David Jacobowitz: Important article, but that no credit or mention given to Joseph James is sincerely Not Cool.
He was arguing and explaining equivalence on these very forums years ago, and has had a very comprehensive essay on the subject (more so than this piece) for as long.
I find it highly unlikely that Richard Butler did not even look at that piece:
I agree DPR should have added a "Further Read" section. But I welcome this important article nevertheless.
Btw. I am the author of the second entry in the "Related Article" section of Joseph's article ( http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ ).
About the content of the article itself: I think DPR discusses "equivalent ISO" in too defensive a manner. It is key to understand the entire concept, and it is accurate provided the same sensor silicon design rules have been used by the sensors of two cameras.
@Damien, I appreciate your article and opinion. However, I think it is a bit premature and exaggerated. E.g.:
- ISO 64 may not be real, only a change of the exposure line. With bigger microlenses and no OLPF this would mean twice the FWC and I don't believe this to be possible with an oem'ed sensor not available elsewere!
- The effect of electronic curtain on shutter blur should be measured before writing about. I did it for Pentax K-7 vs. K-5, so it can be done ...
- The inconstincy problems with AF fields may have been fixed, or not ...
- The inconsistencies with flash-illuminated AF may have been fixed, or not ...
- The video still uses sensor line skipping which many consider a bug. Even the recent Cybershot RX100m3 got rid of it...
- LV may still look coarse, did you check?
- LV AF may still be slow, compared to other vendors. Did you check?
The D810 may be a great camera, as is the D800. But the difference may be smaller than what your hoping mind did let you anticipate.
TakePictures: Not sure whether the calibrated photos look better. Colors look more vibrant, sure, but are they also more "natural"?
ColorChecker provides a target in the box, it is a standardized target and other sources exist. Target image is produced by photographing the target.
Lederhosen: Again with the complaints about the clickless wheel? Get over it, DPR. Some people like it, others don't. Your obsession with it is blinkered, subjective, and completely out of proportion. "The wheel does not click, therefore I cannot love this camera!" Please.
I assume the complaint is less thst it is clickless but more the wheel isn't smooth in operation and visual feedback has an annoying lag. A clickless wheel could be fun to use but the one on the RX100m2 isn't.
Impressive. Their existing mobile app is worth a trial too. Works great with stunning result. And it is free.
Most importantly: They seem to develop their own core SFM engine and as far as I can see, it is the only one which is able to run on an iPhone with short rendering times and real-time keypoint detection.
It may not yield the resolution as some of the server-based "big brothers". But the difference isn't huge.
My kudos to the developers!
Maybe your monitor would need calibration too ;)
But the point is: color calibration is for RAW shooters, it creates a much better starting point in post processing (calibrated, natural colours) than the converter's default. Moreover, your creative color work becomes camera-independent. BTW, Lightroom supports ColorChecker calibration via its own profile tool.
falconeyes: I am going to write a blog article about this. I figured out that Lytro light field and Canon dual pixel are just special cases of a more generic class of subpixel sensor cameras. Neither Canon nor Lytro have hit the sweet spot yet though ...
A side effect may be that Canon's patent on dual pixel AF is void.
Moreover, it does probably mean that Canon's dual pixel AF causes diffraction problems at very high fstops. Something worth to be studied ;)
I started a thread about this:
I am going to write a blog article about this. I figured out that Lytro light field and Canon dual pixel are just special cases of a more generic class of subpixel sensor cameras. Neither Canon nor Lytro have hit the sweet spot yet though ...
ironcam: I don't see the point of this thing. I have seen some samples and it looks really soft even when something is in focus.
Wrong assumptions here
davidodd: If Nikon sold this lens for their 1" cameras I'd think of buying into the system.
The lens corrections require sensor data aquired from sub-pupils of the entire lens aperture. Unfortunately, sensors measure amplitude and destroy phase (in the visible spectrum). Destroying phase information severely limits the possible resolution the lens can capture before diffraction stops it. Therefore, the same trick cannot be applied to normal resolution photography. It can be applied to radio astronomy though ...
Ben Stonewall: Lytro is also researching a "multiverse" imaging device using a tertiary subspace manifold and tetrion scanning technology to capture images that are not ordinarily visible in our "phase" of space-time.Small fuzzy pictures of the Emperor's New Clothes are expected on DPR any space-time soon.Why are these charlatans still in business?
Certainly no charlatans. But born out of getting venture capital based on a PhD with no progress (in physics) over work from 1908 ...
Houseqatz: i almost feel bad for the people who cannot see the potential in this device.. almost..
What potential? The invention is from 1908, people had more than 100 years to see the potential ...
falconeyes: This is a much more interesting proposition from Lytro.
However, Lytro is a plenoptical camera, invented 1908 and abandoned since because of the limitations of the concept. This has not changed 100 years later. Only people in the US seem to have forgotten, that's all ...
In order to create useful resolutions and to overcome plenoptics worst enemy (diffraction), very large sensors are required, closer to large format than 1" (however, prefocussing would be required then, something already patented by a German light-field camera manufacturer).
For anybody wanting numbers: assuming the same #subpixels per microlens as the 11 megarays predecessor is used (100), and applying the crop factor correction (assuming 2.7), the diffraction-35mm-equivalent aperture of the Illum is f/54 !! This explains both the tremendous DoF per subpixel (40cm-∞) as well as the limited resolution (limited by diffraction to between 0.7 MP (MTF50) and 2.8MP (MTF10)).
Lytro interolates higher than possible resolutions to hide part of the resolution problem. The predecessor did NOT resolve 1080^2 or 1MP as advertized, it was proven wrong in a scientific paper.
Therefore, just ignore the advertized resolution ...
This is a much more interesting proposition from Lytro.
falconeyes: Best is to combine both reviews, DPR's here and DxOMark as well.
Esp. cf. the RX100m2, the G1Xm2 doesn't look that appealing (with RX10 being another competitor if reach is most important).
G1Xm2 / RX100m2 / RX10:focal 35mm equiv.: 24-120 / 28-100 / 24-200aperture 35mm equiv. (DoF): 3.9-7.5 / 4.9-13.4 / 7.6-7.6aperture 35mm equiv. (Noise): 4.8-9.3 / 4.7-12.9 / 7.4-7.4dynamic range (max stops): 10.8 / 12.4 / 12.6[ref. used for 35mm equiv. (Noise): Nikon Df DxO ISO score]
As can be seen, the RX100m2 does actually at least have the same wide angle sensitivity (f/4.7) despite being more affordable and only half the size/weight. The G1Xm2 has a 1 stop advantage at the long end over the lightweight RX100m2. The RX10 is better even but it is heavier though.
Marc, there are many factors to a camera. If it were possible to ignore image quality and just rate a camera based on ergonomics and portability, I'd go with the Pentax Q :)
But unfortunately, it is image quality exactly which the larger than µFT sensor promises but cannot deliver.
What I do like is the 24mm angle the G1Xm2 offers.
Best is to combine both reviews, DPR's here and DxOMark as well.
falconeyes: This will become the camera with best image quality ever made up to today!
(in terms of DxOMark, it should score around 105 Overall Score and 50MP, even though the jump from 35mm is small (0.79 crop)).
I hope that Ricoh releases the marketing money needed to make this a bold statement for Pentax being overall leader in IQ. The brand needs a bit of hype to make a come back, esp. in the US.
Yes, Credo 80 is CCD, no chance to lead the scores. IQ280 is the same sensor, so chances are high Pentax deploys their famous magic to lead the score by a point or two again. Ask Nikon and Sony ;)
The 645Z isn't a good low light choice. Performance at high iso will be good (ISO 12800 will be like ISO 8000 on fullframe). But not good enough to compensate for a lack of fast glass.
The 645Z will be outperformed in low light by full frame with lenses F/2 or faster.
tinetz: Some nice additional info:http://www.camera-pentax.jp/645z/en/
Nice indeed. However, I cannot like the exxagerations being made, such as: "PENTAX 645Z realizes high-definition and stereoscopic depiction far exceeding cameras equipped with 35 mm-format sensor."
In reality, 645Z with a f/2.8 performs exactly as a full frame with a f/2.2 lens and is surpassed by FF with an f/1.8 lens (except maybe for up to 17% better spacial resolution). After all, the 645Z has a much smaller sensor than the 645 format would suggest.
One should NOT call this "far exceeding" :(
Bold marketing style once created in the US really is everywhere now, including modest Japan.
This will become the camera with best image quality ever made up to today!