bossa: I'd like to see a test of the D7100 up against the D800E in 1.5x crop mode because I'm wondering if I could squeeze some more resolution out of my 300/4 & TC-14E II combo with any real quality. I end up using my D800E's in 1.5x crop mode for birds and then end up cropping some more - without a 600mm lens there's only so much cropping you can do.
PS: It'd be nice if DPR finished the K-5IIs review before the K-3 comes out ;-)
I can certainly understand how the Manchurian program worked so well...
I tested (2) 35mm lenses on the D7100; the Sigma 35/1.4 Art FX ($900) and the diminutive Nikkor 35/1.8 DX ($200). I was surprised that the Nikkor was nearly as sharp (you must pixel peep to see the difference) and rendered colors identically to the Siggy. The Sigma a bit more contrasty. The Nikkor combo is so much nicer to shoot with...with the Sigma attached, the rig feels like an anvil. Bokeh from the Nikkor was very nice as well. Not too shabby for 1400 bucks...
Davidfstop: There's a definite favouritism towards the big two.There are lots of other camera's that we have been hungrily waiting for reviews on (Pentax Olympus etc). Nikon walks in and the others get a back heel!When the 7200 comes out next month, will that get a full review too? ;-0The Nikon on paper seem nearly as good as the K5 though.
Yes, this review did come out in a remarkably short period of time...the RX1 took 5 months. And I can see how you might come to the conclusion that they review some of the more commercially viable cameras much faster than those that cost say $2800. That said; I'm a glass half full kinda guy so maybe, just maybe, the speed with which this review was completed and posted doesn't have anything to do with a sales and marketing agenda, but rather a "New Years Resolution" commitment to produce much faster reviews in 2013 :) We'll see...
What a boat anchor! I would no sooner lug that mess around as I would an anvil.
Gorgeous models though...
Richard: you write;" Our early impressions of the image quality are that the JPEG engine is not doing as well as Nikon's in terms of getting the sensor's capability into a JPEG."
Did you come to this early impression from the test shot only or did you also tinker around with the in camera jpeg settings e.g. sharpness, saturation and contrast?
Absolutely SPECTACULAR new studio test scene DPR...WELL DONE...BRAVO!!
kecajkerugo: the sensor is from D7000..at least look like this: on the comparative chart swicth on the D7000 and see how they look like...same (almost same...depending on subjective evaluation).Yet another good camera to take pictures. Not the best in class. Cannot compete with the best m4/3 with picture quality but it is quite there when comared with mid-class m4/3.
Buckle up, the Ricoh GR isa come'n. At $800, its an A killer!...
DPR: You really need to get some hand models if you're going to continue to do live modeling with these beautiful pieces of camera tech. Try some of the office gals...anything but Barnaby's hairy meat knuckles!
You all make very compelling arguments for your own individual opinions but I'm afraid I must agree with Chas RX1. If I needed a compact camera, I would choose the RX100 over the Coolpix A on the basis of value for the money alone e.g. $600 vs $1200. If I were going to spend $1200 for a new camera today, then I would most certainly buy the D7100 and for $199 more get the excellent AF-S Nikkor 35mm f1,8 lens. Just my 2 cents... :)
For $1200 I'll take a NEX5N with the 16-50mm over the A any day of the week! ...and have almost $400 left over for other goodies. :)
DP2 crushes the A.
photog4u: The build quality on the Coolpix A is second to none in its class. That's about all the good I can say about it. The sensor is old-tech, even with AA removed. Auto ISO select is buried in the menu along with sharp, contrast and sat. pictures controls UGH... OOC jpg can't touch the RX100. RX100 raw files are much hardier. Camera forgets self-timer. $1200 for this camera is way out of wack. Sorry Nikon, your trying to play catch up with Sony and Fuji and you missed the mark by a significant margin.
I don't need to justify my post. I bought it, I tested it and I stand by my opinion. But it is after all, just an opinion. If you feel that strongly about it, go get one. Knock yourself out slugger!
The build quality on the Coolpix A is second to none in its class. That's about all the good I can say about it. The sensor is old-tech, even with AA removed. Auto ISO select is buried in the menu along with sharp, contrast and sat. pictures controls UGH... OOC jpg can't touch the RX100. RX100 raw files are much hardier. Camera forgets self-timer. $1200 for this camera is way out of wack. Sorry Nikon, your trying to play catch up with Sony and Fuji and you missed the mark by a significant margin.
OfcrMike: As I read some of the critiques, I found myself wondering if I had been looking at the same samples as those critics... "lack detail", "too soft", "smeared detail", etc - unless we're comparing the X100S to 40MP medium format cameras (we're not, right?) these ooc jpegs look pretty darn good, imho. This is a 16MP APS-C camera, and I think its jpegs hold their own against a 16MP FF DSLR.
I'm almost certain some critics have confused a slightly oof area in some images for being soft or smeared or whatever adjective they were using. The shooter's choice of focus-point with closer subjects may be questionable, but the lens/sensor's resolution is not.
Scrolling down, there's someone complaining about moire in the indoor-girl's jacket. I saw it too in the "original"-sized image when I downloaded it, but as soon as I re-oriented the image 90 degrees, it went away. That was an artifact of the monitor, not the image sensor; X-trans seems to have moire well-controlled w/o AA filter.
You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead— your next stop, the Twilight Zone! ;)
Mssimo: I have had the Sony RX1 for a month. I might return it for and buy the Fuji x100s. I did not like the results I got with the RX1. Very mixed. Auto focus was unreliable. Face detection did not focus correctly. They could fix all of the issues with a firmware, but I will not hold my breath. Fuji has a good reputation of taking care of customers, I really wish I could say the same about Sony.
Thank you for the image samples, looking forward to the full review.
Mssimo: sorry but "I bought it to use as a point and shoot and it failed at that" is a crock of S__T! It didn't fail, you failed. I too shoot with a D800E and Zeiss glass and use my RX1 as a backup. Set it to A, autoWB, autoISO then choose your f number and it works just like a P&S and produces fabulous photos, usually where I didn’t think a photo existed…it continuously amazes me. Don't blame the RX1 for pilot error. You most likely bought the camera to see for yourself if it could match the output of your D800E…the $3,000 experiment has concluded and now you will return the camera.
mas54: Just to vent a bit - why do you guys even bother with on-line samples. Nobody can tell anything from them, unless, of course, they're really awful. The best thing you could do for us is to make some big prints and let us know what the results are. Can we get as good a print as from the a Contax T3 with tri-x?
Nope...and if you scroll down a few posts there's a dude shooting an RX1 in auto and another shooting an RX1 in AEL mode...whatever the hell that is... Ugh...
Make it stop!
atone2: Definately not as good as the original X100. What are you doing Fuji??
Look at her eyes, her face, her hair... horrible rendering...
What´s going on here? I really don´t like the X-trans approach...
To the boys and girls at DPR; it’s taken me weeks to digest your score on the RX1 and I have to say I feel like you missed an opportunity. Gold is good of course but 79? NO WAY! Of all of the fantastic cameras that were introduced in 2012, and there were some beauties, the RX1 represented the one camera in the lot that broke all of the stereotypes and preconceived notions about what is possible and IMO, singlehandedly altered what will be produced and available to us (the consumer) in the near future. Because of the RX1, the sensors, lenses and specifications of many cameras in many R&D labs are being re-thought and re-worked for our benefit. These thought processes probably started with the RX100 but fate was sealed months later when the RX1 shocked everyone. Nobody hates the RX1 more than Leica; Huff didn’t get an invite to last year’s Leica event I’M CERTAIN because he was one of the early RX1 adopters. Your review was well done and informative but your score should have been 88.
marike6: There's a short film about featuring Doug Menuez, who made the Coolpix A sample images on Nikon's website. Impressive work, nice little camera.
Copy and paste following link to check it out.
I love this camera! It's about damn time Nikon got serious about small cameras at the risk of bastardizing some of its bread and butter products (DSLRs). Removing the AA filter was a stroke of genius...BRILLIANT! I’m buying one for sure!
I’ll call this development “The RX1 Effect” …way to go Sony!