OneMoreComment: Sony RX 100 opened the way to 1' sensors, IMHO the "G 17" for Canon and "P 7900" for Nikon will be equipped with 1' inch sensor
The Canon G1X already has a sensor bigger than 1"; it's pretty close to APSC.
mpgxsvcd: If you ignore the whole Gold/Silver award thing this was actually a pretty good review.
A Google search does NOT tell me what a "Google Play Phone" is. I know what Google Play is. So I'm guessing such a phone is not readily available in the USA. (I'm clear on what a Nexus is.)
Right, one can use an external charger, but for phones with built-in batteries that doesn't solve the problem that batteries can only take a certain number of charges and discharges.
So we're back to rooting with Cyanomodgen something like the Samsung Gal. S4.
steelhead3: I wonder if this will be the last camera of this type from Canon; it seems like we are reading about newest and greatest from 2005.
Yes, I was wrong about the F-stop. I shouldn't have gone by my memory of the other later Gs.
Look up the meaning of fast.
The G6 (from 2004) had an F2.0 lens; the G16 doesn’t.
The G7 (from 2005) had an F2.8 lens and didn’t shoot raw.
There wasn’t a G series release in 2005.
But that 2004 version sure had a faster lens than the G16.
Somehow I'd bet it's not the last from Canon in this series.
wansai: That is not an improvement at all. Its basically calculating nearest neighbour colour for blown highlights and then doing a fill of that colour.
You can see this by the fact that the "after" shot is nearly just flat yellow. It's basically faking the colour and it looks like it.
I'd rather take the first picture; at least that has gradients and tones even if it lacks the dynamic range to fully express it.
What’s your source for these claims of “doing a fill”, or painting the image in after the fact?
The Isocell image doesn’t appear to have an even yellow hue in the blown highlight area of the original. However that’s a tiny jpeg, so why are you making these statements without access to at least the full jpeg?
And again, on my monitor, even with only this small jpeg, there are differing degrees of yellow saturation in Isocell image of the blown areas of the original BSI image. But my monitor is really really good. And when I first looked at this image on a MacBook “retina” the difference was less clear.
Seems like promising tech.
RStyga: Leica's fluff...
Well a week late: Right those who claim lenses from say Pentax or Nikon come even close to the performance of a good Leica lens aren't going to be treated seriously. And I realize that's not exactly what you're claiming here.
I've used and owned very good Leica 35mm lenses, and there a big difference between good, Pentax, and Leica.
It's up to you to decide if that difference matters enough to pay for it.
It's not like you can buy Pentax 645 lenses for $500.
schaki: The Nikonos wont be properly reborn until the camera uses full frame sensor.This seems like the development of the Nikon 1 system which almost was doomed to fail before it reached the shelves in the stores the first time. Craptax Q is an other joke amongst cameras with interchangeable lenses.The 1" sensor size however would make sense to used more in usual compacts and I certainly would like to see compacts like Cann S110 and Coolpix P7700 use this sensor size it it would be possible.
Then those bodies won't be SLRs.
Nikon already has a body and lenses which could readily take an APSC sensor. And electronics. The Nikonos V.
Danny: Paintshop Pro. Better bang for the buck. Forget about Adobe, they just want to put everybody and his brother behind their Cloud.
Okay, but that's adding more software to the mix. And I think the cost of that combination will be a bit more than PSE--perhaps with specials from Corel.
I have AftershotPro+NoiseNinja; it's good, I don't think it's up to ACR 8, C1, or PhotoNinja though. And even DXO looks improved--the last time I checked.
I too detest the rental only thing that Adobe is pushing and will avoid that as long as possible.
Dafffid: Seems like DPReview would save themselves a lot of grief with a very slight redesign: clearly separate the scoring from the 'medal'.
Put the score chart BEFORE the 'final word'.Then in 'final word', spell out in the last paragraph (as they *sometimes* do) exactly why they chose bronze, silver or gold. Indeed I would expand the final word to a longer subjective insight, and put it and the medal on a different page altogether, entirely distinct from the objective testing.
Constantly reiterating the methodology in reply to antagonistic comments - or relying on the comments of others to do so - must be the least efficient way to justify their thinking, while causing the most antagonism.
What is this obsession with the colour of the medal?
Isn't the image quality the most important, followed by things like easy of camera use? So look at pictures taken with the camera and/or lens at all sorts of settings.
I guess I don't buy wine based on Robert Parker's scoring.
perrycas: We have a 3.2 canon sure shot (?) that my wife still uses it. Over the years, at postcard size jpg' its image has proven to be almost impossible to tell from either hi end film or digital cameras used at the same time in the same conditions. I assume that most people take snaps with their phones. Good on 'em. Nothing wrong with snapping. For hi end images tho, you need a hi end (real) camera with a similar lens.
You have a point but output size matters too. And newer sensors, in cameras and phones, can do somewhat higher ISOs better.
As I say: at base ISO my 2001 4MP Canon G2 beats most smart phone cameras today. And produces jpegs that can be easily printed at 12" x 18".
Zigadiboom: This review is very good but it can be summed up by the following:
Next time Usain Bolt wins the 100m he should be given a silver medal.
Drop the more pixels = better camera thing, that only matters if you're going to do lots of cropping.
The Olympus has an optically better lens, and that lens is faster thru the zoom.
Yes the Sony is better at higher ISOs, but its lens limits what it can do.
You see I have real world shots from the Olympus, I'm not using the studio scene.
And don't mistake, I think the Sony is a plenty good camera, with a very good sensor, it's the lens that's that needs be better.
And Paintshop Pro doesn't do raw extraction as well as even this limited version of ACR.
PhotoHawk: There are much better programs out there for editing photographs than PS Elements for the same price or less. Frankly the GIMP and Rawtherapee combination is far more capable for $149.99 USD less. If one would want a current commercial package the latest versions of Corel's products are quite a bit more comprehensive.
Rawtherapee isn't anything compared to this version of ACR, or the full version or C1.
Jogger: Just wondering which compact camera DPR would recommend in place of the RX100/2 .. serious question. DPR reviews are increasingly irrelevant.
Duh about zooming on a monitor, you keep missing where I acknowledged this point. Quoting myself from above: " (If you mean zooming on a computer screen, then say so.)"
I use variable ppi all the time. That you don't is a different story.
Then more to the point, I don't print at 4"x6", and I crop.
You continually make the assumption that your way of doing things is absolutely the only approach+method, that's not a good way to approach life. And it leads to really limited thinking about the world.
The batteries are removable and there's a card slot?
Joseph Mama: I don't understand the complaints about the battery charger. It is WAY easier to charge using any ole random mini-USB cable, rather than drag around a specific battery charger. It makes for a more elegant charging table.For a whopping 18 dollars, you can buy TWO backup batteries and an external charger from @mazawn. This is what I did with my RX100 and the backups have worked excellent.
Many people don't tether their camera to a computer when transferring files to the computer.
Just like charging the battery in the camera, transferring files with a cable is not impossible, but it's a silly approach most of the time.
Note the "?" after the word "reborn" in the headline.
The lens on a Canon S110 would need be much bigger, heavier, and more expensive to work with a so called 1" sensor, same is true of the P7800/7700.
I think the story of general Nikon 1 series successes would be different if it had been introduced in say 2006. Look it faces stiff competition from the likes of Olympus and Panasonic; it's not a failure of a system.
Well then you have to plug the camera into the charger, instead of simply leaving a charger ready.
Look I used my Canon G2 to charge its batteries for years; it's dumb and convoluted. Even if you only own one battery--which is unlikely.
Okay, that's something else for Nikon to sell the public. I'd be more interested in more waterproof lenses.
The first version of the Sony RX100 had no option for an EVF.
One_Oldman_4U: It would have been better if the AW1 is a "rebadge" V1 with a viewfinder.
I long for a waterproof rugged camera with a bigger sensor, that doesn’t use housing. P&S waterproof camera are ok (I had TS1, AW100 and used some of the other brands) but they are far from good.
A V1 rebadged as the AW1 would have been better IMHO. It will be like the “Jack of All Trades” of 1” sensor cameras. Just imagine the capabilities of the V1 as it is. A small, lightweight camera, with very fast and accurate focusing, rugged, waterproof, dustproof, freeze proof, shockproof camera will be a joy for outdoorsmen and women alike.
The AW1 with the 10/2.8 and 11-27.5/3.5-5.6 is a good start for Nikon’s new addition to the Series 1 System. I would like to see a higher end version of this, the likes of the V1/V2 and maybe V3? underwater camera with viewfinder will be almost perfect. Add the underwater equivalent of the 10-100VR and we have a winner in a whole new category of rugged weatherproof cameras.