budi0251: How could they do that?How on earth they paid for the production cost?300 US$ would be around a little less than a quarter or the initial selling price, Would there be enough money left per-unit to pay for materials, production cost, employee, ads, logistics, etc.??
Unless of course their initial price profit margin was more than 30% (could it be up to 50% profit margin? :D )
now I wonder, how much Panasonic's set-up profit margin for FZ1000?
How could they do that?How on earth they paid for the production cost?300 US$ would be around a little less than a quarter or the initial selling price, Would there be enough money left per-unit to pay for materials, production cost, employee, ads, logistics, etc.??
BillyShooter: I believe the author meant "FZ1000" instead of "FZ100" in this portion of the review...."One advantage the RX10 has over the FZ100 is the ability to use Auto ISO when recording videos, which keeps shutter speed and aperture locked while still allowing for accurate exposure."
there's another one, on Image Quality page ... "We have several real world examples to illustrate the differences between the FZ1000 and RX1000."
I believe it's supposedly RX10.
Wew, seems like a very good sensor with a very good lens.Compared to Canon 100D or 700D (Canon's most popular sensor & comparable megapixels), JPEG @ ISO 100 seems very comparable, and I couldn't really justify the differences. It is some differences, but really hard to discern (or bo bothered).
While shooting RAW or higher ISO does show the advantage of DSLR, but hey, 700D + Canon EF 50/1.4 alone would cost around 900 bucks (or more).
Sure I'd keep DSLR for some very specialized lens not available in FZ1000 like f/2.0 lenses or faster, Sigma 8-16 UWA, Samyang 8mm FE, macro lens, ... ummm (anyone bother to add some reasonable lenses recommendation for unique & useful DSLR lenses?)ah yes, Tilt-Shift lens (cost quite a fortune).
sooo, any marketing analysts have any ideas what sells a camera (phone)?
Guess pretty soon if not yet, connected mobile device will take more pictures than any dedicated camera system.
Any guesstimate when a cellphone camera will be use for space mission, or may be in mission to mars (so you can always call home while make selfie on mars for you social network profile pict)?
How on earth they could get 36mp image out of 36mp sensor?What about bayer CFA, and problems with microlenses design on the very farthest corner I suppose can't really get a properly perpendicular light streams towards the sensor, not forgetting physics of light fall-off.
Or maybe the lens design is so good that it actually fit to handle medium format imaging area and being used as "cropped" on FX sized sensor?
budi0251: Congrats to Tokina for embracing the tech.In the past, most of Tokina AF lenses for Nikon would omit internal autofocus motor and rely on Nikon DSLR motor-pin screw drive AF.
Nevertheless, I love that decision, maybe DSLR body AF motor coupling sounds outdated, but I guess there'd be less chance that AF motor in you lenses could go bad.
Sure DSLR body AF motor could go bad as well, but in case of Nikon, usually would take ages. My D1x (about a decade old) could still drive those big 80-200/2.8 AF lenses no problem, heck, I could even feel it's momentum torque during AF.
and should you DSLR body AF motor go bad, then it's time to upgrade :DI've been waiting for that to happen on my D1x, sigh, still have to wait some more time I guess.
Congrats to Tokina for embracing the tech.In the past, most of Tokina AF lenses for Nikon would omit internal autofocus motor and rely on Nikon DSLR motor-pin screw drive AF.
Dirk Nuary: So much money for that 1 inch ILC? Nooooo... So many APSC ILC that give you cheaper yet better image.
How good is Sony A3000?Besides crappy lcd & evf?
Wondering what lens did they use for studio image quality test, it doesn't show.However it seems so badly out of focus, ie. same 24MP without AA filter Nikon D7100 does produce wayyy much sharper picture (RAW).
1 CrossType PDAF? I suppose they should use same lenses across Nikon crop model with LiveView AF shouldn't they?
ummm, where is it now?
munro harrap: In the UK its list price is £800 roughly. For £880 you get the Sony RX10. You get , similar sensor size, 24-200mm f2.8 Zeiss zoom.
But right now for £730 with £100 casnback from Nikon you get the Nikon D7100 body. Hmmmm 24MP APS-C. For about £100 you can pick up an 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor (AFS metal mount.)
That's a 105mm f4.5 lens on an APS-C sensor, which means folks, as good a zoom as 200mm f2.8 on a crummy little digicam sensor (both a very noisy at base ISO- check out imaging-resources tests and compare)
The RX10 is infinitely superior to the Canon and does good video. But neither competes with APS-C. Noise degrades these smaller sensors images-however good, the noise is greater than the detail- so all textures, skin, wood, cloth, metal, LOOK THE SAME. Only the graphic and your brain says otherwise.
The Nikon shutter lag is easily good enough.
But a 300D 6MP Canon will give better pictures than this. Cost now with a lens? Less than £100.
all of these would eventually lead into goodness for consumers, ie. lower price :)
Anyone still remember that D70 + 18-70 lens brand new?
Cost about the same as RX10 or D7100, it is called "Price Segmentation".
however, as nerdy and geeky, I'd say that D70 (or it's brothers & sisters, ie. D40, D50, D70s; 's' for sister) still having the edge against any of today dslr for photography.Capability to use external manual flash at 1/8000s (or 1/16000s on D1 series & no expensive HSS) has yet never been available today.
hmmm, I think we got some misfocus here.comparing RAW image quality against Sony NEX-6 @ ISO 100 & 125, I see softer images on RX10's sample vs NEX-6.However when you increase to ISO 200 (RX10 refocus), you can clearly see that the RX10 cropped picture sharpness is wayyy much better, comparable to those of NEX-6 (apart from the noise performance).
Could DPReview update the studio test shot for RAW @ ISO 100 & 125 for the RX10?
Still use WinXP on my Thinkpad R52 (Pentium m 1.8Ghz + 2GB DDR2), mainly because I can't get proper drivers for its display adapter in Win7.
And then some,
I use WinXP SP3 32bit for my desktop PC (AMD X2 3Ghz w/ 4GB of RAM) too.Indeed I lost about half gigabyte of RAM.
Why is that?
Well, I do love simple UI and it simply works for me, to make or change file association, file search features, drivers, etc.Currently most of the time the machine would run Photoshop CS6 with latest compatible ACR & DNG converter. I have no problem (yet) with latest DSLR Raw files.
Then some office stuff & web browser (Firefox), media player classic, and... that's it I think my main use of PC.
Dunno if in the future they would force people to use Photoshop CC or Lightroom 5 in order to open latest future RAW files, then I might upgrade to Win 8.1
well, just in case, probably, if such battery tech would exist in the future; then I suppose we'd find such "Commercial Battery Charging Station" just like today's gas station.
10 cent per-30second-charging @ 5VDC/200amps :Dyou could even pay using your phone credit, plus insured against battery explosion, injuries, death and gadget caught fire.
to be competitive, i wonder, any of nikon 1 systems that support external flash sync speed up to 1/16000 a'la D1 series? or any early nikon's electronic shutter 6MP dslr (D70, D70s, D50, D40).
Really longing for such features, none of current dslr crop support anything higher than 1/320s sync speed (unless you buy hss support flash, and that can be quite costly and none available with monolight).
I love to use my 50/1.4 wide open in the bright daylight for that bokeh, yet not want wasting battery on my flash with ND filter.Heck, even using my old cheap manual flash, i could control it from D1x, just set SS to 1/8000 - 1/16000 for FEC :D
I suppose the advantage of DSLR is the capability of using different specialized lenses; ie. :
macro/supermacro w/ bellows or microscope lenses UWA (sigma 8-16, or Nikon 14-24 FF lens,)fisheye (Canon 8-16 FE comes to mind)Tilt-Shift (Canon) or PC (Nikon) lens for super DOF focussuperfast/superbright (f/1.4, f/1.2, f/0.95, f/0.75, etc. or Nikon 200mm f/2)fast & bright super tele (albeit very heavy 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6)telescope mounting/astrophotographyinfrared imaging (need to modify the thing though)veryfast PDAF (though sometimes not 100% accurate, useful for news PJ)
Other than that (one might add some more), I suppose Sony's RX10 is good enough for most of the time as above DSLR companion lenses system.
24MP or 36MP FX SuperCCD sensor would (supposedly) yield a very good image at least 12MP/18MP.Plus with modern tech advancement, one could get expanded dynamic range in Video!
I'd love to see those D800E sensor being halved to produce 18MP image with better noise performance (S = standard larger & more sensitive pixel) and combined with another 18MP image with better highlight (R = Reduced pixel to handle those extra 2 or 3 stops more highlight).
Get (or develop) faster processor, and you might get away with that process in Video (1080, 60p).
Hopefully we could get 16-stops of DR at 8 or 9 stops above middle gray :D (15-stops DR would be good enough as long as we could get those "film look" highlight shoulder).
jtan163: Is the video 60p?
Does it support 4K or 2K video? Progressive or interlaced? fps?
nicolaiecostel: First of all, this is a great entry level camera. Imagine the IQ you can get with that Sony 24 MP with no low pass. Incredible ..Also, 5 FPS at 24 MP in a 500$ camera ? Jeez ! My D700 does 5.5 at 12 MP and the standard battery. This really puts things into perspective.Stop requesting higher end features like dedicated ISO buttons, focus motors (what screw driven lenses you would need nowadays anyway ?!), there are higher end bodies for that ..This is a camera dedicated to soccer moms everywhere, and newbies, and for that purpose, it will be great value.I have owned the D3100 and while it might not be the greatest camera ever, coupled with the 50 1.4G it gave me some stunning images. Whenever your picture suck, take into consideration the following:1. Personal skill2. Light and lighting3. Lens used4. Digital processingYeah, I also saw that guy dismissing this because the 1Dx, ridiculous stuff people say on the internet !!
Well, but it is good for people to "feel" that they "may" need those 24 megapixels :DAnd for sure you can find resources from "trusted sources" that 24mp without AA would indeed sharper than one with lowpass filter :p ; now, how can this be a bad thing? you can get 2TB HDD for 100 bucks, and most PC now have gigs of RAMs & multiple CPUs and don't forget those high speed internet too.
Hence, 24MP taken with Kit Lens and bad techniques would be just another JPEGs filling one's limitless HDD viewed at 2MP at most common Full HD monitor consumer display.
Indeed, 24 MP would also drive the sales of those 4K & 8K displays, otherwise who'd buy them?? :)
As for professional use of 24MP?can we expect those 22MP digital backs to come down in price, considering now it has been "outgunned" in Megapixel race by a cheap entry level DSLR ? :p