Mariano Pacifico: 204 degrees angle of view !!! Neon Green !!! Awesome looks !!! $350.00 !!! Geo-tagging !!! F2.0 !!! Tell me, who can beat that?
Yeap, agree.I was just waiting for this cam to replace my beaten Pentax WG-1
DavidsfotosDotCom: Looks great except I would rather pay hundreds of $ more & have a sensor bigger than a cell phone! How big of a print can you make with this size?
It seems finally camera makers got it right with a reasonable pixel count that is compatible with sensor size : 1/2.3" is about maximum 8MP effective resolution.
Cell phones are usually not as good with dynamic range, specially important if you are filming a scene with shadows and strong light, happens a lot in outdoors sports. I'm sure this camera will handle this situations far better than ANY current cell phone and handle changes in light far better too.Plus a 204 degree good quality lens, better than any of the 24-28mm equiv tiny phone lenses, even the f2 one on iPhones. I tried different ultra-wide fish-eye adapters on both iPhone6 and Nokia1020 (1/1.5"sensor) and none are better than a current good compact camera.
Is this camera so much better than a 1/2" sensor bridge with powerful lens and manual zoom, like the Fuji HS50exr 24-1000mm equivalent, to justify such high price tag ?
Or a smaller, lighter and less expensive M4/3 like Panasonic G series or Olympus OMD with 28-300 equivalent telephoto zoom combo ?(Shorter zoom range but probably better IQ )
I gladly traded the longer reach of the HS50exr by the much lighter and better IQ of OMD-10 + zoom in my recent hikes and travels
Dpreviewmember: Fuji doesn't understand the market for bridge cams !
After shotting a lot with my Fuji HS20 and HS50 bridge cams, only in 8MP mode, (16MP EXR 1/2" sensor) I wouldn't expect anything but awful IQ for the S1's 16MP 1/2.3" even at 50% crops as is definitely confirmed by these samples. Unless you are an impressionist artist and enjoy mushy pictures ;-)
Why camera manufacturers don't realize that 16MP is a lot for a sensor of this size, 8MP would give better IQ specially in low light, faster processing of files and would be perfect for small to medium size prints as well as showing on 2MP fullHD and 4K TVs/monitors, which is what most buyers of this kind of cam actually do. So why insisting on MP counts ?
It is curious that they seem to understand this for premium cameras but not for bridges, maybe is because they want to increase the zoom even more with digital zoom (in camera crop).Look for example the Olympus Stylus-1, XZ-1 and XZ-2 with their 1/1.7" sensor, as well as Fuji's X10, 20 and 30. They respect the sensor MP limit to 12MP on these premium cams but yet insist on 16MP on smaller sensor bridges. That is what doesn't make any sense to me.
Agree, Nokia 1020 1/1.5" sensor performs this trick with quite good results. What I'm saying is that going to 16MP in a 1/2" sensor does not gives better IQ that the same sensor with 8MP since the effective ressolution of this sensor is about 10MP, so you don't gain anything extra except noise by increasing the MP count beyond the limits imposed by physics. Unless of course some sort of oversampling is used like Nokia's Pureview or Fuji's EXR trick, the latter being not so effective as the former.
OneLeggedCat: "and one of the very few with Raw support" ... Wut?
fuji finepix Hs50exr as well as older models also shoot Raw and with bether IQ than S1
Fuji doesn't understand the market for bridge cams !
rgames1: Interesting but I'm skeptical that the variation in number of photons can cause anywhere near the amount of noise produced by the camera electronics.
The argument is made by comparing to tubes collecting raindrops. However, nowhere in the article does it say how many photons are captured in the shadow pixels, so the comparison is never backed up with any data. Making the argument requires that that number be established then compared to the variation in number of photons.
So, how many photons are captured by each pixel in the shadows? Further, what is the variation in that number? My strong suspicion is that the variation in number of photons in any part of the image is still extremely small compared to the number captured but that information is nowhere to be found. That information is implied by the analogy but never quantified.
The answer to those questions will show whether or not the analogy is valid.
Maybe they could invent some 8MP system of 3 small 1/2.5" sensors and lenses for cell phones, one for each RGB color and then the smartphone processor combines them to form one image. having a larger area per pixel and much better signal to noise values. The electronic shutter in my phone reaches 1/16000s so why not also take a picture with the lenses closed first to get the noise and immediately get the photo subtracting the black one with the noise ?
Rgibbons and Rishi, I understand that in astro-photography the very long exposures bring thermal noise mainly. But here I was talking exposures of even 1/2s, not really long at all. My camera shows clear image degradation in choices such as : go to ISO3200 + 1/2s or go with smaller ISOs + longer exposures ?I believe in my HS20 Fuji cam it must be a fault in the 1/2" EXR sensor design. I compared the 16MP EXR mode with the 8MP EXR mode both at ISO3200. All tests where made in manual mode, allowing the camera to cool down for the exact same times, complete darkness, cold night, LCD turned off, same conditions except ISO, MPixels and DR% mode:http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399142031/photos/2706187/hs20exr-iso3200-dr100-16mpAlso I noticed the OIS system adds to the electronic noise.So in my particular small sensor EXR camera electronic noise seems by far more important and noticed even for regular exposure photography. Maybe M4/3 and larger sensor cameras are a different story ?
Sorry Rishi but I have to agree with rgames1 in this case, at least with small sensor cameras like mine the thermal and/or circuit noise is way more evident than the random nature of gathered light.This electronic noise is larger the longer the exposure so in practical terms each sensor-camera-lens combination probably have an optimal exposure time versus available light.A simple sensor test (see my gallery) can prove that :just put the cover in your lens, let the camera inside the bag in a completely dark room and take pictures at different ISO and shutter times. Since there is no light at all the illuminated pixels are pure electronic noise.My small sensor cameras look like a starry night.Noise is random contrary to signal, so if the camera took a burst of pictures of in succession and added them the signal to noise ratio would be larger, similar to old CD disk players from the 90s when their advertising would say things like "16 times oversampling".
steve_hoge: Can't tell from the photos - is it possible to thread filters onto this lens?
Hummm, I was hopping the Cla14 was shorter than the 13 but at the same time allowed the Tcon17 to fit without hitting the lens at full tele position.
The builtin ND filter is 3 ? I have a Variable ND that it very convenient in different situations and someone wrote in a review that the cla14 doesn' t add vigneting with filters.
Thanks for your input !
not directly, you have to buy the Cla13 or Cla14 adapters, both seem to have a 55mm thread for filters and tele/wide converters.
However, I can't find what is the difference between these two adapters ! Reviews are not clear about that, suggesting you should buy one for the wide angle converter Cla14 and the Cla13 for the Tcon17 tele. Why the Tcon17 wouldn't fit in the Cla14 if it's 55mm ?
If someone knows please share that info.
Will the image quality up to ISO800 and focus speed/accuracy of this little camerabe so much different from OMD-M10 (or OMD-M5ii) + 14-150mm v2 combination ?To balance price and size - weight I mean.I know the CLA-14 or 13 adapter must also be bought to add filters and converters,so that would add U$40.
Does the CLA-14 works with the TCON-17 tele-converter or still need to buy the CLA-13 for that. I know that both have a 55mm frontal tread so I don't understand the difference.
Zeisschen: I don't think that those tiny sensored good weather cameras have any future.
Yeap ! I had the chance to try a Samsung NX300, APS-C sensor, with 20MP in a very small body and good kit lenses (kind of Sony Nex cameras). Was impressed by it's focus performance in good light and IQ, plus a smartphone GUI with touch screen.
Good point !
My guess is that the most cameras in the field were smart phones ;-)
Always ready to shoot & share with instant cloud sync, if you are inclined to do so. Hard competition for small sensor cameras these days.
I think that I would prefer to buy, and carry, a OM-D M10 + EZ kit (same price as Stylus-1 & marginally larger), or a fast prime for more portability and top IQ, or even with the larger 14-150mm (300mm eq.) to have the same range as the Stylus-1.
That would be a true improvement in IQ from my Nokia 1020, the Stylus-1 not (not considering zoom versatility).
Jogger: We basically don't need any dedicated compact camera that doesnt have a large sensor, isnt a superzoom, or isnt ruggedised. Flagship phones are already using 1/2.3 sensor and some have even larger.
Hahaha, yeah iAPX I know it looks confusing man !Thing is they decided to create a new system of units, inchesin sensor size does not equal real inches, go figure. They do have some ridiculous excuse for creating that confusion, something realted to the size of tube of an old video camera.Here we go : 8.8mm x 6.6mm has an 11mm diagonal,or 0.4331 real inches x 1.5 = 0.65 "sensor inches" approximately equals 2/3 = 1/1.5 = 0.6666666.....They created a new unit, named it the same as an existing one and didn't defined an exact conversion factor.Definitely not created by engineers. ;-)
jhinkey is right, even the Nokia 1020, that in certain conditions can take photos as good as the X20, does not have the dynamic range (DR) of the X series, or similar cameras, don´t even reach the DR of HS20EXR or HS50EXR with 1/2" sensors. Enthusiast cams are still better than my 1020 for low light and high dynamic range scenes.The trick I use on the 1020 so it doesn´t clip the highlights is to use -0.7 correction which partially solves the problem. Of course most people can´t tell them apart, only if you check the images very carefully on a good monitor.
Jogger is right, Nokia 1020 has a 2/3" sensor with 1x 38MP or up to 4x zoom but just 5MP, 27mm at f2.4, most of the commonly used manual settings of X30 + lots of apps like a great Panorama better than Fuji´s and excellent video/sound performance. Much more pocket friendly even with the camera grip accessory. But not even close to 12fps at 12MP, no Fujinon manual zoom lenses, no use of filters, external flash and converters. So I think there are still many possible buyers depending of what people find more important or essential.I didn´t see anything about the Olympus Stylus-1 with 28-300mm constant f2.8, I´m sure it is able to produce better bokeh then the X10/20/30 since allows the use of more than 112mm with f2.8 and excellent detail and IQ up to ISO800.
Dpreviewmember: it's just me or the OMD M1 jpegs, up to iso 3200 & 6400 look nicer than K3 and X-T1 in the image comparison tool, contrary to what the review conclusion says.Is it referring to Raw ?
I guess some people don't understand what they read.My question was related to jpegs, that's because I, as well as several other people, shoot jpegs mostly for a number of reasons. Having others things to do than to play with raw being one of them. So elaborating on the question : If you would buy a camera to shoot mostly jpegs, judging by the jpeg quality, would the Oly OMD M1 be a better option ?
it's just me or the OMD M1 jpegs, up to iso 3200 & 6400 look nicer than K3 and X-T1 in the image comparison tool, contrary to what the review conclusion says.Is it referring to Raw ?