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.
lemonadedrinker: Never heard of them until I saw this item....find some other band to photograph is my thought.
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.
justmeMN: $948, and no touch screen?
"All it will take is for a few (more) Pros to endorse touch - screens and all the nay - sayers will jump on board like rats"
No. All it will take is for Sony to add one. And then they will have always been vital.
Fredy Ross: Ilove my sony rxii but would think about an upgrade but the focal length is too short.
Here comes Howie speaking for "most" again.
"Most" buy other cameras.
Jennyhappy2: The more negative comments on the RX100 IV, the popular it becomes. Everyone seems to be an expert Of which probably none of them don't even own a RX100 I, II, or II. Let alone a Sony camera.
If I recall, many felt the same thing when the original RX100 came out.
"Every time people spot a flaw in this camera, other people want it more."
Yes, and there's a name for them.
That is perhaps one of the least mature comments of the year. Congratulations.
I long for the day people fall out of love with the grey on grey HDR look. Where's the "snap"?
Lee Jay: No AA filter = no sale.No OVF = no sale.I suspect I'll never own a Sony camera since they'll never produce something I'd buy.
"Sony is simply doing what the majority of people want" The majority of people are NOT buying Sony cameras. This is one of the most specious arguments of all.
This camera may well turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread or the second coming, and I am even open to getting one, but my god, I really do feel like I have fallen into an Apple fanboy parallel universe from ten years ago.
Not just from the article, but also the comments. Woe to anyone who dares to feel it might not best meet their needs.
The difference is the Apple religion has become a little less zealous.
paul simon king: Just been told that LR6 perpetual licence won't get any upgrades should any be released
Can anyone corroborate this this?
Barry sure is, on EVERY issue, dedicated to saving Adobe from the slings and arrows of outraged customers.
Or, as Adobe considers us, mugs.
Helle: I am getting pretty tired of Adobes CC policy - keep charging money from me endlessly. I wonder if there is another software that will do what Lightroom do and NOT as a subscription? Pay once - and update when I can afford it?
It all hinges on how much one can trust a software manufacturer. And that depends on how upfront they are with us. For me, the record here is not good.
GaryJP: Funny that Adobe and Apple hated each other so long, when they are increasingly becoming mirror images in terms of imposing their will on consumers.
Adobe has its evangelists, Samsung has been caught paying forum contributors, many companies have online marketers who do not declare who they are.
Anyone who thinks they do not operate in these fora is naive to the point of insanity. Or reads posts VERY selectively.