AbrasiveReducer: The plastic mount is a disappointment but it will probably be a typical Canon M lens; sharp, cheap, sell a ton. Even the lens hood is included. The 55-200 has a plastic mount too, and it's reasonably sharp and cheap.
Plastic mounts may not be as robust as metal, and would certainly not stand up to years of heavy use, but for a small light lens like this one, I doubt it is a disadvantage.
Richard Franiec: Any M-mount lens release is an indication that the EOS-M line is still alive and kicking. The built in ring light is a very clever if not revolutionary feature.Bravo Canon!
As far as I have determined it is not a ring light, but two separate LED's and I assume, then, that images may have shadows from uneven illumination. This is not to knock the lens, just that true ring flash units provide even lighting without shadows. Test results may prove me wrong, though.
Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul: It's not innovative just re-cycle.
Or, how about the Yashica Dental Eye cameras, see here:
Both have non-detachable lenses, unlike the Nikon. As for usability, they are almost idiot proof and correct exposure is virtually guaranteed as the flash output is constant and the aperture is varied according to the magnification factor and closes down the closer the subject. They also have a small modelling lamp which you can see at the top front of the lens.
Price-wise, they are an absolute bargain compared to the Nikon. The main let down is they can't infinity focus, and actually nothing beyond 1:10 in the case of the 55mm or 1:15 for the 100mm.
Tripod mounted they are capable of truly excellent results, although the 100mm is the more practical lens of the two. I have a Model 1 and III
acidic: 1.2x macro on a 1.6x APS-C body will yield almost 2x equivalent magnification in 35mm terms. Now if only I can figure out what the equivalent aperture would be.
Only a thought, as the equivalent aperture calculation does not affect exposure and you can see the DoF anyway on the camera screen, how would knowing it be of actual benefit?
lambert4: I always teetered on the edge of trying it but the low resolution result was just too imrtant. I hope they find success in whatever they choose, it was acompletely new platform for photography they tried to introduce. Now companies like panasonic have focus pull and other variations. Kudos and best of luck!
Good point. The pixel count isn't enough in itself to equal quality. Whereas a good lens, a la our Canon models, is.
daMatrix: Great! Hopefully the leather bellow did survive the wait on this service.
Well, if it didn't, you can always try here:
Mike Gerstner: Not good......all that "white" on a 16 x 9 monitor makes the pupil close up and shadow details in photos get harder to see.
People who work in digital labs work in darkened rooms with hoods on their monitors for a reason.
Great idea, having the option so the user can choose either black on white or white on black.
Same reaction here. I find white on black background far easier on my eyes, rather than a glaring expanse of white background. At least, DPR, please leave it as a selectable option.
stevo23: To all the folks who held up Lytro as the next revolution in still cameras...TOLD YA!!!
Next will be their exit from VR. It's just a dumb idea really.
@stevo23. "...it was about trying to market a solution that most people weren't even looking for.)
I suppose you could say this, too, about the digital stills revolution. I doubt many, if any, film users were falling over themselves for digital still cameras. A 1 hour turnaround for D&P was more than adequate for the vast majority. And when we look back and see just how truly bad the first digital examples were compared to even average film quality, it is amazing digital ever got off the ground.And now we have seen it come full circle where most people are not really concerned with image quality, just an image i.e. smartphone one, is now good enough.
I, too, thought about it, but it wasn't the 4meg images (my first digital camera, Canon G2, had this, and I was perfectly happy at the time, still am when I go back and view them) that bothered me so much, but the price, for what would have been a very restrictive camera in use. I thought about it for closeup work where the possibility of being able to play with variable DoF seemed a bonus. Glad I didn't pursue it now, as support has died with the camera.
guyfawkes: One of the UK dealers is already used by me, Yippee! Fantastic to see that 127 roll film is there, too. I still get my Yashica LM out from time to time, and will now not have to rely on outdated film.
I should have added for clarity that the 127 film is not spooled so users will need to keep spools and backing paper from used films for self spooling. Not a problem if, like me, you do your own developing.
tom42: Ilford HPS is fast but very grainy, especially when shot at ASA (ISO)3000 and developed in Acufine.Circa 1957 from an old geezer
But Kodak Royal X Pan had an even faster base ISO of 1,250 or ASA as it would have been then. It had grain like golf balls, but shot with an 8X Red filter in sunlight (!) it could produce sharp images from roll film in my YashicaMat. Not really suitable for push processing, IMO.
Jhaakas: It is not a 24-600 f2.4-4 .. but look closely, it is a 8-200 mm lens. The equivalent fstop is f7.2-12 (not 2.4- 4)and it is what it is.
The quality of still pics is great compared to a PS camera, however pretty ordinary compared to a APSC dslr. Zoomed photos have poor contrast, low sharpness and sort of a whitish opaqueness. Even a basic Nikon d3300 or a Pentax K-50 with a 55-200 zoom has much better pic quality.Video is where the RX10 will have the upper hand.. and those capabilities are amazing. However you might get them also in a dedicated video camera for much less price.
@ FredSpain, here it is: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR. And in the UK it retails at a whopping £9,649. Ouch!
One of the UK dealers is already used by me, Yippee! Fantastic to see that 127 roll film is there, too. I still get my Yashica LM out from time to time, and will now not have to rely on outdated film.
Orcio14: Really good pictures. I've a question: are they directly from camera, or after any PP, rather?
Carey, it may take a while for ACR to support the camera, but what was wrong in not using Sony's own RAW converter software and which I assume ships with the camera?
PhotoDiod: Is it coincidental that the only female portraits in the set (which are usually good for evaluating skin tones) are done either in extreme overbearing golden light (#63) or in extreme backlit/underexposed darkness (#68)? Doesn't anyone care about skin tones anymore?
Some do, but you need Fuji if skin tone is important.
BostonC: The shots of birds at the zoo taken by the Ubergizmo's reviewer are just a bit better: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ubergizmo/albums/72157666411691282/with/25525433743/
An interesting comparison, and shows the Sony in a better light. Sorry about the pun. I can't explain why, but the dpr images look decidedly poor on my 1080p monitor. None appear that sharp and seem decidedly flat.
I appreciate that ubergizmo has likely pp'd his images, but at least it does show better than dpr just what the Sony is capable of.
I'm mainly interested in converting images to b/w, in pp, and for this I use Black White Projects 4, a paid for German software program. Nevertheless, not wishing to look a gift horse in the mouth, I've downloaded Nik and whilst I don't find Silver Efex as fully useful as BWP 4, and which has 115 pre-sets compared to Nik's 38, and double the number of film type simulations, for example, Nik is still a great suite of software, and remarkable as now it is free.
I use W7 Pro but I've also downloaded it to a smaller W10 SSD laptop with an i5 processor and 8gb of RAM and it works fine, too.
vladimir vanek: Thinking of google's hobby to collect everything I wonder what the word "collection" stands for in the name of the app/service. O:)
Substitute "suite" for "collection" and it becomes clear.
PhalaNik: Really what is the point? Regardless of brand they all look so bad once the ISO hits the 100k mark that its clear the marketing dept have too much say in the specs. Nikon are simply loosing face here, why do you want your flagship camera to be capable of capturing images at the lowest quality possible by using ISO 3 bloody million. It's a total joke. If you want a real laugh pop over to imaging resource to see the samples at ISO 3m. I can’t see anything on offer from the D5 that would make a D4 or even D3 shooter feel the compelling need to upgrade. Save you cash and get a few lenses.
Well, we've seen manufacturers increase sensor size, cram in more pixels, and so I suppose this must be the next gimmick to persuade the unsuspecting this must be the next big improvement and a must have feature in your next. obligatory, bout of GAS. Ha, Ha.
Franz Weber: 1051 grams. Ouch!
The R1 weighs in at 2.2lbs. I still have, and use mine from time to time. Considering it cost $999 upon its release in 2005, this latest Sony isn't that expensive considering inflation and the feature set on offer.
Within its 10mp sensor constraint, and providing one sticks to low ISO's it produces exceptional IQ.