Azurael: The RX10 looks softer on the right of the studio scene and the F1000 the left to me - it's especially noticeable in the corners. Probably not something you'd notice in a sanely-proportioned print but are we looking at a slight off-axis shot, decentered lenses, or some kind of processing difference I can't quite fathom?
@Azurael - To be honest, with zoom lenses that complex, I'd be amazed if you didn't see that sort of thing. The number of elements being moved around, with all the interacting manufacturing tolerances, and the accuracy of positioning each element at each focal length means it's pretty amazing it works at all. Considering you're also getting a camera for that price...
ChaosCloud: In the specs comparison table with the RX10, the FZ1000 viewfinder is noted as LCD. I thought it was an OLED, same as in the GH4. Please confirm.
It's OLED, I believe (though there is an XGA LCD panel on the market, so both are possible).
It's most likely to be slight asymmetry in the lens. We carefully align cameras to the centreline of the chart, so there shouldn't be a significant alignment difference from that perspective.
ccarrier: DPR : error on page 15 of the review ? At the bottom of the page, on serveral places, when you're talking about "iso 100" mode, the graph shows iso 50. I think there is a mistake in either the graph or the text.
I'll look into that.
Kawika Nui: Here's a comment by someone else (since they didn't choose to post it here, I don't think it would be right to post their name). Is there a flaw in this?
"The equivalent aperture range is meaningless because the FZ200 is f/2.8 on its 4.5-108mm lens.
"The f-number is quite literally the focal length divided by the iris diameter e.g. 55mm focal length / 5mm diameter = 11, so f/11. That f/11 quite literally tells you the iris aperture diameter i.e. f/11 = 55/11 = 5mm where f is the focal length, and why the '"/" slash is there, it means divide..
"You cannot take the true focal length away from the f/number, you cannot use the "35mm equivalent" except for DoF and even then the distance is possibly more important than the aperture.
"Using the FZ200 1/2.3-inch sensor on its 4.5-108mm is a cheat to get the same field of view as a 24-600mm on a 35mm frame and f/2.8 on either will put the same amount of light per unit area down on each one."
@mosc - your point about film sizes (and 35mm being the *de facto* standard), is a good one. Or, at least, I hope so: it's one of the points I've raised in the article I've just finished writing.
We'll be publishing more detail about this soon but, in the meantime:
The equivalent aperture is not meaningless - it is a useful means of comparing different lenses and sensor sizes on a common basis.
The f-number doesn't change. The Panasonic FZ200 does have an f/2.8 lens - we're not saying otherwise.
What we *are* saying, is that the FZ200's 4.5-108mm f/2.8 lens is *equivalent* to a 25-600mm F15.6 lens on a full frame camera.
They are equivalent in terms of angle-of-view, depth-of-field and *total amount* of light on the sensor.
The *intensity* of the light (light per unit area) is the same as any f/2.8 lens - as the person being quoted correctly notes. However, the total light (which takes into account *how many area units* are trying to capture that light), is equivalent to an F15.6 lens on full frame, which gives you *an idea* of the comparative low-light performance.
spitfire31: Again – no headphone output, no manual audio input level.
What are they thinking? WHEN will manufacturers finally get wise to the fact that video is image AND audio?
No thanks to the FZ1000.
What makes you suggest there's no manual audio input level?
Richard - dpreview.com
gskolenda: No Headphone port! No Audio input levels! Bad decision Panasonic!
4K is a super luxury feature that not many will use. But needing audio input levels, and a headphone jack will be missed by many and will slow the sales of this camera when compared to the Sony RX10. Also, RX10 has a way better lens! faster always wins over reach 90% of the time! No ND filters. No full sensor scan!
It needs to be cheaper!
[Top of page8](http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/8):
'Both of them have focus peaking, magnification, zebra pattern, audio level adjustment, and manual exposure control...'
Also, I wouldn't be certain that the FZ1000 doesn't have full sensor readout. Panasonic aren't boasting about it, but the results and some of the comments made when we last met them, suggest it does.
Moti: Can't find if the lens is threaded to accept filters. Comments!!
[Top of page 4:](http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/4)
'Although it's not noted on the camera, the lens is threaded for 62mm filters.'
lolopasstrail: "all situations. Only Canon's G1 X II can trump the Sony in terms of low-light and depth-of-field terms"
the latter is not true. Smaller formats enjoy the advantage of more depth of field, just as 35mm cameras trumped the tyranny of narrow medium format depth of field.
Humans see everything they look at in focus; cameras have trouble in throwing distant/near objects out of focus. For people who want to look at the world, great depth of field is a plus. For people who want to make pictures that look like yet another photographic technique, I guess narrow DoF is ok.
DPR never met a camera at any price point whose price wasn't deemed "fully justified." I'd suggest the market is saying differently, given that presales are shipped and most major retailers have this sitting around in stock.
2eyesee - the equivalent aperture graph (low light is where it's most relevant), shows the RX100 III has only a slight aperture advantage, because its aperture is brighter almost precisely in proportion to how much smaller its sensor is.
If you then check on DxO, you'll see that the Color Sensitivity (which is probably the best measure of low-light performance), is slightly better for the Canon.
Overall the Canon isn't *much* better in low light but our shooting appears to confirm the theory that it is a little better. So this and its more portrait-friendly focal length range (with an aperture wide enough to give some background blur), are the only advantages it shows, despite being much bigger.
The point is that it can only out-perform the RX100 III in a couple of areas - much fewer than the specs would lead you to expect.
There is no deep depth-of-field advantage to one format over another. If an aperture is small enough (in absolute, not F-number terms), to give you the depth-of-field you want, it'll exhibit the same degree of diffraction, regardless of the sensor.
Have a look at the G1 X II and the RX100 III in our studio tests (use the print view to compare at equal resolution), and the Canon does better than the Sony at high ISOs. Not by much, but it is better.
It's low ISO where the Canon struggles (as shown in the G1 X II review) - the RX100 III performs at least as well, despite being smaller, leaving low light and portrait-friendly reach/D-o-F as its only advantages.
There's no area in which the sensor in the MX-1 and XZ-2 performs any better than you'd expect for a sensor of that size. Those camera's great advantage is their bright lens (and the excellent ergonomics of the Olympus), which the RX100 III now betters.
acid592: If previous versions' f value is 2.8 at 70mm, does it make sense to talk about it as being better at low light.Or am I thinking nonsensical.
If you have a look [at this chart](http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/images/apertures.png).
You'll see that the RX100 II (yellow line) is brighter than the M3 (orange line) between 28 and 32-or-so mm equivalent. From there on the M3 is consistently bright, whereas the II slows down sigificantly.
Ivan Lietaert: I hate it when dpreview uses the term 'large sensor' here. It is misleading and confusing (how would you call a full frame sensor - gargantuan?). Why not stick to objective terms like 'one inch'? I still remember when they called the LX3's sensor 'large' while it was a 1/1.67 inch sensor.
It's difficult - not least because no aspect of a 1"-type sensor actually measures one inch.
By the standards of almost every fixed-lens zoom compact ever made, this is a huge sensor, even though it's half the size of a Four Thirds sensor (and thus 1/8th the size of 'full frame').
attomole: Love it but I have a suggestion. Save yourself 200 quid and get a MK 2 or 350 and get a MK1,
or save yourself 50 quid and reserve a bit more space in your bag and get an A6000 and PZ lens, as once you have fitted your £800 camera in a case it's not very pocketable other than in a voluminous jacket variety
Personally, I'd disagree: the three big changes make this a *much* better camera than its predecessors, unless you need the extra zoom.
tkbslc: Seems like the viewfinder on this camera is as much of a curse as it is a blessing due to the implementation.
I disagree. Turning off the camera is a bit odd and it's a bit small, but the panel and the refresh are good (especially by the low standard of viewfinders in compacts), and it adds hugely to the camera's flexibility.
DavidsfotosDotCom: Isn't there supposed to be a down load link here?
Beta versions are downloaded from the Adobe labs website, this update is meant to be downloaded from the Update system within the software.
Sandler Photography: Where can we download the (non release-candidate) Adobe Camera Raw 8.5?I can only seem to find the link to the DNG converter or the RC.
They can be downloaded through the 'Update' feature within Photoshop CS6 or CC.
munro harrap: If Dpreview wishes to avoid prosecution in the UK under the Trades Descriptions Act will it please STOP telling punters this and others like it is a 1" sensor. It is NOT.I get a little tired of reading unprofessional lies whose intention is to deceive people into buying or believing anything, it so boring
We'd be more than happy to move to a less confusing naming system. We try to make sure the first instance of using the name specifies it's 1"=*type*, rather than actually being an inch, in any dimensions. The small mercy is that most of the world doesn't use inches, so are hopefully more likely to note the 13.2 x 8.8mm dimensions that we also give.
Sadly we're not in a position to simply call this a 116mm2 sensor, since there's some variance in size between different sensors of the same 'type,' so we tend not to know precisely how big (or small), the sensors in most compacts are. We'd also then need to use both the current naming system and the sensor area dimensions until they were widely-enough understood that people didn't get confused why we were using a totally different naming system from everyone else.
emilclick: Ineresting here that the title of the article is about G6 review and I don't see something like this. Article have few informations like comon anounce about G6 And the comments is all the world around about but not G6. It is a Olimpus fan group. About Fujifilm vs. Olimpus. Something about Canon Eos M and many others including Sony NEX and Samsung NX but nothing about G6. Is a big disappointment becose I come here to find something new, interesting or triks about G6 and I read with much ptience all 205 comments for nothing.
Correcting this will require re-programming some of the back-end of the site, so will have to wait until the developers have finished their current projects.
The problem is one of finding and updating all the bits of the site that haven't kept up with the expansion of the types of content we produce. I apologise if you've felt misled in the meantime.
pgphoto_ca: Be carefull....it's not a f2.8-f4 with this sensor (2.7x crop)....it's f5.6-f8 or more.......the crop factor need also to be apply to the aperture :)
A real 400mm f4...is much bigger ! :)
Just as a side note: the complication in this particular case is that the *sensors* won't have received the same amount of light, because of the way the SLT system works (Though it is supposed to boost its signal to compensate for that). That's why I say the cameras receive the same amount of light, not the sensors.