paulbysea: So why sensationalise the fact in the headline if the conclusion of the article is that for the intended market segment the changes are unimportant? Well done to Nikon to buck the trend and design a camera for the real world rather than to appease a few pixel peeping testers who are more interested in specifications than real world photography.
The headline isn't sensationalizing at all; its just states the result of one test. It would be sensationalizing, if it read for example like this: - "Studio report: Nikon D5 is crippled by lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR.
nizar ghosn: ok fine, so what?? what is the problem in the new d5 that can shoot cleanly @ 400.000 iso if it is an iso invariant ??? i am not or even you not an everyday shooter that forced to crank my settings (iso) 4 ev steps !!! be cool and realistic dear photographers, i bet you the D5 will show a brilliant color rendition and amazing skin tones way better than it's predecessor, further thoughts will come when DPReview play with it ... cheers
It almost sounds like you didn't read the article. It pretty much says "so what" already, so you are just repeating it's content:
- "In our opinion, the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers should not be overstressed. We issue this word of caution because the intended audience of the D5 is very unlikely to care all that much about this aspect of its total performance. For them, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."
M1963: One for the extra patient. Normally, the use of ND filters results in cheesy pictures made by people who have no taste but believe they master photographic techniques.
"You two finished stroking each others egos now?"
And you decided to join. You can't have your cake and eat it.
grasscatcher: Glad they got microSD back, but they lost the removable battery and IR port that my S5 has. So my S5 us slightly less waterproof (IP67 vs IP68) - I would take that with a removable battery. I will miss my universal remote when I upgrade.
@ adengappasami: So if I think that Galaxy S7 would be good enough for me for the next five years, Galaxy S2 would be too? Good thinking...
To me the phone looks like it was designed by a machine, not a human being. Boring and cold. The design is all brain, no soul.
Bob A L: Is sigma lying about the f1.8 - article says it performs like a f2.8 - one whole stop off?
I think it's an interesting piece of information that the amount of light coming through with f1.8 on a crop censor camera equals f2.8 on a full frame. I don't understand what some are complaining about.
M1963: Why would I want a camera on my credit card?
I don't know why you would, but quite a many people probably would, if it was cheap enough. It doesn't really have to be a credit card, mind you. It can be any card of that size.
M1963: "Photographers tend to shy away from wide-angle lenses when shooting portraits, but DPReview Technical Editor Rishi Sanyal thinks that's all wrong."Don't buy that. Shoot with whatever focal length you feel like. Do portraits with 35, 50, 85 or 135mm. What matters is what focal length better suits your expression. You like portraits with wide-angle lenses? That's fine. You like them with short telephotos? That's alright too. Use whatever you like, not what they tell you to use.
In the beginning of the video Rishi says this about using wide angle in portrait photography: "Personally I prefer...". Nowhere did he say that it's better for others too. The following introductory text (obviously not written by Rishi) is quite an obvious attempt by *dpreview staff" to bring tasty controversy to the story and agitate readers (with obvious success):- ...Technical Editor Rishi Sanyal thinks that's all wrong.
I wish people paid more attention to who says what, and that they wouldn't let themselves to be manipulated so easily.If I were Rishi I would feel wronged by those who wrote the text.
ijustloveshooting: only thing fancy is the uber super overkill price .. other features have just arrived to the competition.no 4K, no ibis, no fast video,,,no true iso100/80 .No ibis is a big missing point, XF56 and XF90 definitely requires stabilisation.Eve n XF1655 needs stabilisation in so so lightning conditions.i hope it has true iso ratings and dont cheat with this one.and i hope it has 1 full stop better DR and noise performance than previous sensor.Otherwise, it's just a 24mp camera.
"Really useful" is ambiguous and a matter of personal opinion. I see a clear difference in average sharpness with OIS and without it even when using non-telephoto lenses. The difference is naturally greater when there's less light available and shutter speeds are slower, but to see the difference I don't need shutter speeds that are so slow that motion blur of people becomes a big problem.
Your examples don't change the fact that in practice image stabilisation helps to get better (less fuzzy) pictures in many situations. You call people who like image stabilisation brand warriors. By the way you fight for a weak case against IBIS, you seem to be a sort of warrior on a mission yourself.
AlanG: I wonder how much you need to pay Porsche to design a plain silver grey box?
Porsche Design is a real design studio, which probably doesn't let use their name in products that aren't designed by them, at least externally. I also assume that they have relatively high standards for technical quality of the products they take part to create. Association of their name with quality is their most valuable asset. Mostly I'm not really such a big fan of their style, though. The Porsche cars are another thing; I like them very much :-)
EasyClick: This is a brilliant technology! It would definitely revolutionise digital imaging. Finally we can step closer to 'film look' than ever before. How long before Sony buys them up? (if they were smart enough) Then again, they might develop their own 'Quantum' film technology with some minor differences and rebrand it as their own. Any sensor development company should be smart and invest into those guys.
By the way, I don't see why the look should be referenced to Wes Anderson at all. It's quite the opposite, Anderson is trying to imitate the film look lost because of the crazy colour grading from Hollywood.
OK, Richard, I understand now what EasyClick meant by "film look", thanks. On the other point, as long as you expose right, I think you should be able create the resulting look of the response curve of any film afterwards by software.
"Finally we can step closer to 'film look' than ever before."
What does this have to do with "film look"? There's no film here as in "photographic film". There just happens to be the word "film" in the name of the technology. This is electronic technology.
Who even wants their photos to have a film look as a default any more? Digital has already passed film in quality, and I most people don't want their camera to set any unnecessary limitations (looks) to the photos. The camera should register the target as neutrally as possible (with default settings), and anything else should be the artistic decision of the photographer - be it a "film look", distorted colours or any other effect.
Our eyes used to be adapted to film look, but most people have already adapted away. Film look is becoming more and more treated as just one of numerous other artistic effects.
ozturert: So Sony still hasn't understood what customers want. Lossless compression should not be that difficult if Canikon can do that. Sony has all the electronics power in the world, why would they not do? Don't tell me "42MP is bla bla bla" because they do not do this even for their 24 and 36MP cameras!But hey, this gives them room for progress for their next camera, right?
"People who own Sonycameras will get uncompressed RAW.People who buy future cameras may get losslessly compressed RAW.
What else do you want?"
The option which you for some unfathomable reason forgot from your list: losslessly... compressed... RAW... NOW! ;-)
Road Rocket: The EU is one massive bureaucratic nonsense. There are unelected wasters dreaming up what ever they can think of next. This proposal will cause huge problems to those who worry about such things. In my own case I shall ignore it completely if it becomes law and stick up two fingers to that edifice of greed and incompetence. There was an article in one our local newspapers where it stated the American Declaration of Independence came to around 7,400 words whereas the EU regulations about cabbages came to over 24,000 words.
"American Declaration of Independence came to around 7,400 words whereas the EU regulations about cabbages came to over 24,000 words"
Shouldn't you compare modern day cabbage regulations, not a cabbage regulation to a 1776 declaration of independence? Even better, compare the average size of regulative texts from different sides of life, not pick up the worst case from either continent. Add to that a description of what was achieved and what problems were caused with this regulation, and you have made an informative comparison. One can make lesser comparisons, but one should also make a point of their limitations.
jmajors: Apple's patent was to address the problem with thick protruding lens that you'd find on very thin phones or iTouch. When you have dual lens, you can reduce the size of lens thus reducing the thickness.
I don't think that you can patent a reason why you do something. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase.
Jogger: "if the camera undergoes sudden motion while recording; motion generally inconsistent with smooth video recording"
most people dont want to beleive this and think that waving the camera around like a speed-addicted squirrel produces good video
"saving private ryan??? really? i was hoping someone would link a youtube video from a consumer grade camera where jerking the camera around significantly improves the video"
You were given a high class example, where significant "jerking" improves the video. If it's considered good enough for a large hollywood production, it's probably good enough for a home video.
Your original comment was "show me a video where sudden motion improves the video". You were of course trying to prove that one can't do anything cinematically meaningful with sudden camera motion (you are not a movie afficionado, are you?). Your attempt was naturally a failure (which any movie goer could have told you in advance).
SDF: Good job Sony for "man-up" and fix the problem.
"Actually there are numerous reports and complaints of a similar sound occurring when Canon (and some other) cameras are moved erratically while shooting video. "
Erratically? Like walking with the camera, or panning moderately?
novak977: For anyone with just a bit of elementary education in video recording there is no issue.This is not pixel peeping - this is way worse - in normal shooting situations, regular panning, and moving, there is no clicking.Only if you start shaking it - or moving it quite dast teh way you would normally do, you would here the sound.I have few hours already with it, and never heard a click/I will fix it, too, but mostly for the resale reasons. And I am sure it will be a proper fix as Sony doesn't need this kind of PR.
"It does require sudden movement."
Oh, because it does require suddent movement on your camera, it's the same with everybody elses? You seem to imply, that every product defect always manifests itself equally, and if one example of a product doesn't have the defect, none of them does.
"Also it is only noticable when ambient sound levels are very low."
So don't shoot those quiet moments? Sing while you shoot? Mix some rap, techo, rock etc. to your finished video?
RC: Seriously ? I just couldn't wait to put my hands on a 5N and now Sony wants me to send it back to them ? Are they kidding me ?Fortunately, I barely use the video function but on the other hand I have to say that I'm deeply disappointed with Sony. How could they miss the "clicking" ? This is not something which appears after a year or two or after extensive usage. It seems that almost every 5N has the same issue. How could they miss it ?!The only REAL solution would be to offer owners and exchange: Sony sends customers a new camera and they send the old one back within a certain time frame. Of course this won't happen, it would cost Sony a fortune but this would be the ONLY way how to handle this whole mess.
"Sound like your are a spoiled kid, this is an example of a perfect service."
Perfect service? They did just what they had to do to avoid more expensive and damaging consequencies, like law suits and more severe loss of reputation. Perfect service would be to first send the customer a replacement camera, and then take the malfunctioning one back. Customers have just purchased a new camera, and now they have to spend a minimum of one week (often probably two) without it, and send the camera back at their own cost.