micksh6: DPR article incorrectly refers to sensor thickness instead of total camera module thickness, which includes lens.In the source article, it's clearly stated that these numbers belong to whole sensor/lens module thickness:
"Samsung’s new 16Mp image sensor reduces the module’s overall height by 20 percent""Enabling a module z-height that is less than 5mm"
No wonder some readers got confused.
I've read the article in its current form and I still assumed the sensor, not the camera module, was thinned.
AbrasiveReducer: The takeaway is that great lenses can be built anywhere but it's too expensive in Germany. While Sony squandered most of what they got from Minolta (and yes, Minolta had some superb lenses including several re-branded for Leitz) they wisely saw they needed assistance with lenses. Of course, Zeiss is not new to this, having a similar arrangement with Kyocera for their Contax-branded cameras.
Cosina is amazingly capable especially with short runs, producing everything from budget film SLRs to Zeiss lenses but apparently they are not producing some of the most recent Zeiss.
Today, labor cost in Germany is lower than in Japan.
However, the Germans have lost interest in producing lenses themselves, having found markets for their expertise with much higher margins. Exchangeable lenses for Zeiss are like a hobby for them.
E.g., consumer optics for Zeiss (including all income from licenses) is a tiny 4.3% fraction of their overall business today. Overall, Zeiss is roughly 2/3 the size of overall Nikon.
It is true Japan smashed the German consumer electronics industry (incl. cameras) when their cost of labor was much lower. But they learned fast enough to save their automobile industry.
DFUNLIFE: Well... The bigger question is where does the glass come from? These premium manufacturers may vary in their design and what they're looking for but the raw glass comes from not so many places - I know. When I was a young engineer, I worked in high grade optical manufacturing. So enough with the mystery. As not to divulge any secrets I will say that Zeiss glass most likely comes from the USA...even today since it's been a few years since I worked in that industry. Canon most likely obtains it from the USA as well. Nikon has the capability to make their own to high grade standards so they have a few options.. as do the others because there are a couple high grade manufacturers in ASIA. but basically you can count on one hand where the glass comes from - at least high grade glass.
I guess you have heard of Schott and Hoya then?-> http://www.us.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/
Schott is interesting in particular, because Schott, Zeiss and Abbe worked together in the early days of optics...
Rishi Sanyal: Fun little thought experiment:
If we go by sensorgen, the 1D-X's pixels have a full-well capacity (FWC) of 90,000. Since the pixels on this sensor are 7.5x larger, we can extrapolate that given similar sensor capabilities, the pixels on this sensor can hold ~675,000 photoelectrons.
Now, since each doubling of ISO halves the FWC, ISO 4,000,000 will yield a FWC of roughly 675,000/40,000 = 16.875. Let's be generous and round that to 20. That means white is made from 20 photons.
If we generously place middle grey at 3 EV below clipping, that'd mean midtones are made from 20/8 = 2.5 photons, which itself yields a signal with SNR of 2.5/sqrt(2.5) = 1.6, which is already below most reasonable DR cutoffs. In other words, you'll have ~3 EV dynamic range at best, assuming no read noise whatsoever (bad assumption).
So, either my calculations are *way* off, or there's a limit to these insane ISOs. :)
@Rishi, you don't depend on FWC figures because at higher ISO, the wells never get filled up. A sensor with low FWC would just have a high base ISO value, that's all. But for your back on an envelope calciulation, you can assume all sensors be ISO 100 and have the same FWC per area.
@witeken, that factor was per #pixels which already is an *area* factor.
D135ima: Give me a 14stop DR DSLR and i forgive all. I stop to look at Sony and Nikon. I promise.
Rishi, your calculation saves me from doing the same :)Looks ok to me.
Of course, ISO 4m are a marketing gimmick, at 15 stops above ISO 100 and 1 EV loss of DR per stop increase of ISO.
But invideo, you can do both spatial and temporal noise reduction and therefore, 0 EV DR may not look as bad in actual footage ;)
Nevertheless, Canon's asking price for this thing is an insult to the prospective buyers intelliigence.
tbcass: Looks like a great camera but I'll stick with my 3 year old RX100 mk1 because it offers great IQ and the 28-100mm range is much more flexible.
I would like to add one thing. The lack of external charger has never been a problem for me. I bought an external charger and 2 extra batteries for my RX100 but I never use the charger, don't need it.
@fatdeeman That's true. But with the switch to alter between the two modes, it really is a non issue for me. BTW, when powering the RX100, its screen becomes brighter too. Seems that in battery mode, the RX100 is in some sort of energy saving mode.
falconeyes: Thanks for the review.
A few minor points of criticism though ...
- Another category "Entry Level Large Sensor Compact Camera"? Really?IMHO, all Large Sensor Compacts are enthusiast by definition. Who else pays 1000$ in this category?
- The Multi USB port physically should support mic input (I believe an older version of the port actually reserved pins for mic input). No ext. mic therefore should trigger a more prominent CONS comment.
- The RX100m3/4 lost a hot shoe but don't feature a sync port. And there is no excuse why the internal camera flash can't be switched to manual (w/o TTL pre flash) such that AT LEAST a remote flash can be triggerd optically. It cannot by simple oversight of Sony's part. No manual flash therefore should trigger a more prominent CONS comment.
@Horshack, thanks for the clarification.Therefore, the Genesis strobe optical trigger is more versatile than the manual suggests. Good to know. BTW, my remark above didn't apply to you ;)
Nevertheless, I had no luck finding a separate optical slave trigger working with the RX100m3.
falconeyes: Adobe did also update their blog article from 2013:-> http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/adobe-camera-raw-8-support-for-photoshop-cc-and-photoshop-cs6.html
IIRC, their promise to CS6 users when announcing it is the last version with a perpetual license was that support for new cameras to users with a perpetual license would never stop.
IE., that they would NOT *force* customers into CC. Now, it seems they break their promise.
I am now just awaiting see them increasing their monthly photography subscription price too ...
Lesson learned:Two years is about the time Adobe "forgets" about promises they made :(
@Dr_Jonwhat you cite is from the link I provided in my post you are commenting.
Their promise at the time went beyond this simple promise. It was in an interview, just can't find the link anymore. It basically said they would keep selling CS6 as an alternative for people requiring a perpetual license. They didn't talk about a grace period which this now turns out to have been.
Who thinks the photo subscription stays at 9.99$ once everybody is forced into rental anyway?
Please, anybody who didn't actually got the RX100m3/4 to work with a slave flash could stop replying? Thanks.My point was that a 1000$ camera unable to trigger a slave flash should earn a bigger point of criticism in a review. That's all.
The actual topic has already been discussed in the Cybershot forum here at DPR, with no workable resolution.
But didn't they also say they would keep CS6 for people requiring a perpetual license? Not actually forcing anybody into rental?
Adobe did also update their blog article from 2013:-> http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/adobe-camera-raw-8-support-for-photoshop-cc-and-photoshop-cs6.html
Mine don't have it and both strobes and flashes are from best brands.Looking for an optical slave trigger with that option and couldn't find one which actually worked. It is a significant problem in reality a 1000$ really shouldn't impose.
PS I've read the Calumet 300B manual and it says it can ignore 1 or 2 red eye pre flashes. Doesn't mention TTL pre flashes.
I have the Sony BC-TRX charger which I do recommend.1. It charges a RX100m* via USB2. It powers a RX100m* from mains, for extended sessions of usage (the original charger does not!)3. It charges an external battery quickly.
nicoboston: I think DPReview should give 3 independent scores:- 1 score for still image quality- 1 score for video quality- 1 score for everything else
I have no doubt that this camera is "the most responsive and enjoyable". It is clearly a very interesting ans innovative imaging instrument.IMO, there is a disconnect between the final score "85% Gold Reward" and IQ. This unique score is misleading because many readers think that best score = best IQ.
Again, I truly believe this is a great and innovative tool; but I also believe that there are less fancy compact cameras that generate better still images. Your scoring method is too simplistic for an instrument with so many features.
Just my 2 cents ;-)
Size of RX100 and a typical wallet are about the same.And true, many wallets aren't pocketable.There is a reason why most skinny jeans pockets have a separate coin pocket...
Addendum ...... maybe, you can verify this wasn't changed for the m4:1. no "manual flash" menu option of flash mode2. Setting everything to M, incl. ISO, WB and AF, still keeps the flash in TTL auto mode, firing a pre flash.The preflash is visible by a remote slave firing visibly but which isn't firing in the image.
@Richard, thanks, this is stellar support :)
@RishiI tried many things and eventually gave up to use the RX100 in a wedding booth project. The problem is this:As most cameras, the RX100m3 (and I suppose the m4 is the same) uses TTL flash metering. This uses a short and weak pre flash and this pre flash triggers a studio strobe or slave speedlight.
Therefore, when the RX100 shots its image, the remote flash won't fire again (too fast). This isn't a matter of relative flash output, but of unability to sync. The obvious solution is a manual flash mode with no TTL flash metering. But despite its full menu, thisoption is simply missing. A bad oversight which deserves a more harsh voice of criticism, I think.
BTW, there are external optical slave triggers with tunable delay. I tried to use those but haven't been successful. Even for my Nokia 808 Pureview I could solve that by activating red eye pre flash which moves the TTL pre flash away from the main flash. Not so for Sony :(
Thanks for the review.
UneVache: Thanks to DPR to have shown I will save money for something else. I'll stuck to my 16-85 for the moment. I'm wondering wether you get a bad copy or so... maybe it can be useful to check it as it's getting kind of usual with Nikon these last years, even for that price tag, it seems. It seems also there is still no decent UWA from Nikon at reasonable price and weight at this time, wether it is for DX or FX cameras. Nikon, what are you doing ?
Nikkor 20mm F/1.8G is a wonderful FX UWA you will have a hard time finding for a different system. The Zeiss 21mm F/2.8 comes close, but is more expensive and MF.