mosc: I think we should be reminded just how fast f1.7 is on a 2.2x crop. The LX100's aperture diameter at 24mm focal length is larger (wider) than that of a Canon 5D with it's kit 24-105 L lens. In low light, the LX100 doesn't need to use anywhere near the high ISO the 5D would to take a shot. These results look pretty good at ISO3200. f1.7 ISO 3200 is going to give you the same exposure as 18,000 ISO at f4 on the 5D. The FF's high ISO performance is superior and all, but not enough to make up for the difference in lens. I'd rather shoot the LX100 at ISO3200 than a 5D at ISO 18,000.
Granted 24mm isn't the only thing you'll ever shoot, nor does the 12.7MP LX100 match up to the 22MP resolution of the 5D. That said, there are obvious physical dimension and price differences too. Not that they compete, just that we have some context for how amazingly bright f1.7 is at this crop.
Yes, mosc's view is absolutely refuted.
To see why, the second page is the key one, where it talks about the total light measured, defined by the physical size of the lens aperture.
A quote, which is saying it as quietly and nicely as possible:
'And this means that, for the same shutter speed, F-number and ISO, the camera with the largest sensor will have more total light to measure. And, unless the large sensor is significantly worse than the smaller one, it will produce a cleaner, less noisy image. It's likely that the large sensor camera will be bigger, heavier and more expensive, but it should provide cleaner images.'
That is really a great article by Richard Butler.
I wonder why you would think that, nana?
This is an old leaf, well into decay, but still strong colors show in veins and remaining small areas.
Then look at the stems, and the saturation in out of focus leaves, even the brilliant greens half hidden in mossy crevices...
I feel color is very good, to degree we can tell without having been there.
Besides having some beauties, I think this is an important shot.
One of the things that strongly convinced me about the XZ-2 was how true it was in handling reflections, clear and transparent while others gave a white-glazed look. Big difference.
SeeRoy: Jeeze. This is a TERRIBLE ad for the camera! Soft as...
I think you fellows aren't realizing there's haze, nor are familiar with what water can look like in low-angle northern light.
This is Seattle, where people burn wood, etc..
Several of us are observing that this is a very big improvement in the (very) low light autofocus for the XZ-2.
Here's a discussion which lays out the trick to it -- and how this fits with actual camera use.
I think Olympus have done what it takes to really make this camera, and it's a nice holiday gift. Much appreciated.
Alright, I see where he marked them, after all.
I would still stand by the case that both those shots ought to have been clean of 'art filters' in order to recognize the real things the camera can capture.
PA160129, on the other hand, seems not to have a filter, but combines field depth defocus and wind apparently so that there is not one non-blurry item in the image.
I love, in general, art. I grew up with Seattle-like light, and can appreciate its beauties and challenges, not to say potential for expressionist qualities. I would be more interested to see the camera reckon those, than to face arty thoughts. Especially when trying to decide about a camera, thank you. Plenty of fora on Dpreview for the rest.
Yes, it's nice to have interest, and this is one that has that and shows off the camera.
What really displeased and lost value for your images is where 'art filters' have been applied, and the photographer gives no notes that he has done this.
Frankly, their use spoiled several shots which are necessary to understand this camera. At the least, the 'high contrast and murk downtown with Space Needle' What we need to know far more is how the XZ-2 actually handles that hard-lit rainy Seattle scene, and we can't see that now.
And what really got to me was the residences near the curved tank. There, we could have seen depth of field used in a very nice way, and understood the camera. Instead, focus target was missed (should have been that nice central window with curtains and knickknacks), and the rest of the image was spoiled by a blur top-and-bottom filter! The only thing really in focus (and showing depth of focus) was the curved tank.
Please next time use better judgement, thanks.
Ron Poelman: Another ad,really, DPR ???
Ron, I think that Skyfall as a film needs no advertising like this.
It's something of a mature piece, also, and you might like it.
Yes, there is too much advertising. And at the same time, maybe not enough of some better kinds. Art is advertising, for its own conceptions and ideas or ideals; have you considered this?
Jogger: If they went with a conventional design rather than a stupid gimmick, it would have been more user friendly and people wouldnt be freaked out about it.
Amazing how the new frightens. But the ideas about this kind of camera are documented back to 1908. It's just taken this long for a technical approach to become possible.
forpetessake: Despite the belief that Lytro sensor captures everything in focus, it captures practically nothing in focus. Anybody who used manual focusing knows that to achieve critical focus one has to be precise within millimeters from the target, or microns from the sensor. With crude system of microlenses it would be impossible to have anything useful in focus only a handful of focal planes. What saves the camera is that its resolution is so low that the lack of focus isn't noticed. That means that even if the camera used gigapixel sensor, it would still had to keep resolution low and instead increase the number of focal planes or face the lack of focus practically everywhere. This idea cannot become practical no matter what.
You clearly haven't yet grasped how the Lyttro camera works.
Here's a good paper on it - with a lot of addressing of your microns, and with nicely visible examples.
IljaM: Please, if you redesign the page, change the black background of the page, after 2 minutes of reading the text on your page, I have already really serious problems with my eyes, I need to stop to read...This is the reason why I still less and less visit your page, because I have fears that I will read something a little bit longer and my eyes are are in pain...White text on the black background is hell!
Ok, Simon, fair enough -- and thanks for acknowledging. A nice day your way.
To be honest, this sounds like MBA school nonsense at its peak. All nice sounding abstracts for the boardroom, and no pie.
'We'll just connect our customer base up to subscriptions, and then we can report constantly recurring revenue. And by the way, many of them will be paying two to four times what they were, when they were taking sensibly spaced upgrades.'
Except, many of them won't be paying anything, any more.
Let's remember, too, how the cloud can enable fresh competitors.