cs hauser: The review spends a lot of time comparing the Canon G1X-II to the Sony RX100-II. But it's unfortunate that the reviewers were so pre-occupied with Dynamic Range and Noise comparisons... that they've essentially ignored basic image quality. I'm talkiing about the advantages of having a physically larger lens and a physically larger sensor to render superior pixel-level sharpness.
Even when the cameras are normalized to the same image size, the Canon G1X-IIlooks far superior to the Sony RX100-II. This fact is plain to anyone who spends 30 seconds looking at the RAW studio comparisons at print sizes.
The review concludes that the G1X-II and RX-100 II have similar levels of image quality. But that's only true in terms of Dynamic Range (and by extension, noise). In terms of sharpness, the G1X-II is in a different league altogether.
"It's pixel level sharpness advantage is negated by the simple fact that it has about half the pixel count."
You are incorrect. I was specifically comparing the cameras "normalized to the same image size". If you go to the studio comparison tool in RAW mode, make sure you select the icon for "PRINT" (instead of "FULL") and it will show you the images re-sized to identical dimensions. It's the fairest way to compare cameras with different megapixel counts. And in this mode, you will see the sharpness of the G1X-II is in a totally different league from the RX100-II.
The review spends a lot of time comparing the Canon G1X-II to the Sony RX100-II. But it's unfortunate that the reviewers were so pre-occupied with Dynamic Range and Noise comparisons... that they've essentially ignored basic image quality. I'm talkiing about the advantages of having a physically larger lens and a physically larger sensor to render superior pixel-level sharpness.
dspoel: People here always complain about Leica prices. But at least these cameras are not made in sweatshops under slave-like circumstances.
These cameras were made for people who own those sweatshops.
I'm still waiting for someone to suggest that shallow depth of field is a "crutch" for the talentless photographer.
I've heard that claim made on these here forums a million times already.
"In context, though, that's about the same price as Sony's E-mount Carl Zeiss Sonnar 24mm F1.8, which is half a stop slower"-- Andy Westlake, DPreview
An f/1.7 lens would be half a stop slower than an f/1.4 lens. In this particular case, the Zeiss f/1.8 lens is 2/3 of a stop slower than the Fuji f/1.4 lens. It's a bit disappointing that a long-time lens reviewer for DPreview would make such a mistake.
The physical dimensions for the Nikon Df are virtually identical to that of an EOS 6D. I was expecting the camera to be much smaller than that.
pauld77: But what if you don't want to be David Lean but just want to be David Bailey?
Then you use the camera to take photos.
I'm confused why certain people feel that video in a camera magically prevents them from taking photos.
Josh152: Personally I am more interested to see if Canon has finally caught up on dynamic range and color depth than I am in the on sensor phase detection.
The ability to use phase detection without the help of a mirror or contrast detection is revolutionary. It has the potential of becoming the single greatest development in photography since cameras went digital.
It will have a far greater impact in practical photography than all those charts and graphs DxO geeks obsess about.
Peiasdf: ISO 100-12800 is confirmed. I don't see any mention of revolutionary low light performance but 14-bit processing is good.
Cannot believe AF module is from 7D. It is good but 4 years. Also, what's with the 98 per cent frame coverage and 0.95x magnification? Even K-30/50 have 100% coverage.
If the EOS 60D was any indication, this camera won't cost $1000+ if you're patient enough to wait 3 months before buying one.
cs hauser: The webpages are still only 950-pixels wide. Seriously? It's 2012, and most people have screens that are 1920-pixels wide. More than half the screen is being left blank.
And if that wasn't bad enough... about 350 of those 950 pixels are used as a navigation column. That means the active portion of the screen in forums & reviews is only 600 pixels wide. That's just ridiculous. It's like dpreview was designed for viewing with 800x600 VGA monitors from 1995.
I realize dpreview is trying to preserve space for potential advertisements... but come on! A 950-pixel wide screen is obnoxious. At least try to widen it to 1680 pixels or even 1280 pixels.
I think the words/line on dpreview is fine the way it is. Unfortunately, the fonts are so small. By widening the webpage to at least 1280, dpr could use larger fonts without affecting the words/line ratio.
Also, I think 600-pixels wide is too small for a photography website. Larger image dimensions would be preferable in both the review articles and forum samples.
The webpages are still only 950-pixels wide. Seriously? It's 2012, and most people have screens that are 1920-pixels wide. More than half the screen is being left blank.
Gary Dean Mercer Clark: This camera makes me want to buy a Sigma DP2M and DP1M for $2000.00 and have $799.00 change left. DP2M will blow away the overpriced RX1 in image detail and quality.
Thanks for the chuckle. I needed that.
"Question & Answer" seems like a rudimentary version of the feature dpreview really needs: POLLS. These forums can be downright toxic sometimes, thanks to a loud minority that dominate most discussions.. When assessing the community's opinion, I think a simple poll would go a long way in keeping the loud minority from overwhelming the silent majority.
I also think "Question & Answer" feature can make things even more confusing. Especially when it comes to controversial questions. For instance, any question regarding 'equivalence' will inevitably result in the community's answer switching back & forth. Again, in this situation a poll would provide a clearer representation of what the community really feels.
An interchangeable lens camera with a tiny sensor smaller than the one inside some cell phones.
Whose brilliant idea was that, anyway?
fastlass: it is obvious that both the testing methods and the review products are flawed. But after correcting for these errors, I believe the same results will be produced.
@ R Butler - The shallower depth of field will result in slower CDAF. That is the problem with the test.
In the video shown above, the 650D had significantly shallower depth of field than the G5 because (1) subject magnification was much bigger, and (2) aperture used in exposure was bigger, and (3) sensor is bigger.
For a proper comparison of CDAF, depth of field should remain constant. That means keeping the same subject magnification, and it also means using a faster lens on the mFT. It's NOT enough to stop down the mFT lens, because auto focus is conducted with the lens wide open, regardless of exposure settings. A proper test would have the 650D with 18-135 STM @ 18mm (f/3.5) compared to the G5 with Panasonic 14mm (f/2.5) pancake.
That would yield near-identical magnification and depth of field.
"The D800 has an edge in flexibility, however, when it comes to the aperture required for these cross-type points to function. While the 5D Mark III requires a minimum aperture of f/4, the D800 can utilize 9 of its center cross-type points at an aperture as narrow as f/8."
That last statement is incorrect. 21 of the 61 AF points on the 5D3 remain cross type with lenses that have max apertures of f/5.6. At f/8.0 the D800 only has one cross type point according the the original preview article by dpreview.