SergioMO: I´m a Note 3 user and this is the best smartphone out there for me, but I was expecting a better low light perform and IP57 ... waiting Note 5. In camera nobody beats Nokia ! http://www.phonearena.com/news/Check-out-the-first-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-4-and-Note-Edge-camera-samples-compared-with-the-competition_id60180
Yeah, waiting anxiously for Android "L" and fingers crossed they will enable RAW support. 4.4 already showed hints for future RAW support in Android.That should really help a lot for low light pictures and take most of the manufacturer's "auto" choices and processing out of the equation.
In low light, probably true, altough like for like, even those pre production samples from the Note 4 are pretty similar to the Nokia 1520's, once you even the output size, brightness and whitebalance. It's those auto algorithms that seem better in the Nokia cameras. Let's see if the final production version of the Note 4 can improve on those algorithms.
But in good light, even some of the existing Samsung cameras can already outresolve the Nokia 1520 outside the center where the Nokia lens (altough it could be the Sony lens that comes with the 20MP BSI sensor, since the Xperia's have the same issue) suffers a lot. If they ever fix that issue, then their cameras can perform about as good as you can get for the sensor size and FL, aslo thanks to RAW support.
lacikuss: The perfect marriage Chevrolet & Sony...both outstanding brands known for their high quality
Dumping costs a lot of money once, which in theory could save longer term, but it would also mean a loss of exposure (name related to photography) and an entry to Sony cameras (many have moved up from these cheaper compacts).
The RX100 had a $150 lower MSRP, but was also much cheaper to build as it lacked the relatively expensive OLED EVF for example. Less glass, no tilting LCD mechanism and no BSI, lack of Wifi, NFC and built in ND filter helped save on the cost of construction and assembly too.
Minus shadow noise (specifically patterns): D7100 vs D7000:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iuSoH2xRB54/UWVRWkBEdRI/AAAAAAAAgBk/h2PLmU0_S38/s1600/d7100vsd7000banding.png
@ lacikuss:Canon hasn't been leading photography sales for 60 years. There has been a few changes along the way and Kodak was the leader for quite some time. See where they are now. ;)In fact, according to IDC, even Sony had a larger share than Canon of the photography market back in 2005, before Sony bought Minolta (2006).
@ pkosewski:Nikon has losses in the compact camera business and makes up for that with its large DSLR business.Sony is also a strong player in the film camera market and both the compact and film camera market are collapsing. Hence why their smaller ILC business is struggling to shine through those 2 dragging the imaging branch as a whole down.
As for the RX series not being profitable, it's actually one of the brighter lights in the Imaging business and especially cutting some of the losses in the compact camera sales (which as a whole are hurting for everyone) according to Sony.
They lost most of those transitions because of what I already mentioned before, new competition that had the advantage of lowered production costs (first Koreans, then Chinese) swarming the market.
It's the same problem that the Koreans and specifically Samsung are starting to feel right now, with the Chinese taking them head on. First diminishing their profits, then likely forcing them into losses in the race to the bottom. Especially in the TV and Mobile sector.
NCB: Sensor size isn't quite as important as many believe. 12MP on a 2/3" sensor is roughly the same pixel density as 21MP on a 1" sensor as in the Sony RX100 III. I would expect similar image quality. And 12MP is easily enough for many people.
The EVF is enough to make me seriously consider it. I like optical viewfinders, but framing difficulties with those found in compacts combined with the improved quality of some recent EVFs make me think it's time to move on. The "advances" found on other recent cameras aren't necessarily what people want. So, for those looking for a top quality compact picture-taking machine, I think the X30 will prove attractive.
They are very different, just like the A7S design is very different from the A7 and A7R design (the D4S and A7S have a typical A/D design that focuses more on lower noise in the analogue amplification stage, where as the A7R and A7 focus on the digital stage with a much flatter read noise curve, which favors so called "ISO-less" shooting and high DR at low ISO more but trades some high ISO performance).
As for Renesas and Nikon knowing something Sony doesn't, not so sure about that, seeing as Sony currently delivers both the best FF low ISO (high DR, high resolution) sensor and the best low light FF sensor.
As for the low light scene from Dpreview, about 27% of all the pixels sits in the bottom luminance values between 0-25 with plenty of deep shadows to judge (it already peaks before 18), even below a value of 5. There's more shadows and more deeper shadows in that scene than for example the night city scene that Dpreview used to compare some cameras (A7S, GH4 etc.) in the field.
And the D4S sensor is a fully different design, from a different maker.
Comparing a 16MP FF sensor with a 16 MP APS-C sensor has the most important factor changed, sensor size. If pixel density was that important factor, a D7000 would perform similar to the D800 (same per pixel performance, same architecture, different sensor size). They are exactly as much apart as their difference in size dictates: just over a stop.
As for your RAW files HowaboutRAW, I don't have to see them, in fact no one does. There are RAW files available from Dpreview in good light and low light (lots of shadows). Anyone can verify that the D610 and D810 are similar throughout the entire ISO range, in low light too.
RAW files shot in low light show the D810 to be similar to the D610 up to at least ISO 12800, even in deep shadows.
Hard to say when comparing 2 differently designed sensors from 2 different manufacturers.
The D610 and D810 perform similar.
An A7S performs better in low light than the A7R, but the A7R better than the A7. Which doesn't follow the above theory either.
And while the A7S performs better in low light than the A7R, it performs worse in other areas (resolution, dynamic range up to ISO 400, etc.), areas that define image quality too.
This relies on the old myth that the the main factor that drives image quality, is pixel size (the larger, the better).
According to that logic, the X20 sensor should have been similar in performance to the RX100II sensor. It wasn't.
Jonath: Love them or hate them, the best thing that Sony are doing for the camera market is making it interesting again. Plenty of innovation, admittedly some of it questionable, but really trying new things and getting a debate going... like this one for example... just a simply news story about a Sony body used to film one commercial and nearly 200 comments already... if only Canikon could create this much debate or much needed interest in a market that is sadly shrinking for all brands.
Which part of the word Imaging did you miss? That division covers less than 11% of Sony's total sales. Yes, read the financial reports instead of making silly claims.
The bulk of advertising cost is for financial services, motion pictures, music and game divisions. Of course it makes sense to look at divisions, because Canon and Nikon are known to be camera brands, it's the bulk of their business. Sony doesn't sell more cameras because it advertises for financial services, movies, music, or even Playstation consoles. In fact, based on comments from people like you and many others in these forums, that might actually cost them sales too (along the lines of: "Playstation or electronics company, not a camera company, I prefer real cameras". Etc.)
The large majority of camera related ads on tv and in magazines are from Canon and Nikon. In stark contrast with your claim that they don't put much effort in advertising.
"... they don't spend much on marketing"
Not sure under which rock you've been living, but they spend a multitude on marketing compared to Sony's imaging division. They rely heavily on primetime commercials and ads. And in a way the money they spend on shelves space in large retail stores could be considered marketing too.
pkosewski: They took the A7S and they built this complicated rig, but they used one of Nikon's lenses.This really tells the whole story about Sony E system...
At least 10 the next 2 years, not counting third party and thus excluding (non Sony) Zeiss, who will announce a few too before the end of this year.
They dominated the Walkman and Discman (and for a short period MD Walkman) market for almost 2 decades, not quite the lost battle you make it seem. They lost the transition to MP3.
They turned Betamax into an industry recording format that was widely used for decades, helped Philips introduce the CD and DVD and ruled that market for decades. They won the Blu-ray battle and console battle against directly competing products. They ruled the tube TV market too, but again lost the transition to flatscreens.
In short no company rules any market forever, especially with new masses of dogs jumping in to compete at a lower cost price (first the Koreans, then the Chinese).
Oh and someone claiming Sony started its photo business by taking over Minolta, shows a clear lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. Next.
DaGurney: But it records to some low-bitrate, interframe-compressed, decimated-color garbage codec! Reportedly at the rather pathetic bitrate of 60 Mbps.
Not to mention that shooting motion pictures with a full-frame 35mm sensor is WORSE than using an APS-sized sensor (which matches 35mm motion-picture-sized frames), because the depth of field is often way too shallow to keep moving objects in focus, especially in the low-light conditions for which they're touting this camera.
This is ridiculous. Until these cameras have decent data throughput and a high-quality intraframe codec, they're not serious motion-picture tools.
Which part of using an external recorder was hard to understand?
Serickmetz: Well that was stupid, they should have just used a real camera and saved themselves time and money.
All of which would have cost more and would have noisier 4K output.
Menneisyys: Given that the ancestor, the A5000, had a, noise-wise, *significantly* worse sensor than its big brother (the A6000), I wonder if the switch to using the current (A6000, D5300, D3300 etc.) stunningly excellent 24 Mpixel sensor means the possible A6100 is introduced with a, say, 30 Mpixel, absolutely excellent sensor.
You're right, was thinking of the D5200. The D5300 does have a Sony 24 MP sensor, hence the lack of banding at low ISO.As for Nikon using different sensors, they're in the luxurious position of being able to choose, depending on who at the time of demand has the best offer in terms of price/quality.
JonathanFV: Does anybody know if it would be possible to add XAVC to the A6000 via a firmware upgrade? The A5100 is a nice little camera, but the only thing it has that I wish my A6000 had is the better video codec. Thanks to whoever can give me an answer!
Full sensor readout is the much bigger difference (more detail, less moiré, a lot better signal to noise ratio, first APS-C still camera with this feature). I wonder if that could be added through firmware....
Black Box: Burst rate 6 fps. Same sensor, same processing engine. WHY artificially reduce speed! Sony keeps shooting itself in all legs of which it has fewer and fewer.
Could have a cheaper (slower) mechanical shutter, or maybe you're right on the cap.