dual12: "The new Foveon X3 Quattro Direct Image Sensor that delivers images equivalent to 39MP output from a conventional sensor"
LOL, if it really did that, Sigma wouldn't sell so few cameras. Maybe I'll report them to the FTC for false advertising.
"Maybe I'll report them to the FTC for false advertising."
Or maybe somebody should report Bayer sensor camera manufacturers for overstating MP on their cameras.
After all, they fail to mention that those MPs are monochrome and their cameras are in fact incapable of capturing color images without dirty cheap software trickery!!
"they forgot to include a battery in the box."
So, dear netizens, what's the abbreviation/emoticons for "unbelievable", like for example "banging head against the keyboard unbelievable"??
munro harrap: The reason I get fed up when I see machines like this? You need to wait a decade to have a sensor good enough to put inside it!!Loads of pixels create their own noise patterns at this magnification as the excellent samples gallery clearly shows, but whether prints will suffer is anybody's guess.I am sure both this and the RX10 will, one day, be great cameras. Lots of recent cameras would be great cameras with infinitely superior sensors some time in the future.
Just dont buy them now!!
> You need to wait a decade to have a sensor good enough to put inside it!!
The FZ1000 (or even older FZ200) performs better than any digital camera from decade ago.
> but whether prints will suffer is anybody's guess.
People have printed even the sub-1MP files from the first digital cameras. With proper PP, literally anything from a modern cam can be printed. And for as long as one does not pick it apart under a magnifying glass, it would look great too.
So large it is not. Weight is also within the limits of sane - considering the lens.
Sony did the right thing with the release of the 1" sensor based cameras. But Pana IMO was the first who stopped treating the enthusiast compacts as an overpriced P&S, and if not sensor, they did literally everything else right: lens, handling, smooth performance and snappy AF.
> RX100mIII does f1.8 at 24mm equivalent and it's tiny.
Because it sacrifices the zoom range for it. Compare:
RX100 m1/2: 28–100mm eqRX100 m3: 24-70mm eq.
30mm on the tele end were sacrificed for 4mm on the wide end to keep the lens size the same.
photoguy622: I'm glad I cancelled my pre-order, and bought a Canon D20 on eBay instead. While none of these types of cameras are great in the photo quality department (save the Nikon AW1), at least the Canon retains a bit more detail.
Why is it so hard for manufactures to cut pixel counts a bit and reduce the dramatic noise reduction? The previous version of this camera was 12MP, why not keep it at 12 and work on detail retention. I'm not that picky, but these images are too "mushy".
"at least the Canon retains a bit more detail."
Canon P&S are famous for their default oversharpening. I owned/shot with two Canon P&S - know it firsthand.
Some like - some hate it. To me personally the oversharpening really adds nothing, except occasional aliasing artifacts.
NetMage: Nice article, but I think you went wrong in the first paragraph - the problem with most traditional superzooms is they are not right in the middle - they use the exact same sensors as compact (often non-enthusiast) cameras and so are all tilted to the zoom side.
This camera and the Sony RX10 are in the middle - less zoom, more sensor. Slightly the Fuji XS-1 as well, but it tilts toward zoom as well.
I don't think there has been any superzooms in the middle until recently.
"I don't think there has been any superzooms in the middle until recently."
I disagree. The 2yo Pana FZ200 was the first super-zoom in the middle.
Richard Murdey: I still find it head-scratching that the RX10 and FZ1000 are praised for their performance and image quality, while a Nikon 1 camera with either of the 10-100 superzoom lenses is held is such low respect it doesn't even warrant a word of disparagement.
I agree with wansai.
But I also think that most consumers simply do not like the complexity of ILC, the inter-changeable lenses. The Nikon 1 is made to have interchangeable accessories.
That is why the Pana developments like FZ72, FZ200 and FZ1000 (and recently the Sony RX10) draw so much attention: they aim to be "the one and only camera you need to own", the ultimate consumer camera.
Augustin Man: 1/16000 sec?! Sure isn't one zero too much?
@Jeff, and DPR in general: can you check with Pana what is the read-out speed with the e-shutter?
I think DPR should add this as a row into the spec sheet for the cameras with e-shutter. This is one of the areas which is still under active development and Pana there actually making some progress. Past cameras had readout speed of 1/7-1/8 of the second - but IIRC GM1 has 1/10 of the second.
Wilight: Is the shutter sound as "quiet" as (for instance) Fuji X100?
It has an option "Silent Mode" what in Pana lingua typically means electronic shutter + extra options to prevent camera making any noises when making a shot. Fully silent operation, but at the cost of e-shutter.
Marcelobtp: Sony is applying many corrections even on the raw files, thats why pana has more details and noise and probably distrotion and CA. I don't like it sony, dirty way like leica.
IMO 20MP is more than enough pixels to accommodate software corrections.
Pretty sure that this Pana does the same.
AlexRuiz: Why peopl are interested in these cameras is beyond me. Not cheap, not small, not the best value IQ. The zoom range is one benefit this camera has going for it, but that is about it. For $900, there are much better options in the M43 area. I personally would prefer an X-e1 with the 50mm f1.4. for about the same $$.
"I personally would prefer an X-e1 with the 50mm f1.4."
Wow. Cool comparison.
That camera is definitely not for you.
Good luck shooting landscapes with that 50mm. Or group portraits. Or birding. Or wildlife/nature. Or literally everything else outside that "standard" "street photography" range. That's going to be a lot of "zooming with feet" for you man. And even then, for some shots you are going to learn to fly.
It is hard to make bright and wide lens small and light. (But relatively cheap to push the darkish tele-end.)
Have you seen many of UWA lenses with 2.8 or brighter aperture? They are all biggish and expensive. Or have only a limited range, like e.g. Tokina 11-16mm.
s_grins: This camera is still a bit (quite a bit) heavy for me
@Menneisyys, but FZ1000 and RX10 are too heavy for casually carrying them around. Even my GX7 with a pancake, though doesn't have the reach, is smaller and lighter.
Imagine that in few years 1/2.3" sensor would perform to the standards of the 1" sensor today. Put that into the FZ200, and even if keeping the rest as is, you would still have a winner camera, with f/2.8 25-600mm lens, snappy handling and AF. In fact, one can already make already such sensor with today's tech, by opting for a lower resolution (which would be IMO a bonus for quicker wireless transfers of images).
TheProv: Does it have full sensor readout for videos or skip lines?
@Marc. Look at the studio comparison in RAW mode: the sensors are clearly identical.
IOW, the Pana has the Sony sensor.
tjbates: Thanks Richard for the preview. The term Bridge camera or compact doesn't seem to fit anymore. In fact the FZ-1000 is larger than the GH4 which is itself a "large" m4/3 camera.http://camerasize.com/compare/#556,525
No built in ND filter is a mistake. A camera like the Sony RX100III (that can be called "compact") has a built in ND filter. ND is not only necessary for video shooting but also as a means of avoiding lens defraction on the smaller 1" sensor.
On the positive side - good to see this type of camera with PAL video capabilities (sales region dependant). They finally realised that we don't all live in the U.S or Japan.
"""In fact the FZ-1000 is larger than the GH4 which is itself a "large" m4/3 camera."""
So much larger it is not:http://camerasize.com/compact/#556,525.34,525.336,ha,t
"No built in ND filter is a mistake."
FZ1000 (830g) vs FZ200 (580g) shows that weight had to be compromise to accommodate the larger sensor/lens.
All considered, the FZ200's successor (if any) should be even more interesting (and affordable).
Seeing how the camera units inside the phones has gotten so small, I'm surprised that no manufacturer has yet put three-five of them inside.
Image a phone with three cameras/lenses: 35mm eq, 50mm eq and 90mm eq. Or even better: 24mm eq, 40mm eq, 90mm eq.
nikon power: For all the cameras with zoom power that I've owned, my first shots with them was the moon. God had placed the moon up there in synchronous orbit for a reason. It's easier to compare the same moon's face as seen by all eyes and all cameras.
"It's easier to compare the same moon's face as seen by all eyes and all cameras."
No its not. By a lot.
- The orbit of the moon is not perfectly synchronous. Visible size of the moon is variable.
- The IQ would depend on the quality of the air at the moment of shot. Dusty vs. cloudy vs. clear.
- The IQ would depend on the position of the moon. Higher it is, less of the atmosphere light has to travel through, and sharper is the shot.
- The IQ would depend on the amount of surrounding light reflected by the dust in atmosphere. Shooting in the city vs. shooting in a field, far away from the artificial ground light sources.
Pana produces real nice P&S.
I wish I have started with Pana and not Canon.