 |
theswede
Lives in
Västerås, Sweden
Works as a
Solutions Architect
Joined on
Jun 1, 2002
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Downvoting ability is evil. There is a reason there is no "dislike" button on Facebook; they get that right, whatever else one might think of them. Positive contribution is much better. Having upvote and promote those posts is positive, cannot be abused for bullying and will lead to a much nicer spirit on the forum.
Seriously. Don't do downvoting. It's been the bane of many a forum, and it would be a shame to see DPR go down from incorporating such a brutally negative feature.
Dimitri Khoz: Per-pixel noise characteristics of RX100 will be similar to Canon S95.
S95 sensor area/MP count = 42/10 = 4.2 = 100%
RX100 sensor area/MP count = 116/20.9 = 5.55 = 132%
Comparing to the APS-C cameras RX100 will lose about 2 stops:
3200D sensor area/MP count = 358/24.7 = 14.49 = 345%
G1X sensor area/MP count = 262/14.3 = 18.32 = 436%
Comparing to full frame one can see
that per-pixel difference between G1X and RX100 will be bigger than between G1X and 5DMark3:
Canon 5DMark3 sensor area/MP count = 864/23.5 = 36.92 = 879%
Per-pixel noise is meaningless.
Edgar Matias: Image quality should be great, but it's not much of a portrait shooter...
For shallow DoF fans, the Canon G1 X and the Fuji X100 are right in the zone you want to be for portraits -- 112mm / F11 (equiv.) vs. F13.4 on the Sony.
I think the edge goes to the X100 for the faster lens, better low light performance, less weight, and small size.
I have an X100 and while it's definitely outstanding for all purposes a fix focal length equivalent of 35mm will fit it will absolutely not fit in a jeans - or even light jacket - pocket.
Therefore I can't take it with me all the time, although it seldom leaves my side. When it has to an RX100 would be a magnificent substitute, in my pants pocket.
CNY_AP: Not many people zoom in when it is dark (shooting birds or sports in the dark)...most of us do not need a super fast lens at the long end, but at ISO 100, even F5.6 (what I currently have) is iffy on cloudy days for sports.
You want to use a camera that fits in your jeans pocket to shoot sports on a cloudy day?
Shutterbug108: I am hoping they will put a 1-inch sensor into a bridge camera with a big zoom lens.
Shutterbug, the HX200V has a sensor size of 4.7 x 2.7 mm. The RX100 sensor is 13.2 x 8.8 mm.
So no, not feasible at affordable cost and small size.
Gabi: This is the third time I try to post a comment on this article... Strange... None has been published yet. I would have preferred a 12 MP sensor to a 20 MP sensor. This would mean better IQ. Else it looks like it might be a capable camera.
Lower MP does not mean "better IQ", it means worse IQ. If you really want 12MP pictures, shoot at max MP and use a good piece of software to reduce the photos to 12MP - and they will be much better than any modern 12MP camera with equal or smaller sensor size can produce.
Felipe RodrÃguez: Interesting camera. But the sensor is still too small for my taste. APS-C is the minimum for me.
Ok, go buy the same size camera only with APS-C sensor from that other manufacturer which makes those. I forgot the name, please remind me again?
Kristian Harley: Looks very interesting.
I wonder if Sony could use the high resolution of this camera in order to utilize pixel binning? If you look at the output formats this seems plausible. The native resolution is 5472 x 3648 and 2736 x 1824 is available.
That could mean very low noise 5 mpix shots from a 1" sensor.
Shoot at as high MP as you can and let good denoising software do its job and binning looks like the stone age methodology it is by comparison.
TOF guy: In my view this is the wrong way to approach B&W. The right way is to start with a color picture and convert it to B&W. It's so much more flexible that way, and therefore increase the artistic potential of the image.
With a color image one can convert to LAB and extracts the vision-wise sensible luminance channel. But one can do much more than that. Often a subject, say red, will stand out in color against the back ground, say greenery. But they may have similar luminance and therefore the subject will not stand out in B&W. This is clearly visible in many of the posted examples: they lack "separation" between various parts of the image (example sky against sea for the image of the Seattle needdle - fine image though in this case). It's easy to go around this issue when starting with a color image by mixing channels. The artistic possibilities are way beyond what a B&W camera can offer.
Or use filters with the B&W camera (no more noise benefit). IMO sorely missing in these images.
TOF guy, in my view starting with color is the wrong way to approach B&W. It's just handy since we have lots of cameras with color output. Try putting an intense red or orange filter on a true B&W camera and then replicate that effect with a typical bayer array camera. You won't be able to.
And yes, this is the reason you try to twist around. People who love B&W photography are WAY ahead of your feeble methods of using the weak bayer array filters and instead use dedicated B&W filters to achieve vastly superior results.
me_tarzan: Imagine if Leica - in 1955 - had come out with a film camera that wouldn't accept color print or slide film... It would have seemed an absurdity. I realise that the analogy breaks down a little bit because Leica have optimised the Monochrom for B/W but will the results really justify this astronomical price? I would have thought a Pentax medium format digital SLR would still end up giving better results than the Leica - and of course the Pentax can take color if and when desired. The cost would end up the same....
And the Pentax fits in a jacket pocket just like the Leica. And has rangefinder focusing just like the Leica. A fair comparison!
Zigadiboom: If I was to buy a D800 or 5DMark3 I know that the premium in investing in one of these will give me the lastest in sensor tech, unmatched high iso performance, build quality, image quality, superior dynamic range, cutting edge speed and performance and a plethora of flexibility when it comes to manual controls. I know what I am paying the extra money for.
With the Leica at twice the price of the D800 and 5DMark3 what exactly am I getting extra? Somebody needs to enlighten me. Leica is a fine company and they make some of the best optics going around and have a strong pedigree. There is no denying this but there is only so much a company can use its badge to command a price premium. The so called thoroughbred monochrome samples that I see above doesn't move me in the slightest for what this camera is worth.
However the camera does have one thing. For $7950 u at least get the privilege of reviewing your high resolution 18mp images on its state of the art 230,000 dot screen.
"U" get a compact rangefinder which makes use of Leica glass.
If that's not what "u" want, then "u" are free to spend your money elsewhere, but the desires of "u" are not universal and shared by everyone.
Whoever "u" is.
harold1968: Its an anchronism!
Nobody asked for it
Nobody needs it
It doesn't answer any questions anyone was asking
It doesn't tie into anything the 'market' is asking for
I love it
Its awesome
Its bottled emotion
How can a company have the guts to make something like this!
I want one ......
I asked for it, but I had given up hope.
Now I just have to gather my pennies for a while ...
Just a Photographer: NOT very film like!
Very boring grayscales. There is no juice to these black and whites.
Not something I would expect to come from a Leica.
Define "juice" please? I suspect what you're seeing is the amazing (compared to film) DR the camera is capable of, and misinterpreting that lack of image destruction as something negative.
HBowman: This gotta be a joke ...
I don't know were the hell the revolution is ...
Wanna superb colors >> go SIGMA foveon.
"Wanna superb colors" from Quorn? Please, show your colorful photos from an overcast Quorn so we can compare!
Very demanding subjects, yet the camera delivers. Looks quite promising, definitely as good as or a lot better than most photos I've seen from southern Australian farms - there is a reason photos from there don't make National Geographic front pages that often.
pixel_colorado: The body is compact but when you throw on an 18-200mm lens it becomes very awkward and crazy expensive.
Yeah, the M43 with an 18-200 is much more compact! ;)
PK24X36NOW: A lot of the usual BS here.
First, the equivocation of "what's popular in Japan" with "what will be popular in the rest of the world."
Next, the equivocation of the film-to-digital (or vinyl records to CDs) transition with the supposed "imminent replacement" of dSLRs with MIL cameras. Utter nonsense.
Oh, and the mother of all steaming piles - the assertion that MILs with mini sensors are going to challenge (ever) medium format for IQ! Sensors and "tech" can't outdo issues of optics and physics. Bigger formats will always have the advantage.
In order to replace dSLRs, MILs would actually have to be better than dSLRs. MILs are worse in many ways, like EVF that sucks compared to OVF (always will, all the "tech" in the world notwithstanding), worse battery life (always will be, since the EVF will need to consume battery power, unlike an OVF), worse handling, especially if larger format sensors are introduced (think soup can mounted on cigarette pack), second rate AF, ad nauseum.
If people don't get why dynamic range, jitter and sample rate is an important factor in music reproduction, you might as well just buy one of those mp3 players and call it a day. And people do.
Or in other words, people generally don't get it, and a surprisingly large amount of those who do get it don't care. Convenience trumps quality when the convenient alternative is good enough. And since iphone cameras are good enough for most people ...
Roger Knight: Well I think Mirrorless cameras and especially those without any viewfinder are a bit of a fad and really not what many entheusiasts will end up with. I think they will eventually migrate to SLR or even the new SONY system.
Having said that,iIt would be in both of Nikons and Canons best interests to at least get a mirrorles camera out there that uses their lens system rather than say Panasonic, Olympus, NEX or even Samsung so that everything they sell can move towards the ultimate purchases down the timeline when they start to become serious about serious photography where only an SLR will do the job most times.
Very few amateurs ever reach the point where only an SLR will do the job. In fact, most never reach the point where a phone camera will not do the job. SLR's are going the way of vinyl and laserdisc; excellent quality if you want to invest the time, money and effort, but not very interesting for the average consumer.
thubleau3: I don't think EVF will take off .Personally having used both systems EVF is a pain in the proverbial,inacurrate and slow.
Sure, mirrorless is the way they will head but I firmly believe that an alternative to the EVF will produce a much better mirrorless camera as the EVF is not the answer.
I predicted that Canon and Nikon would venture into mirrorless designs months ago ,but only when they started to see a drop in sales.
I also predict that they will come up with a much better option than an EVF.
I got my first EVF camera in 2001. Even at that time it was better than entry level DSLR OVF's. The more recent ones are astoundingly good, and they keep getting better. EVF is most certainly the future - can't be beat for accuracy, and it's fast enough for most tasks already.
fmian: What happens in the Japanese market is meaningless to other markets in the world. Just because curious Japanese amateurs are buying into M43 and E-mount systems does not mean serious pros are doing so.
Look at sales of game consoles in Japan compared to the rest of the world for proof.
Why would a pro change to a system that does not have an upgrade path to full frame? Why would a pro change to a system that forces them to use their camera at arms length? Why would a pro change to a lens mount that offers very little variety in lenses? Sure you can buy adapters to make other lenses fit, but why would a pro want to gimp their full frame lenses to only show a quarter (M43) of information that the lens is capable of bringing in?
I work in a camera store in Sydney and I sell cameras day in day out. Canon and Nikon DSLRS outsell M43, E-mount, Alpha-mount and Pentax mount systems by a factor of 1:10.
There is no contest so far.
Camera stores sell a minority of all cameras sold today.