peevee1: If, instead of getting 24 fps video in 5:1 and then basing their tests on that, they got just one frame of 1 fps video (and RED is capable of that) in 1:1, the results MIGHT have some validity. As it is, they measured the results of both temporal (interframe) and 5:1 intraframe noise reduction.Just shows that DxO methods do not detect and take into account loss of color resolution coming with noise reduction (and it would mean that their results for X-trans suffering from the same problem would also be too high).
How I am tired from all the incompetent "testers" who really should be McDonalds burger flippers...
Between testers and burger flippers, a majority of jobs can be found ;)
falconeyes: This is both interesting and isn't.
It is interesting because the RED can capture 19 MP images at 85 fps, quite a beast. And of course, at 1/42th s, you just combine two frames into one, thereby halving effective base ISO for slow shutter speeds. For such combined double frames, DxO's measured performance is disappointing actually.
It isn't interesting because for stills with a focal plane or global shutter or flash photography, you can't use this technique without embedding a digital frame memory on the sensor. And this is nowhere near in time.
DxO knows it, which is why they don't list the RED in their rankings.
DPR's headline is WRONG: D800E still is #1 in the DxO ranking, it hasn't changed.
I didn't talk about the HDRx mode, just ordinary temporal noise reduction. You may find the discussion in the DxO forum.
This is both interesting and isn't.
Am I missing something?
Nikon acknowledges the issue but shows no signs of sincere apopolgy?
Because "the presence of dust particles cannot be completely avoided"?
Can anybody beat them in arrogance?
In comparison, we can only now appreciate how Pentax apologized in an almost identical situation:-> http://support.pentaximaging.com/node/1214
D1N0: Won't this make all subjects really short and fat?
It is interesting that even with Chinese workers, this seems to make a factor 2 cost difference. Interesting as we aren't normally offered such a direct 1:1 comparison.
Maybe, it is wether assembly takes place in a clean room or not ... Probably, if I think it through. And probably, they have to rent the clean room for batches of special edition lenses. My guess.
zimarrio: Does anamorphic lenses still make sense in digital cameras?Isn't the image going to lose quality after up-sampling the pixels when converting to 2.35:1?
zimarrio, I think mgrum said the opposite to what you understood.
Scaling/upsizing, then downsampling provides better quality than cropping. Less noise and better resolution. Assuming the anamorphic lens is good enough.
Moreover, just assume that folks at personal-view.com forum and eoshd.com know what they have been talking about.
falconeyes: RGWB bayer pattern (Sony), X-trans Bayer pattern (Fuji), SuperCCD (Fuji), Foveon (Sigma) and now Foveon Quattro (Sigma) -- all are just minor variations of the de-facto standard RGGB bayer pattern sensor.
All variations (which include variations in spectral width of filter colours) are just a mathematically described trade-off between luminosity and color resolution and noise. With the standard RGGB bayer pattern being already very close to an optimum (taking the reduced color resolution of the human eye into account).
The problem is:
Who on earth makes the vendors believe that their variations of the standard RGGB bayer pattern will be paralleled by software makers in their raw converter algorithms which are highly tuned for the standard pattern?
Of course, they won't and rightly so. And after Sony abandoned their approach, Fuji and Sigma are now alone. No way their proprietary color schemes will survive. Just like SuperCCD didn't.
Thanks for all the replies but I meant what I said. I may have a more abstract view on the topic but that's a good thing.
E.g., you may think that Foveon is fundamentally different. It is not. You can achieve a similiar characteristics with very wide spectral color filters where each sensels would possibly capture every color, but with different probabilities. The higher layers in a Foveon sensor act as a sort of color filters for the lower layers.
As I said, it is just a mathematical optimization of luminance vs. chrominance signals. Vendors highlight the differences for marketing reasons. But we all are paying the prize as algorithms aren't as sophisticated as they ought to be.
Btw, I can show that X-trans has less probability for color moiré near the Nyquist frequency at the expense of higher probability for color moiré outside the Nyquist frequency. It is a zero sum game.
RGWB bayer pattern (Sony), X-trans Bayer pattern (Fuji), SuperCCD (Fuji), Foveon (Sigma) and now Foveon Quattro (Sigma) -- all are just minor variations of the de-facto standard RGGB bayer pattern sensor.
A good scientific paper about DFD and an evaluation showing that phase detect and DFD should have similiar performance can be found here:
It is 14 years old ;)
IMHO, the current batch of Sony-based CMOS 33x44mm cameras creates some pressure esp. on Nikon to move upmarket from 35mm full frame. The smaller medium format CMOS sensors may soon become cheap enough and fast enough to threaten cameras of the caliber of a D4x.
km25: The little boy holding bunny in the 10th pic looks like a fake background, used at Sears. But it is not, this is areal place and time. The liitle boy is not looking off camera to drunk uncle Ned. He is hold the rabbit for real. He is at home and has some connection with the little bunny. These are all pictures of all of the contrived images that be have seen in portrait photography. Only these images are real. A little like Alice really going down the rabbit hole.Nice stuff with warm and honest feelings.
Stu 5, why are you jealous if somebody can have two keepers taken within 3 minutes?
Same boy, bunny, clothing, surroundings, I don't see a reason to mention EXIF here ...
Carlos Loff: Is this the best Nikon has to show in Las Vegas ??? Trash, trash, trash - Maybe next year we have a D5375, lol - One week from now, if the D400 is not announced - I swear for the most sacred saints - I buy the Pentax K-3
If you really are committed to stay DX, then nothing can beat K-3 ATM. Not only is it a professional, sweet and (esp. in silver) beautiful camera making the Df looking ugly. But the entire lens line-up (Limited's, 16-50/2.8 or 60-250/4 professional zooms) is nothing Canikon are coming even close to.
But compared to a D800, be prepared to give up a little in ultimate resolution or continous AF keeper rate. Of course, D800 with lenses is 2x the price of K-3, but a D400 wouldn't come cheap either.
It seems to be a maintanaince release targeted at the Japan home market where M sales isn't nil. Could as well mean Canon is abandoning the EOSM mount. They must have taken notice of the Sony A7 and its larger sensor format.
Stitzer23: Does dxomark publish reviews done by dpreview?
And I may add: DPReview has the much more meaningful presentation IMHO. DPR, continue the good cooperation, please! I like DxO tests but really dislike their cryptic undocumented score system.
It is a lot heavier and bulkier than an RX100ii, despite its much smaller sensor and similiar zoom.
Ben Herrmann: CAUTION: Be very careful - I just did the firmware update for the Nikon P7700, and now, 3rd party batteries no longer work. The camera will not respond to any of the 3rd party models that I have - including the Wasabi's that are superior. Once you turn off the camera (after firmware update), it will not start up again with a 3rd party battery (at least in my case). But it will function just fine with Nikon batteries. Way to go Nikon!!!! You Tu_ds....another way for you to make an extra buck now having to buy your batteries exclusively.
I guess the new firmware must identify EN-EL14 vs. EN-EL14a and the check fails with a 3rd-party battery. Probably a bug in the new firmware as Nikon may simply have skipped a test for 3rd-party batteries in the lab. Solution would be to fall back to EN-EL14 behaviour in the firmware.
Not sure though if there will ever be another FW update. Nevertheless, I still don't think Nikon did it on purpose or that all 3rd-party batteries cause problems.
Glen Barrington: I can't help but wonder if the soldier was ever identified. This was a great photo, and all. But the soldier died for a cause, he needs to be remembered, for more than being the subject of a cool photo, I think.
Hmmmh, only person killed. This interview has "each time the soldiers moved out they were mowed down". Strange at least.
Maybe, the "several" attempts were on several days. Has this been analyzed?
mrdancer: I was waiting for DPReview to do a full review of the GX7, but I suspect it will be very similar to this review. It looks like Olympus has adopted some of the in-camera features that the GX7 has, such as the color tool and intervalometer.
I've been shooting with a GX7 for a week or so now. It's low-light capabilities have surprised me. The starlight photos are, well, stellar! With shutter set to 60 seconds with the F1.4 lens, I can capture thousands (millions?) of stars in the backdrop of a sharply-focused tree or un-lit building(although the stars appear slightly blurry due to earth's rotation during the 60 seconds - at least they all blur in the same direction!). It even captures stars when there are bright landscape lights on the horizon.
Of course, shorter shutter speeds reduce star movement, but don't quite capture the depth that a million or so stars can create.
millions of stars create millions of white pixels, or a white wall :)
Number of stars visible to a human eye under perfect conditions is about 2000.
The challenge with night photography is to capture the starry night w/o trails and blur. A fast 35mm-equivalent F/1.4 35mm, or F/2.8 14mm, can do the trick. Exposure should be less than 30s, dep. on the focal length.
With a long exposure, any camera can capture the stars.
@anybody commenting on price:
The 3000$ claim was fake, there is nothing known about the price. DPR article has been updated too.
technotic: Any good for D800 in terms of IQ I wonder.
This lens is as heavy and large as a Nikon 24-70/2.8 and the latter is sharp enough for the D800. If the early comments here apply, the Sigma 24-105/4 won't be a match for the D800 and shouldn't be called Art. Chance missed for a LIGHT and sharp 24-70/4 for D800- like cameras on the road.