Karl Gnter Wnsch: Kudos to Canon, just like the 7D with it's ground breaking AF system (5 years ago it was and it still performs better than most of what came afterwards) they again put in a class leading AF system into their flagship APS-C - yet this time class leading means ALL DSLR... They didn't leave one stone unturned in it, f/8 focusing, -3EV focusing, 65 all cross type AF points, tracking assist with metering sensor (like their main sports pro camera 1Dx), extreme large frame coverage, spot AF, incredible grouping abilities...Pair that with a evolution of one of the best APS-C sensors (the 70D) and the buffer sized to match the available frame speed and you have the complete package that will be hard to beat by any of it's competition...
If you had actually read before your usual ranting from frustration, then you would have already realized that this was based on theory, taking noise from other stages out of the equation. Not because of practical use, but to prove that the sillicon before A/D conversion is not more efficiënt either.
And extra DR at low ISO is not a burden, for as long as the DR in most contrasty scenes still exceeds what the sensors can capture. Your Canon camera jpegs already have a larger DR compressed to a smaller DR for displaying purposes. Starting with an even larger DR isn't a downside, it adds choice. Especially now that OLED displays (>12 EV display possible) are within reach.
Your F1 reference is another clueless one. The Tyrrells were shortly competitive, but their special (small) front tyres were starting to lag in development compared to the regular ones. The ones with extra wheels at the rear never saw real action due to quick regulation changes regarding driven wheels.
Sonyshine: If it had a different badge on it then sales would skyrocket.
For some reason the Samsung brand is sneered at by many photographers and I fear that the branding is what will hold this excellent camera back?
At ISO 1600, the shadow noise is close to the shadow noise of the 12 MP Exmor sensor from 2010 at ISO 3200. At ISO 3200, it's equal or worse than the Exmor at ISO 6400 in shadows.
KameraFever: You know who will not sneer away from this camera? Videographers, care least about about what the name badge. If the NX1 delivers the goods in great 4k video, they will be all over this. Did you see the secondary market revolved around the Panasonic GH series? The same thing will happen here.
"Wrong, DXO is using theoretical light sources to make guesses about how the sensor should perform and then publishes numbers."
I'm not digging, I didn't make the "made up" claim. Besides, numbers are not made up if they follow measurements combined with physics.
Not sure how they would "jump ahead", since the sensor in the D5300 would score 14.1 stops of DR and the one in the D7100 14.7 stops using that same formula. For FF cameras, the D810 would score 15.9 EV. Mind you, even the almost 3 times smaller RX100III sensor would still score within 0.5 EV of the 70D sensor.In other words, the efficiency of the sillicon is still a tad lower too, but I agree that the largest difference comes from the A/D conversion.
Far better in a parallel universe, possibly.
Geomaticsman: If Nikon doesn't respond with (or even leak news of) a DX competitor by the time the 7DII is available for purchase, I dare say is sayonara Nikon for me. No doubt the "70D" sensor is a disappointment, but virtually everything else in the 7DII is exactly what I'm looking for in a DX body. Add Canon's superb supertele selection to the mix and superior TC's, plus the fact that Nikon killed my favourite post processing engine (CNX2), and you know...I think I could live with the sensor performance everything else being considered. Certainly nothing wrong with the 1Dx or 5DIII as a backup either.
Sorry Nikon, I only have so much patience...life is short and death is long.
Huge jpeg buffer, RAW buffer is pretty similar (31 vs 28).
justmeMN: The JPEGs should be better than Sony. Sony is known for overly aggressive noise reduction.
So is Canon, but in this case at low ISO smudging away low contrast detail, yet oversharpening edges with halos. Just check the 6D review for example.
Markol: Nice tribute to the RX100 and would have been a killer 2 years ago.Almost exact copy of the RX100 with a Panasonic model number. Great innovation!
They forgot the viewfinder and still the RX100III has 50% longer battery life.
The NX10/NX100 sensor was up to a full stop behind competition in terms of noise at high ISO at the time of release and up to 2 stops in behind in DR. Compared to modern APS-C senors that has increased to over a stop and a half and 2 and a half stops respectively.Even Samsung's own sensors have improved a lot since that one.
They are not made up numbers. They are measured numbers based on many different levels of lighting (see all the SNR plots in their full reviews) and different temperature too (see colour response tab).The only thing they do not account for is patterns, which can and often have a visual impact too.
Joseph Black: It's nice to know some companies choose deliberate development rather than the rapid release of poorly conceived gimmicks. Not to say Apple doesn't have a gimmick here and there, but when they do something they do it right.
The crux, you installed your apps back then, but might have lost support for updates now. People with an older iOS version can no longer install many of the new apps without support for older iOS versions. That's part of the word "support" too.
As is the fact that Apple has been dodging the standard 2 year warrantly laws here in the EU. The only large manufacturer to do so. Not perceived as great support here.
As for your "flagship" claim, I had a good laugh. There have been flagship phones ever since the introduction of the cellphone, long before any iPhone saw daylight.
The introduction of the term "smartphone", did not change that fact, nor removed the existence of flagship devices.
I had a Sony flagship device with a very nice 311ppi screen ("retina"!), metal construction etc., before Apple reinvented the term retina, started using metal housings etc.At that time, Apple was still playing around with 163ppi screens and plastic housings for at least another 2 years.
I feel for them if they don't know how to install a different firmware themselves (some makers actually provide relatively simple guides on how to flash your phone to whichever firmware) and if they are missing critical features. That last part I doubt is the case for most. Because even the first firmwares were already pretty feature rich.
But on the other hand, for Apple phones, especially for older models, it is critical or you lose access to many apps (with support stopped for older models), even many of the popular ones.And this "forced" update model actually made plenty Apple users unhappy for ending up with slow older phones too. Another way to push new/upgrade sales I guess.
Most Android apps, popular ones included, still give support all the way back to some of the first versions.
The story that often doesn't get told in these discussions.
You're all over the place with your arguments. What do updates have to do with the choice of OS? If I choose Android, I'm not going to lose sleep over not having the latest 0.0.1 update or not and I doubt many do. And if they do, they still have choice.If you want a really nice phone with a recent version of Android, there are still at least 10 different Android phones and brands to choose from.
That's your perspective. My perspective is that if you choose your OS based on your desires, Apple is your only choice for iOS and within that OS, choice again is very limited with less than a handful of models. Hence why their sales for single models are so high too, especially with a lock in and little exploration from owners outside their brand of previous choice.On the other hand, for example Samsung has competition within Android from more than a hundred (!) makers. Of which more than a dozen quite serious with worldwide sales networks. Yet Samsung still outsells Apple with about 1 out of 4 smartphones worldwide being Samsung. "Freaking amazing"?
Those internet statistics are usually flawed for browser registration being inaccurate, incomplete, locally lopsided etc. I've never put any value in them, but you obviously do. And FYI, Google doesn't force its customers to "point to their servers". In fact, most Android phones sold in Asia do no point to their servers to begin with.
@ SDPharm:Hmm, I'll repeat my exact words one more time:"Fine products but mostly hype as a result of marketing. "
So no, I didn't say that all these people bought into hype. I said they are mostly hype.
I have a private Galaxy phone and a year old iPhone from work. I know the differences, weaknesses and strengths. I also know that I didn't get the iPhone because of hype, but my workplace did. Others didn't. But marketing played a large role for many people's buying decisions, regardless of brand or OS. Hence the huge differences between market shares in different countries (even with similar levels for wealth).
As for your numbers:No idea why you're limiting things to the US, where statistics are not representative for worldwide use. At all. As of now, for every iPhone, there are about 7 Android phones being sold. Even in the higher end segment (>$400), they are now outsold by Android devices (with a 3 to 5 ratio).
falconeyes: Does the DPR article contain an error?
All iPhone 5-s and 6-s have 1.5 um pixels, 8 million of them. Their sensor sizes should be identical. BTW, this explains why the camera module has the exact same depth for all models and why it protudes with the thinner 6 models ...
Which would be physically impossible, knowing how close current senors are to the theoretical maximum for a single exposure.And in that last part, lies the key to Sony's claim. That sensor (for surveillance purposes, not consumer cameras), combines multiple exposures to begin with.
Easy words, until it impacts people financially and even in terms of technical infrastructure to quite some extend. Lack of choice is fine for as long as the products meet your needs. Beyond that, not so much. Which explains a lot of the disappointment from many dedicated customers right now.
" but making an operating system is a serious undertaking that Google has so kindly saved them from."
Not that simple. Many of the features added to Android over the past years, were actually developed by phone maker first and then in collaboration with Google implemented by default.
And as for accountants running companies, think of profit margins too.
Finally, it's not just good products that sells products, it's hype (branding, see huge differences between different countries, even in the developed West) and it's lock in too. I know many people who wanted to buy a large Android phone, but couldn't because they were heavily invested in the Apple eco system to: - make their TV work with their phone- make their audio system work with their phone- make their computer communicate with their phone betteretc.
"And of course, most people are stupid, as you implied."
Uh no. Most people don't use an iPhone to begin with, so how could I even imply that?
Fine products but mostly hype as a result of marketing. See Coca Cola as another example.