zigi_S: To all you sony fanboys out there. SLT isn't the same tech as on sensor pdaf. SLT still has a mirror! And it's nothing new. The SLT concept is old and only a desperate manufacturer like SONY would try to market it like inovation. It will be funny when mew canon M models will AF much better than the NEX system. Where will be the new tech from sony then? Sony's on sensor PDAF is inferior to CANON's. It loses light!
Aha, so Canon has live view as fast as Sony.
Oh wait. ;-)Only a factor 4 difference in "shooting lag" according to the DXO test....That's the best both companies have available, regardless of implementation.
yabokkie: for video, Canon intentionally slowed down the AF speed for smoother, more "natural" focus.
As did Sony.I remember how someone found a glitch to get full speed AF on SLT's during video too.
sambomax: Who believes DXO anymore?The d600 has the same Noise level as D3S/D4. What a joke.
Obviously I was talking about (converted) RAW files, opened in Lightroom in my case. If you see anywhere near a stop difference, I wonder what you're really looking at.See here:http://oi41.tinypic.com/2qmdkkg.jpg
I already did. Some people don't seem to grasp the fact that the output has to be the same size for any noise comparison to be useful (regardless which size that is).
This is apparently where you failed too. Because I just compared ISO 6400 again, and they are indeed very comparable for a similar visual scene brightness. To the point where I actually prefer the 24 MP files for offering better processing options (more starting information allows for more sophisticated NR and sharpening) towards a final usable output.
Such a "joke" that it's actually supported by most controlled studio tests, such as found on this very website.
rsf3127: I don't get all the hype about these fuji cameras. The image samples look dull, mushy, without contrast and unsharp when compared to NEX and the 100D either in RAW or JPEG. The ergonomy is ok and the build quality is nice, but this does not compensate for the IQ problem.
I think a lot people put large emphasis on high ISO.
But I agree that at low ISO it does come a bit short compared to most of its peers, due the X-Trans design. A bit softer RAW files (for which you can partially compensate), a bit mushy greens in general due to the different color filters and moiré problems with diagonal lines (see test charts). And even at high ISO, you should substract about half a stop from indicated ISO's compared to most of its peers for the camera being a bit too optimistic in this regard.
Ayoh: These comparisons does not seem fair as the exposure differs between cameras. For example look at this option:
Canon 5D Mark III and Olympus E-M1RAWISO 25600LOW LIGHT
The exposure parameters are:Canon - 1/60, f7.1Olympus - 1/50, f5.6
In the comparison EM-1 has similar noise to 5D under all sizes(full/print/web). The amount of light received by the camera sensors must have been different between the cameras to get this result.
One of the problems with measuring RAW (binary) data rather than looking at RAW files opened in converters, is that for example you don't take into account possible default adjustments done under the hood in those converters for "correct exposure". The A99 for example was the first SLT to rely on this to compensate for the light "loss" due to the beamsplittter, a digital correction in the converter rather than a digital correction before writing the RAW file (simple multiplying of values or extra analogue sensor gain, which both means throwing away a bit of highlight headroom). In the DXO ISO chart, that means the A99 suddenly scores much lower than previous SLT cameras, which lead some to believe that it "cheats" when it has nothing to do with metering of visual exposures.
The X100 uses this above ISO 1600. Which can be witnessed in the DXO ISO chart as a "flatliner", even though the visual exposures are still affected above ISO 1600, both in RAW (supported converters) and jpegs.
Do not confuse the DXOmark ISO measurements with indicated camera ISO's. The latter is what directly affects comparisons seen here, the DXO ISO's do not necessarily reflect metering or even "cheating". It's only a way to normalize output for RAW comparison purposes.
The top of the "noise" page from the final review, will usually tell you how camera ISO's compare to one given ISO standard ( ISO 12232:2006).
siberstorm27: That headline is a contradiction. iPhone AND photographers? Photographers have DSLRs, and turn their noses at the thought of using an iPhone. I don't know why you are comparing the iPhone to the 41MP of the Lumia 1020 or the 20MP of the Xperia Z1, when it is basic knowledge especially for a photography site that MP doesn't mean jack. Everybody here wants bigger pixels and bigger sensors. You know you are not writing for the dumb naive consumers who look at only MP count. That is not your audience. The iPhone 5S camera isn't any worse than anything else out there. Probably much better than those 1.1 micron 13MP shooters. The Lumia 1020 is a niche product and the Z1's 20MP photos don't look much better than lesser 13MP ones. Neither iPhone 5S or Z1 have OIS. It is still very competitive. Apple hasn't been known to be extraordinary innovative in cameras. I don't see them bucking the trend and pulling out some Lumia 1020 rival.
When it comes to output of phones, I probably forgot the most important differentiator: jpeg engines.The 808 tends to meter incredibly high relative to the saturation point of the sensor, which causes a lot of clipping. I would have loved to see that being adjusted.But in low light, the 808 is still the clear winner for a given physical exposure and output size, compared to the N8. By quite a margin too.:http://www.filedropper.com/3808http://www.filedropper.com/4n8
mosava: So, how do Canon's interpretation of live view AF compare to Sony's???
If you want to track faster movement or irragular movement, the Sony SLT's are still much better for using a dedicated PDAF module like any SLR out there.
In practise, this isn't really true. I can't think of one example (from the same manufacturer for example, using tech from a similar era) to support the notion in practise that smaller pixels means worse SNR and less DR. Sony Semiconductors who are famous for their sensor designs, claim it's a common myth too.
The fact that sensors with pixels around 1 micron are able to reach similar quantum efficiency levels as sensors with 2.4 micron pixels or even high end DSLR sensors with 7.2 micron pixels, supports the notion that there is little to no correlation in practise for the size differences discussed here. Sensor size (coupled to a given F stop, thus really size of the entrance pupil), sensor type, sensor maker etc., that's where the SNR and DR differences can usually be explained.
I don't want bigger pixels, only larger sensors. HTC already tried larger pixels. Similar results to an S4 in low light, much worse in medium to good light.
thx1138: Under the skin the iPhone is of course very nice and they do excellent CPU and GPU, but the 4" form factor is totally lame for what is after all a visual device. Not changing resolution even to a true 720p is lame. This might have actually been of interest in a 5" 1080p from factor, which the hardware could easily drive. I do laud Apple for staying at 8MP for the camera, something Sony could learn a lesson from.
For me I'll take either a Galaxy Note III, HTC One Max or LG G2, just for the screen real estate alone.
The pixel pitch has little to do with it. Jpeg processing is what really counts here. Look at the S4 and the Z (older sibling of the Z1), both share the same Sony 13MP sensor and the S4 scored best of the competition back then, the Z ended at the bottom.
So the lesson for Sony can't be found in the amount of pixels. I'm pretty sure the 20 MP is at least as good if not better than their excellent 13 MP sensor, for one because it's larger too. The lesson for Sony should be in how to process their RAW's. Mostly when it comes to NR and sharpening.
marike6: 8 mp camera, Retina display, more photo apps than any other platform - for $99. What's not to like?
I don't see the display to be that competitive (competing screens are up to 48% larger and have almost 3 times as many pixels). The Apple display has good color accuracy and good maximum brightness, average contrast, quite average blacklevels, quite severe contrast and color shifts under angle compared to some competing screens and a too blue whitebalance.
Some phones costing half as much have 720P screens competitive to this.
And as for buying apps, the beauty is that I don't want to be forced to buy apps to gain control over the most basic parameters. There is no excuse to not give that control, even if hidden for novices in a menu.
The lack of image stabilization, any type of manual control outside auto modes. And the real price of the package, bumping up your contract to amounts comparable to high end phones from other companies.
Artistico: Why would you consider 8 megapixels "underwhelming" compared to Nokia's 41 or Sony's 20? After all, we should all know by now that 8 megapixels are much better at these sensor sizes.
"We" know it's not. For example, I'd take the Sony 13 MP sensor over the Sony 8 MP sensor of this size any day of the week.
Let's see what the new sensor brings to the table.
Simelane: You forgot to mention the 120 fps video camera... even my high end DSLR can't do that at 1080p.
I can't wait for the buttery smooth slo-mo's created with the 5S.
It's at 720p and the Note 3 can do that too and adds 4k at 30 fps.
babalu: Samsung has just outwitted this gadget with their latest "Galaxy Gear" smartwatch .
And a 117mm² sensor where?
dutch3dmaster: My twinned R1 pair served well in Antarctica as a fantastic 3D camera. Still love it :-)
Reminds me of STF user "OTD" (Marjon) with his R1 stereo/3D setup: http://www.pbase.com/stf/stereo_images
PeterTom: There seems to be a mistake in the specifications.It says:Dimensions: 102 x 58 x 38 mm
But then the red numbers in the picture at the top of the third page shows width 128mm and height 91mm.And the comparison picture on the fourth page, when compared with Canon 100D shows that it is wider than Canon (so 128mm seems to be the real value because Canon is 117mm), but a bit lower (so I am confused because according to dpreview Canon is 91mm tall, too, but the difference in the picture is not as big as 58 vs. 91, IMO).
DPreview, please try to measure once more :)
Noticed that too. Are those by chance the measurements of the NEX 5T?