GaryJP: Whenever I see someone superficially badmouthing another photographer's works here I almost always immediately go to check their gallery.
95% of the time they have uploaded nothing.
And no links to their work either.
I must say watching you two guys trying to justify trashing other people's work, or even brands, with zero accountability, is hysterical.
The original comment here holds broadly true.
It is almost ALWAYS the case that the more mean-spirited and trivial people's responses are, the less likely they are to have EVER put their own work on the line to give other people any idea of where they are coming from.
Yell and scream as much as you like, it happens to be the case. And it's laughable to see people trashing Leibovitz or Gursky or even Cartier Bresson when as far as we know they photograph nothing but beetles or the family dog. And not even those necessarily in focus.
We know a lot of people here can talk the talk. Excuse me, when it comes to negativity, for having more respect for those who also show they can walk the walk.
utomo99: The size is much bigger than RX100 II and III , I hope it is much better than RX100 II and III . otherwise many will buy Sony compact cameras
If size is all that matters, many will be happy with their smartphone. There are also other issues like Raw, colors, user interface, comfort in hand, etc etc.
One error. One lack of mention:
Yes, there IS 23.98p Full HD video, which is the US-friendly equivalent of 24P.
There is a very usable ECO mode which gives you battery life of around 310 shots, which is actually BETTER than the RX100 Mk IV and not bad at all considering touch screens drain more battery.
People should not be misled on these factors by this review.
Nimbifer: Conclusion: too big, way too expensive, sucks in every way possible, don't buy.
As far as looks go, I consider it one of the fuglieat camera ever.
I would buy an EOS M4 "Pro" - provided it is not larger or more expensive than M3, has a top notch EVF built-in and bests Sony A6000 in every respect: AF speed/tracking, IQ, battery charge, responsiveness in RAW, overall handling. Important: EOS, not Powershot (toy) firmware and UI.
A rarely trollish post even for this part of the world. Perhaps next time you could try actually reading the review.
Photoman: I can't remember last time I bought a new Canon...and I doubt I ever will again.
Well, if you like "argument from authority", Sebastião Salgado shot Canon on his "Genesis" project, as does Yann Arthus-Bertrand. "Photoman" does not. Obviously Photoman is the one we should be listening to.
AngularJS: Dpreview is now wholly owned Sony's subsidiary ;) but the camera as good as their marketing / PR dept.
Everlasting, that is a defence of ALL clickbait everywhere.
FocusBogus: Nice camera but short zoom, and RX-10 is too big. How about sister model RZ-100 with 28-200mm lens?
There are cameras with the same size sensor and at least 120mm equivalent lenses, so it IS possible. This doesn't even go to a decent portrait focal length which, for me, is the biggest shortcoming.
aerorail: the same people who want a touch screen would complain of the fingerprints
... and the same people justifying not having one will consider it the best thing since sliced bread when Sony finally introduces it.
lemonadedrinker: Never heard of them until I saw this item....find some other band to photograph is my thought.
Son House, Bukka White, R.L Burnside, and Buddy Guy are all cool. They are just not all there is. And nor is everything after them rubbish. (Incidentally, you didn't initially say they were rubbish. You said you'd never heard of them.)
I am just laughing at how different the comments would likely be, from some DPR staff as well as others, if the headline was "Sony's multi-purpose ME20F-SH camera reaches ISO 4 million".
Rishi Sanyal: Fun little thought experiment:
If we go by sensorgen, the 1D-X's pixels have a full-well capacity (FWC) of 90,000. Since the pixels on this sensor are 7.5x larger, we can extrapolate that given similar sensor capabilities, the pixels on this sensor can hold ~675,000 photoelectrons.
Now, since each doubling of ISO halves the FWC, ISO 4,000,000 will yield a FWC of roughly 675,000/40,000 = 16.875. Let's be generous and round that to 20. That means white is made from 20 photons.
If we generously place middle grey at 3 EV below clipping, that'd mean midtones are made from 20/8 = 2.5 photons, which itself yields a signal with SNR of 2.5/sqrt(2.5) = 1.6, which is already below most reasonable DR cutoffs. In other words, you'll have ~3 EV dynamic range at best, assuming no read noise whatsoever (bad assumption).
So, either my calculations are *way* off, or there's a limit to these insane ISOs. :)
Not a Sony, eh?
MarcLee: Drab images in the name of high dynamic range, particularly on the beach front photos.
It's a trend I am seeing more and more. Everything grey. No snap.
I have a theory some of it is considered more acceptable due to the fact that looking at your images on an iPhone or iPad actually gives them extra artificial snap.
And it seems to be creeping even into the latest Canons like the G7X.
I seem to be in the minority though.
You are missing my obvious point, which is that when you shoot them side by side on the same day in the same conditions different cameras give you different results. And the processing choices people make are increasingly towards emphasising the HDR in all situations. Hence the reference to Philip Blooms's recent milky blacks.
I was looking at a cityscape photographer's web page recently and the FIRST thing he does on EVERY Raw is pull the shadows 100% up and the highlights 100% down. When what drew you to photograph a scene is the play of light, not detail, this is self-defeating.
How much you want your image to emulate the human eye's static DR versus its saccading DR is very much an artistic (not scientific) decision, and the current emphasis is on the latter ... while Caravaggio, Rembrandt, and film noir photographers for instance very much emphasised the former. For Ansel Adams, mid range greys were not the order of the day.
So no, it is nothing to do with Kodachrome.
Precisely my point. Laptop, iPhone, and iPad screens are usually not calibrated but tuned for extra contrast. On my calibrated monitors it is a different story.
It is not only those photos. It's something I see otherwise excellent shooters like Philip Bloom fall into, even processing for it.
But I see I have committed blasphemy.
Drab images in the name of high dynamic range, particularly on the beach front photos.
I'm not talking about the Stones, who are great, but the commenters who are still back there.
Niala2: I don't get it how one can possibly judge if the camera is doing a good job (better or worse then other cameras) by looking at - how ever good sounding concept of - "real-world samples" here on DPreview.
Maybe that's what most people actually photograph.
... or you could use your eyes and look at the photos.
Let me guess. Early sixties?
I love how people think their lack of knowledge is something to be proud of on the internet.
Neither the band, nor Dave Grohl, is exactly unknown. You may have heard of a band called Nirvana. Dave Grohl was in it. He founded Foo Fighters.
If the tabloids told you about a star who broke his leg but kept on playing recently, that was Grohl.