name here: DPreview: I find it hard to agree with your raw noise conclusions.
60D samples on the bottom of page 15 look cleaner to me at ISO 1600 and upward. You do say 70D is smoother between 1600-6400. If my monitor is not failing me, I don't quite see that. In particular, the blue patch is a lot more noisy on 70D than on 60D... and, even green and gray patches are noisier on 70D. There's also less detail on the face. Not sure why your graphs don't show that.
@Gabebalazs. If that's so then that may be the major improvement along with the improved video af. Canon has been lagging in shadow noise on their APS-C sensors.
Scott Eaton: Looking at the comparison shots objectively I'm not sure how anybody working on a real monitor can't see the improvements over the 7D and 60D. Those saying it's not improvement over the 60D need to stop surfing with their Androids and use a real computer. Color accuracy has also improved with the 70D...something 7D fanatics don't comprehend.
What's also obvious is while the 70D has made substantial improvement with high ISO noise the camera lags the 7100 by a rather substantial margin in all other areas, especially just plain detail. Typical 'smudgy' Canon sensor detail...no surprise.
Scott. But in RAW the detail is close to the 7100. It is lost in the jpgs due to Canons NR and low sharpness setting. See CNET's video review. The 7100 has no AA filter so should show more detail and does but not by much. Also with no AA filter there will be moire problems at times when photographing grid patterns etc
win39: Photo Ninja is another raw converter that might be used in conjunction with an editing program.
My question is which of these programs might accept plugins designed for Photoshop. The NIK plugins also work with Aperture I believe. Does Elements take PS plugins?
I want to like PhotoNinja but it produces some weird results.It is easy and fast but they need to do some more work on in as it currently produces odd colorations. It does give a somewhat pleasant mild HDR effect to images with nice mid-tones and loads of detail. One to keep an eye on.DXO has a grainy and low res looking output - ugly even.
Dougbm_2: I just have to say it. Although the image seem to show this is a capable camera the general quality of photography in this site is quite average. Maybe that's part of it's appeal? It is more of a gear site than a photo site. Still useful but maybe not so inspiring.
I am referring to the review photography not the challenges.I would expect a camera review site to have very good quality photography eg Steve Huff's site. I just don't find the review images ever inspire me the way Steve's do.
I just have to say it. Although the image seem to show this is a capable camera the general quality of photography in this site is quite average. Maybe that's part of it's appeal? It is more of a gear site than a photo site. Still useful but maybe not so inspiring.
Dear DP Review.Is there some way we can have all replies to posts automatically showing?It is time wasting to continually have to click to see the remaining replies.Thanks
ekaton: Wrong pick, by about one country mile. The X100 was quite something when it was released into the market place some 3 years ago, warts and shortcomings included. Since then, Fuji tried to surf on the X1 wave with follow on products with declining success, X10, X20, XPro1, XE1/2. The IQ of the x-trans sensor is not compelling, it only shines at high iso in comparison to mft and meanwhile mediocre standard aps-c sensors, albeit at the expense of details. Fuji has to go to the drawing board to gain customers back. Sensor, performance, build quality look ordinary these days, yet prices don`t.
@Collie Camp.Yes I mentioned the XF-1 and G11 as an illustration that a small sensored camera can have good Dr too. I have used images from my old G11 for calendar shots. Interesting you say the 5D MKII has ugly shadow noise as that is my complaint about Canons ASP-C sensors and why I use the 5DMK1 for real estate work (as I often need to lighten the shadows quite a bit).
white shadow: The X100s is a reasonably good camera for casual use and perhaps for travel. Some like the " Leica look alike" look because they couldn't afford the real McCoy Leica M. It is a fairly good camera to take casual portraits. That's about it.
A full frame DSLR is still the more versatile camera if one is serious about photography despite its heavier weight. It will deliver the goods expected of a professional photographer or for those who engaged them to shoot.
Similar to a Micro 4/3 camera, it will remain a camera for casual use or for collectors who like the look. For practical casual use, the Ricoh GR may be better. For sheer convenience, the Lumix LX7 is surprisingly very useful despite its much smaller sensor especially in low light.
FF does give better ultimate image quality and thats what I use professionally but most of the time I carry the X100 as it is light, convenient, enjoyable to use and gives nice results. Horses for courses anyway. The X100 renders nice and delicately and is actually good for portraits (don't know about the X100s).
minzaw: Why is it so BIG??
It's not so big .,.. you are just too close to it!
MarcMedios: All good (and an excellent quality) except for the lack of interchangeable lens. Who wants to take pictures with just the one lens that some anonymous designer chose for you in Japan?
Oh ignorance is thy name MarcMedios?!
@Collie Camp. Really? Well maybe! According to DXO Canon Mark II had DR of Evs of 11.9 but then the little Fuji XF1 and a Canon G11 have 11.1. Original X100 has Evs 12.4. Interestingly the Fuji S3 Pro of 2004 has an EVs of 13.5!I would believe this as the Dr of my 2003 Fuji S2 Pro exceeds anything I currently have (X100/50D/5D). I still look at the prints from that and go wow (as I do from the Sigma SD14 that replaced it). OK maybe not so much resolution and detail but the tonal qualities produced by a good CCD (or Foveon) sensor are superior to a CMOS. The CMOS gives us a better usability when you take into account low light.Also let me tell you there is no substitute for cubes or in this case sensor size. No way my X100 out guns my Full Frame 5d Mk1. Although it has a good go at it at higher ISOs.
Keith: I do wish this came in black.
For Gods sake buy a can of black paint people. I mean really?! The colour is SO important?
In all the reviews Fuji cameras seem to consistently put out superior images.Shame the viewfinder wasn't made at least 95% coverage.
Maybe Fuji can take a hint from this release and the RX-10 and give us an X30 with a f2.8 25-250 zoom and 2/3 sensor.
And an X200 with a fixed zoom lens (at least 25-75).
I wish they would consistently place the ISO button at the far right (as it was on the 50D) or even somewhat separated as per the 700D. The raised pimple on the button is not enough to find and adjust this major exposure adjustment quickly. As for the back scroll pad …ugh - (reasons I switched my 60D that I had for 18 months to a 5OD).
Dougbm_2: Apart from the frumpy looks could be a good general purpose camera.As it's a 1" sensor with 2.7 crop factor the lenses are smaller than DSLRs so I wonder how hard it would have been to make the zoom longer (say to 300mm).Would you prefer 24-200mm or 28 to 300mm?
Funny thing is I was using my 50D and 15-85mm lens at a crowded event on the weekend and was glad of the 24mm FF equivalent wide end. Other times I really want more telephoto.Ideal super zoom would be 25-400 with at least 1" sensor and manual zoom. Maybe a constant f4 lens would be OK. An f2.8 would be too large and heavy.
@ Orion1983.Ha. yes. But the Oly seems to have too large a body and too small a sensor. Will we ever be satisfied? Be interesting to see the reviews.
Jeff Greenberg: Have been using Canon EF 17-55mm f2.8 on 7D bodyfor almost 4 years. (yeah, as if it was fixed lens)And as a stock shooter with very limited processingskills, never went above ISO 1000. Nearest camera store told me they'll sell ALL their RX10s as new & won't have floor model, so don't know how I'll test RX10 IQ in advance.
Obviouly increased zoom range would open upamazing amount of new photo opps.BUT ANY OPINIONS ON WHETHER THIS WOULDBE STEP UP IN IQ APPRECIATED. Also, I take afair number of wide angle f2.8 images usingonboard fill flash. Will RX10 at 24mm + shadecast lens shadow when using its onboard flash?
Am also surprised no one here reports they are conflicted between RX10 vs. A7r + fast lightweight zoom? I am...
Main difference for you will be if you need shallow DOF as the Sony's f2.8 is f8 FF equivalent (or f5 on your 7D).
JJLMD: I recently had Canon 60D with same lens. That lens is very sharp with low distortion but I found the contrast and colors to be rather flat. This is probably a nonissue if you routinely PP, but I mostly like the convenience of JPEG. In terms of outright resolution, the Sony RX100m2 will shock you. I've compared it with the Nikon D5200 with 35mm f1.8 prime and the Sony was sharper! With the RX100m2's lens, it's hard to isolate subjects...the RX10 should be better with a fixed 2.8 lens but cannot compare to 2.8 + APS-C sensor. Also, the 60D went to ISO 2500 really clean but noise becomes a major problem with higher iSOs. With RX100m2 , its IQ is clean to 1600 but images at 3200 and 6400 less objectionable. The RX10 reportedly has a better processor and the lens is likely to be better...and Sony's making a big deal about its IQ so stay tuned...
Yes and the constant f2.8 will enable you to keep ISO low most of the time. In fact the deeper DOF will help out a bit when you have to open up the aperture but don't want shallow DOF in low light.I experienced this with an OLY X-Z1.
Dougbm_2: Could be quite interested in this but then again I could just buy an 18-135 for my 50D for about $400 (or 15-85 for about $500). Sure they are not as bright but depth of field will be better.
A 15-85mm zoom on an APSC Canon camera is the equivalent of 24-136mm FF (Full Frame eg Canon 5D) which is why it is a popular walk-around lens with very good IQ (I actually have one). It is the closest to the RX10 with a wide 24mm. The 18-135mm is equal to 28-216mm FF so arguably is closer still. The RX10 actually has an 8.8mm to 73.3mm lens.
And yes I meant depth of field will be more shallow at the equivalent aperture on an SLR. The f3.5 on the short end of the Canon lenses equals f5.6 FF. At the long end the f5.6 of the Canon lens would be f9 on FF. The f2.8 Sony lens equals f8 FF. Not much difference and not what you would choose for really shallow DOF either way.
No taking away from the fact that a constant f2.8 will enable better low light shooting than you get with an SLR and a 'slow' zoom.
Only negative I can see with this camera are it's reportedly slow fly by wire zoom and perhaps its almost SLR size and weight.