant but that's a different story.
No, I didn't assume you looked at the default view. But have to suspect--meaning I can't be sure--that you only looked at jpegs.
Also, no great surprise, the LX100 is a better high ISO camera than the FZ1000.
Make sure you read what you wrote too.
The Canon doesn't have the same sensor as the Panasonic or the Sony A5100.
No great surprise, shooting raw, the Panasonic is a better high ISO camera than the Sony RX100III or Canon. And then the Sony A5100 is a bit better than the Pana LX100--not much though.