PicOne: Wondering if like the 11-16, how much of the 11-20mm's range will work on a FF sensor? The 11-16 worked on a 5d at 15-16mm, so in many ways the 11-16mm offered a lot of value by giving you a 15mm lens as well as an APS zoom.
I would guess it might work from 15-16 upwards. You can never be sure, but it will be an interesting thing to test.
Great video, and amazing location! What camera was the majority of the video filmed on? It looked very good. was it another Nikon? Also is it possible to use active d lighting during video shooting or just stills?
aftab: Few observations.1. The lens is great. Combined with high MP the camera renders excellent detail in good light.2. JPEG engine is below average, seems to be struggling with noise in low light. The monument scene is ISO100 and the sky and water are full of posterization, a sign of heavy NR. Despite this black/dark areas are full noise starting from ISO200 (first series, sides of the building). 3. Incidentally, all RAW images involve some shadow lifting and NX1 sensor appears to be way behind Exmor or Toshiba (D7100) in this regard. Lady in the beach for example (ISO200), side of her hair got shadow lifted and any modern Japanese sensor would have done better. 4. While skin tone is good some colors appears unnatural. Monument night sky for example.5. Barney is a very good photographer. I like his sense of composition. 6. There is more to sensor technology than BSI and 60nm manufacturing process. Samsung still needs lots of work to do.
Ok, my issue may have been more uncomon than I thought then. Im glad you dont have it. The posterization I was seing was in a differernt leage to this image. But yeah there is probably a lot of bad noise reduction going on here.
I bet you are using either firefox or chrome with windows 7.Copy the url and load it up with internet explorer and tell me if you still see the posterization. I recently noticed this after upgrading to windows 7. XP didn't do it.The good news is that if you use firefox you can fix it by using about:config to set "gfx.color_management.mode" to 0.
Mattoid: Looks like some pretty extreme distortion correction is happening here, and not working. Im seeing weird wavey lines all over the place. Look at the green lampost in shot 4: its bent. As are the edges of the walls of the building in shot 8. ok its an old building but that bad? Shot 24, another example. Sometimes a bit of barrel distortion looks more natural. Did they just go over the top with correction or is there some weirder moustache like distortion caused by extreme light bending (to make the lens small) being hidden here?
Carlnor, Is that condescending tone really necessary? People who see potential faults will mention them. People who want to buy a camera will act deffensively to potential faults no matter what. If you can't see the curvature in the examples I have given, I can't help you. Maybe everything they photographed was wonky in that town, but it's curved, trust me. As for distortion correction, we know panasonic does it automatically for m4/3rds lenses even in raw. And the panasonic rep even said they had to do a a lot of light bending to get the lens so small, and that if it had been a mere enlargement of the LX7 lens it would stick out something like 10cm infront of the camera. So I'm not pulling that out of thin air either.
Looks like some pretty extreme distortion correction is happening here, and not working. Im seeing weird wavey lines all over the place. Look at the green lampost in shot 4: its bent. As are the edges of the walls of the building in shot 8. ok its an old building but that bad? Shot 24, another example. Sometimes a bit of barrel distortion looks more natural. Did they just go over the top with correction or is there some weirder moustache like distortion caused by extreme light bending (to make the lens small) being hidden here?
I don't get what is infrared about these. How would they have looked if they had not been infrared? What would look different?
gmke: Earthquake. Bye, bye, Canon GX1-MK-II. Faster glass, better sensor, All of a sudden, the fast glass, 2/3 sensor cameras are irrelevant too, except that they cost quite a bit less. Sony, premiere sensor maker that made Nikon big, has established a new category here, ThreeThirds, lets say, between FourThirds and TwoThirds. The question, down below a few, asks what factor (inversion of crop) would result in the use of a 12 megapixel portion of this sensor. Crop is 1.3, reciprocal is 0.77. Here is how it is obtained. 19,961,856 divided by 12,000,000 is about 1.663488. Take the square root. 1.2897 rounds to 1.3. 5472 x 3648 becomes 4242 x 2828, or 11,996,376.
Yeah I thought that. It becomes a 12megapixel "two thirds" camera (as you put it). Meaning its longest zoom range is more than 70mm equiv when compared with these cameras.
I think the music sucks. I muted. Its not worthy to go along with a video that took so much effort.
Pentax_Prime: Websites based in the United States should probably work a little bit to give prices in DOLLARS. Just a thought.
You do the maths!
The title is misleading. Makes it sound like the rights to images themselves are being sold, being that a photography catalogue is normally a catalogue of images.
DenWil: In an America of clinical obesity the cameras get smaller and smaller. I have medium to smaller hands and I can't pick up one of these without wondering where my fingers go. What does a fat man or a man with large hands do? At 180#, 2 or 3 lbs of camera is just not a problem. I feel bad for all the sickly folks who depend on these soap bar sized bodies for a chance at photography. Particularly ironic direction for camera makers since the phones get bigger and bigger.
I would prefer this camera to be smaller still. Make it as small as possible. If you want big get the X pro 1, that is ginormous.
This is a very cool looking shot. Should be rated higher.
What is the focal length of the lens and thus the angle of view? What are the dimensions of the phone?
If you are going to delete 'trolling' comments then you are against free speech and you may as well not have comments.
Mattoid: Please do a direct image comparison (with foreground and background elements to show blur amount and character) between the RX100 II and the Ricoh GR wide open at 28mm 35mm and 50mm equivalents. (interestingly the GR cropped to "1 inch" sensor size gives 50mm equivalent)
I took a look myself and couldn't see much in it. The hair on the dummy looked pretty un-detailed in both at that ISO. The nex did look more flattering though. The 35mm crop mode would be best to be used with the GR in that situation. As for size, the 3n body is the same at 34.6mm but the 16-50 adds a further 30mm, so for jacket poketability they are similar but the GR is just slim enough to be pant pocketable, which isn't the case with the nex unless you transport the lens separately. But you are right that at that price it is very attractive, and I actually will now look at that as a serious option so thanks.
Please do a direct image comparison (with foreground and background elements to show blur amount and character) between the RX100 II and the Ricoh GR wide open at 28mm 35mm and 50mm equivalents. (interestingly the GR cropped to "1 inch" sensor size gives 50mm equivalent)
Announcing the DEVELOPMENT? Anyone can do that! They don't even have to release them for the statement to be true. I can personally announce today that I am developing a medium format compact camera with a 16-800mm f1.0 stabilized zoom lens that weighs only 150g and fits in a shirt pocket.
Way to big for the sensor size. They should be going for pentax q levels of compactness. Then the system might have a point.
Button Pusher: I think the burning questions that we have or would like to have confirmed by the DPR crew about the GH3 are if the sensor is a Panasonic or Sony sensor and is the GH3 sensor a multi-aspect sensor. If the sensor is not mult-aspect, why did they choose to remove that feature from the GH3 when it was a selling point for the GH1 and GH2?
its just a 4:3 aspect. 1:1 resolution is 3456x3456. 4:3 resolution is 4608 x 3456. The same height. you must only be looking at "other resolutions" and missing "max resolution"