Jim Salvas: After 60 years of it, I apparently know nothing about photography. At least, according to these judges.
Seeky: Is it me or is the image quality bordering on horrible? Or am I missing something about this "phenomenal and large imaging sensor" (that's how Canon calls it)??
And I have said it before: When processing the RAW files, why not apply NR and CA removal?
They are mostly very underexposed by choice as evidenced by the negative exposure compensation in situations that absolutely do not need it.
Mike FL: So DPR is retesting G7X which is exactly same lens + same sensor + same engine as G5X.
And in order to judge a camera, whether its image quality or its usability and performance, one must venture out into the real world and take pictures with it. Here they are, taking pictures and then posting them before the review. It's kind of what they're known for doing as camera reviewers.
timo: I'm a bit shocked by these samples - there seems to be a lot of noise even at low ISOs, and the sharpness across the frame looks terrible in some of them. When I picked up the camera in a shop recently I was quite tempted. Not now.
You absolutely do use all of the pixels. You get way more detail when your settings are adjusted to maximize the detail out of the lens and sensor. Noise is just there and always has been. Per pixel noise continues to drop, but you can't compare an APS-C or FF pixel to a 1" sensor pixel....unless it just so happens they have the same pixel pitch. But then you view those images on a screen at 100% and the perception is different. A much smaller pixel is now being displayed on your screen.....but your screen isn't using a much smaller pixel to display it. Take that same 20MP image and look at it 1:1 on a 4K monitor instead of a 1080 and your mind will be blown. Where's all that noise? The image is stunning! Look at all that amazing detail. I own very high quality calibrated monitors and speak from experience.
They all have internal JPEG processing that is entirely different from each other as well. Canon tends to not crush detail by aggressively going after noise on their more expensive cameras. Their cheap point and shoots treat the shooter like they are ignorant of the technicalities of digital imaging because they mostly are. These 1" sensor compacts are made for people who are likely more sophisticated, probably shooting much larger sensors and in need of a small camera for casual shooting.Be that as it may, I'm sorry you're not convinced but rest assured it's absolutely correct. Shoot in RAW and do your own post processing in order to control noise the way you want it controlled. I shoot with extremely expensive gear and no matter how perfect the shot at ISO 100 I still apply noise reduction in ACR (25, 0, 25, 0) and then sharpening (125, 1.2) and the noise just vanishes while maintaining all of my detail.Don't let a poorly exposed shot make you think the sensor is worse than it is.
Excellent missing of the point and liking of your own post.
Your point regarding the similarities of the camera is moot. Every manufacturer makes very similar cameras with slightly different features and there's nothing wrong with that or using the same lens or sensor. The point is this camera offers different features and takes excellent images. If it's not for you then perhaps you'd be better off enjoying your camera of choice rather than making it your personal mission to educate people you obviously don't believe can think for themselves.
What I'm getting at is that you are interpreting these images incorrectly. One issue that came about with the modern pixel densities is that pixel peepers need to adjust the way they look at resolution, noise, and exposure. When you look at images at 100% it's way easier to notice the appearance of noise even in tiny amounts. When the 7D came out people lost their minds because they thought sensors were suddenly noisier than ever. They actually had less noise but looking at the image at 1:1 meant you were looking at a billboard sized image rather than a poster. The secret is to put the noise in context of the resolution and get real about your expectations. You are the problem, not the sensor. That tiny amount of noise would be imperceptible at anything less than maybe a 20X30 print. Compared to the rest of photographic history that is mind blowingly great, and even today it would take an APS-C or FF sensor to do better.
Okay, so the images were shot in RAW+JPEG mode I'm assuming based on the gallery stating in the image notes for IMG_0839 "Straight-out-of-camera JPEG" and the one next to it labeled RAW with the original file available for download. Also, this particular image was shot at -2/3 exposure compensation. Why? That image is underexposed in every area except the specular highlights that are impossible to save not to mention unnecessary to save. Even at base ISO if you underexpose an image you get noise. It's just how things work because you've reduced the signal to the point that the S/N ratio inherent in any sensor will become a higher proportion of the pixel output.There are plenty of good reasons to underexpose an image, but on that particular one I don't get it. I really don't think they believe in ETTR or perhaps they simply had an artistic or practical desire in that case that isn't obvious. Still, this 1" sensor here and in Sony cameras is the best you're going to get.
Mike,Why so bitter? I like how your copy and paste of the conclusion is just the list of cons. I also like how DPR doesn't have any proofreaders...."Focusing can inconsistent."Seriously, it's a camera; what did it ever do to you? You barely post anything in actual forums. Your comments are almost entirely anti-Canon/pro-anyone else. I just don't get your crusade. Does your Panasonic stop working if someone buys a Canon?DPR tests all camera releases that people care about and they can get their hands on. When they write the review they can't say "it's so similar to another camera that we decided to copy/paste the review." Really ironic that your "..." Pro section in reality includes some pretty important ways it's better than the competition. But you don't really care about such trivialities it appears.
mpgxsvcd: That lens is unusable even a 1/3 of the way through the frame from the center. Absolutely terrible. This camera should be on the “Don’t Buy” list if these test images are any indication of its performance.
Will Dpreview comment on whether these samples are indicative of what we should expect from the camera or were there outside influences like camera shake that caused the blurriness?
Oh, I guess my brain was trying to come up with a reason this camera was having such serious corner issues. I was actually looking at RX1 and RX10 for different reasons, so you know...my bad. Man, at 5.6 the corners are still that bad? Buy a DSLR mpgxsvcd.
I think for the scenario you described you'd be better off with a DSLR. Ultra-zoom compacts do not deal well with corners. A decent DSLR body with a really great prime or even a good zoom (17-55 EF-S maybe) would get you way sharper corners up close.
JaimeA: Good, positive review, insightful, detailed and carefully done. But the photographs! They do a terrible injustice to the camera. Looking like a compendium of friends’ portraits on a trek to a lousy outdoors, many are overexposed, blurry and all horribly composed. There are no corners visible where one can check the sharpness or the resolution. There is no grand interior or for that matter exterior view to appreciate the virtues of the camera. If the review presents a most desirable, superb camera, the photographs shown give it a resounding lie. A friend of ours commented on how nobody on the editorial board thought of removing the offensive image of a man shoving the sole of his shoe to the viewer. We tested the camera in the Sony showroom in New York (Madison Avenue). Based on that and now amply corroborated by dpreview’s review we will buy a couple.
JaimeA, it's almost like you have some idea of what you're doing.
JaimeA, what are you talking about someone shoving the sole of their shoe at the camera? I see a picture of a guy with his foot up on a table and in the foreground, but is that offensive to your culture? In a good majority of the western world shoes aren't seen as an offensive symbol or object. I will say that using cultural norms to censor the media is found to be offensive, but even we still manage to do that most of the time. :)
Ironic that he complimented the entire review and only had a negative thing to say about the samples and yet got the reaction he did.And I get why test shots aren't done a one distance varying aperture, focal length, and ISO; then one aperture varying distance, focal length, and ISO; then one.....you get it. It's because that would be an enormous undertaking and a huge amount of data and there's no end to varying distances. However, if someone just did test shots they could really become efficient at creating a much more comprehensive test scene comparison tool. Maybe that's overkill.
Barney, how is the fact that he held it in a shop in any way an invalidation of his critique of the samples gallery? The two topics are completely unrelated to each other. Poor paragraphing perhaps, but his point sounded a little bit like "this looks like someone's Facebook gallery rather than a review site's samples gallery." Cue a snide remark to reinforce the point. I don't think he's commenting on whether the pictures are good images or not, artistically speaking, but rather on whether or not they are useful from the standpoint of demonstrating what the camera is capable of technically in a real world scenario. You have test shots that are a great indication of certain abilities, but do you do those test shots at different focal lengths, different distances, different apertures to really give a real sense of ability? Maybe you should...I honestly have never understood why test shots are always done varying the ISO variable and graphs replace every other variable.
vegasdood: another way to encourage the selfie narcissism of today's millennials.
By posing girls in a recreation of "The Last Supper"? Are you serious? They aren't on the phone or taking selfies or even portraying themselves as they naturally would sit or stare. They are recreating a modern female version of an iconic piece of art, but with some modern twists. It's funny and interesting and these teenage girls are actually likeable instead of instantly objectionable like most partying selfie photos would be. Get real.
zubs: Read through a lot of comments. The negative ones are mainly Canikon users me thinks. Yes this camera is not ideal for sports, if that was the main requirement then spend 10k on a Canon. The fact is Sony has rewritten the rules of photography, and provided a range of camera's other than A7rII that have awesome capabilities and knock the socks off competitors. Many can't deal with what Sony have done and are probably feeling insecure with what they have. I was a Canon user for a long time, I switched to Sony as it suits my requirements far beyond what Canon could offer. My A-mount SLT performs brilliantly for me, hopefully at some point I may move to full frame. Canon has been on the throne as king for a long time, a Sony revolution is taking place.... Innovation is champion, and at the moment Canon isn't doing much of it.
"Rewritten the rules of photography"? "A Sony revolution"? Wow, what a seething cauldron of hyperbole and self-delusion. Someone can make a good camera without it being the second coming of Christ. Someone can compliment a good camera without glossing over its flaws. You don't appear to be that person.
jamesfrmphilly: the most boring image i've seen today......
But doesn't that say something? Isn't that an accomplishment? I'm serious. When I saw it I liked it for some reason, and I think it's because it's boring on purpose.
If art is supposed to illicit an emotional response I think that is accomplished here. Instead of seeing a group of young girls taking selfies at a party or doing other socializing they are typically known for, here they are sitting at a boring table basically ignoring each other while they have their own thoughts. They look like real people and they look as disconnected from their peers as we've come to expect from adults who walk around/drive while they text, listen to their music, talk on their phone, or otherwise avoid participating in their surroundings at all costs and usually to the detriment of others who deserve consideration.Anyway, it's interesting and different, and in an age of digital images generated in exponentially increasing numbers finding something different is easy to reward...and hitting "The Last Supper" so hard on the nose is amusing, too.
Frank_BR: "Close, but no cigar" Hmmm ... Smoking may be bad for your health, Ming!
Seriously, Ming Thein should explain why, despite all the "limitations" and "shortcomings", the market for mirrorless cameras are continuously expanding, while the market for DSLR cameras shrinks all the time. It seems that the world wants to quit smoking cigars.
I'm sorry, but you're cherry picking your technology improvements. With an electric car you have torque available instantly, direct drive, lower temperatures, etc etc...the only thing that's the same is moving forward. PDAF and CDAF are fundamentally different ways of getting to the same point. OVF and EVF share little in common besides representing what is passing through the lens. CDAF is only more accurate if PDAF sensors are poorly calibrated. And the fact that only a few ILCs can keep up with DSLRs doesn't imply they'll ever overtake them as a DSLR will be able to incorporate a DP PDAF sensor that will allow on-sensor PDAF or conventional PDAF. EVFs are way behind OVFs. PDAF DSLRs have batteries that last for thousands of shots, not hundreds. They're just two different animals and you're trying to pretend it's easy to draw perfect equivalencies in the ILC realm. You're in left field.