"its faster maximum aperture helps it combat diffraction. Remember that F4 and F5.6 on 1"-type cameras are equivalent to F11 and F15, respectively."
Very good point. Is the rx10's superior performance over the g3x attributable to its lower diffraction? Coming from FF, I've always stayed away from f16 for just this reason and prefer to keep at or under f8
With the fall of the inluencers, there has been the rise of the micro-influencers..Instagram influencers with 10,000 to 100,000 followers. But they too shall fall to the nano influencers.
Seems we are coming to the day when adverstisers will just pay individuals who are personally in the market and are about to make a purchase. Coming full circle, they will discover the power of using their marketing budget towards discounting the price.
Michael, you will always be with us through the impact you have had on us all. You uniquely brought together, and advanced the understanding of, the technical and artistic aspects of photography.
Alex Permit: Back to the future with a pellicle mirror? Canon released the first pellicle mirror camera back in 1965. The technology had a small, loyal fanbase but never really thook off. Losing 1/3 of light at the sensor, and 2/3 of the light at the viewfinder were the majors drawback. If I remember correctly.
Not comparable to fuji at all. With Fuji, you get full light at both the viewfinder and the sensor.
I see, got it. Thanks for correcting me.
The pellicle solution would have given more options. For example you could superimpose a magnified live view to aid in manual focusing. Also display a live histogram in optical mode. Of course, with the loss in light I mentioned.
Back to the future with a pellicle mirror? Canon released the first pellicle mirror camera back in 1965. The technology had a small, loyal fanbase but never really thook off. Losing 1/3 of light at the sensor, and 2/3 of the light at the viewfinder were the majors drawback. If I remember correctly.
Timur Born: To get away a bit from the low ISO DR arguments I'd like to mention another fact again: The 12 mp sensor of the Sony A7s II seems to offer visibly superior high ISO noise performance.
So it seems that Nikon chose to offer higher resolution compared to the D4s, while retaining or only slightly improving noise performance. This means that resolution increase was given a higher priority than improving high ISO noise performance.
I am not within the target demography of this camera, but curious nonetheless. Do D4/D5 users value this increase of resolution more than they would value a more substantial improvement high ISO in noise performance?
As a D4s user, 16 mp is fine for me, but I can ALWAYS use more improvement in high ISO performance.
EvilTed: I cancelled my order because of this...
I wasn't going to upgrade from the D4s, but now I feel better because of this.
The comments imply that the D5 has only 12 stops of dynamic range. I find that hard to believe. My D4s has 13.3 stops of DR. This is roughly one stop worse than the D800, which I would expect since the D4S is a high ISO camera.
Are you saying that the D5 has one stop less DR than the D4S? I get the "high ISO" argument, but from the high ISO studio shots of the two cameras (at least up to 51,200) it seems the two cameras perform the same (at best).
(unknown member): D4s looks better at moderate ISOs (52400 and below).No question about it.
HAHA, I love the definition of "moderate ISO" as 52400 and below!
Certainly at the very least the raws seem comparable. To my eye the D5 has more noise processing in jpegs and by extension less detail than the d4s.
How much would it have cost Leica to license from Fuji their the hybrid viewfinder? Would have made for a killer camera, at least for some of us.
RMGoodLight: When I see those pictures I wish cameras would be more standarized like PCs. I would like to change the sensor of the X100T with the one of the Samsung NX500 or a Sigma Merril. This will not work unfortunately.
And as it gets smaller, it gets harder. You can change memory and disk on a laptop but no such luck in a cellphone.
endofoto: Very good at base ISO, but still cannot reach the performance of Fuji at high ISO.
Thanks Richard, very helpful.
I didn't mean to imply Fuji approach is "cheating". "better", or "worse". Just "overstated" relative to "most" other cameras. Could easily say all other cameras are "understated" relative to Fuji. From what I understand, the Recommended Exposure Index (REI) technique for defining speed allows the manufacturer to specify a camera model’s EI choices somewhat arbitrarily.
Good point on the studio shots Richard, I had forgotten that.
Regarding ISO conversion, I was under the impression that the difference was dependent on the ISO, soi that "High ISO" was greater than 2/3's. IS that not correct?
Table below is the conversion I've seen used:
ISO 200 / 0.72EV ISO 400 / 0.72EV ISO 800 / 0.72EV ISO 1600 / 0.72EV ISO 3200 / 1.38EV ISO 6400 / 2.38EV
Fuji typically inflates it's ISO. At high ISO try the comparison with the a6300 at half the Fuji's ISO.
AlexReusch: I think you did not really understand how to use the ISO dial. You should operate the dial with your right hand, while you are looking through the viewfinder. The changing ISO values are visible on the display. In that fashion, it is a very natural, simple and quick setup option. Using the dial looking from above on it, can be confusing and not feeling natural at all. If you use this camera on a regular base, you will find yourself doing adjustments almost automatically, all with your right hand, while not moving your eye off the viewfinder. Instead, being concentrated on finding the right composition.
In other words, I have set my aperature and shutter speed, and am setting iso to get the right exposure. I look through the viewfinder and move iso until the exposure is correct.
My default shooting mode is manual and auto iso. But when I'm shooting in a dark situation, there are times I want to set iso above my preset "upper auto iso threshold". I would prefer not to take the camera away from my face, because its a quick change I'm making, akin to setting shutter speed or aperature. I would certainly not want to try and set it by looking at the dial (which I can't read because its dark).
dlb41: For some reason, I always took better pictures with a rangefinder camera.But I was using an inexpensive Canonet. This is way out of my price range.
The canonet has an optical viewfinder with parralax correction. The gx8 is a great camera, but it has an evf. Totally different experience.
Another big thumbs up for canonet. For the Canonet experience, I'd go for the x100 series of cameras.
In film you changed iso when you changed the roll. With digital you change it anytime you want.
I tend to prefer to keep my iso on auto, but in dark situations I prefer to make the decsion myself on just how high I need to go.
Fantastic article. Short and to the (strongly made) point. More just like this, on other subjects such as portraits and street, please.