larryr: If I understand the article correctly, total light gives an idea of the quality of the images so a camera with a smaller sensor might do as well or perhaps better than one with a larger sensor IF it has a faster lens (AND using a slower shutter speed is not an option, forcing the camera with the larger sensor to use a higher ISO)? Pixel density is not important? This allows one to understand the relative importance of lens speed vs. sensor size (in terms of total light and IQ).
This changes the common wisdom that a small sensor camera performs pretty well in daylight but not so well in low light? But the daylight situation has not changed, and the low light situation has improved only where the camera has a faster lens and a slower shutter speed can not be used (allowing it to use a lower ISO?)
On cameras with smaller sensors does the adjusted aperture refer to the actual size of the aperture? In the cropped example the adjusted aperture does refer to the used part of the aperture.
Panasonic FZ200 has a 4.5-108mm F2.8 lens
In full-frame terms that would be equivalent to a 25-600mm F15.6 lens.
This means 108mm, F2.8, ISO 100 on a small sensor would be the same as 600mm, F15.6, ISO 3086. Which, as you can imagine, gives you a lot of depth-of-field but is usable in daylight, but almost unusable in low light.
Even though the FZ200 has a relatively bright lens, it's not nearly bright enough to allow its small sensor to operate at the same level as large-sensor cameras.
All cameras use all of the aperture, they just can't always catch all the light that's projected through the lens.
Pixel density makes remarkably little difference - higher resolution images appear noisier at the pixel level because you're looking at the noise in more detail. Broadly speaking, you can scale a high-res image down to the size of a lower res image and get similar noise levels.
A compact camera is just the same as a 'cropped sensor' camera (indeed you can calculate all 'full frame' lenses in terms of Medium Format lenses/sensors if you prefer: it just happens that the 35mm film format is pretty well understood as a reference point).
A compact camera will perform well when there's lots of light because there's lots of light however, in low light it'll perform exactly as well as you'd expect with a tiny sensor and tiny maximum aperture.
MarkvandeVen: I got mine last weekend. Haven't done much shooting yet, but it surely feels like a solid camera.
I am a bit concerned about the 'bluetooth' support. From what i've seen so far, it looks like the bluetooth-support is a bit too much next-gen: you can only pair your camera with NFC, there is no manual bluetooth pairing option. (Or am I blind?) So that would leave people with an iPhone in the dark... Hoping that a future FW release will resolve this, because the current 'bluetooth' implementation isn't finished imho.
Wifi is an alternative, but again, when using an Iphone your phone will lose it's data connection when connecting to the camera. Not ideal either...
From my usage of the camera so far, I get the impression you're not meant to think about the technologies (NFC/BlueTooth/Wi-Fi) as separate, you're just supposed to let them do their thing in the background.
That said, my phone seems much happier to drop the Bluetooth connection than I think Samsung expects, so it could depend on which phone you use.
And yes, iPhone users get a much less slick Wi-Fi experience with the NX1 (though much of this is down to decisions Apple has made).
Carl Showalter: The "But what about the f/4s?" is so full of false information its not even funny.
It states a f/2.8 lens on a crop sensor is brighter than a f/4 on FF? If you suppose that "brightness" means the amount of light hitting the sensor a f/4 lens on FF will be exactly as bright as a f/2.8 lens on half the frame (~crop sensors). And to go even further in this context you should not even refer to f-stops but rather to t-stops because f-stops have little to do with how much light passes through a lens.
Not a problem - no harm done. This sort of feedback can also help me recognise where I've phrased something ambiguously, so it can useful.
The article does not state that an f/2.8 lens on a crop sensor is brighter than an f/4 on full frame. The 'full frame' bit is your own creation - the text explicitly confirms that the context is 'on APS-C.'
Full frame is mentioned further down the article, where it says a 70-200mm f/4 on full frame will offer very similar behaviour to a 50-150mm f/2.8 on APS-C.
technomad: "it's most directly comparable to a Full Frame 70-200mm F5.6". What? Are they really not teaching basic arithmetic these days? There is only one variable where that statement is true: the DoF at a given f-stop. The light gathering capability is exactly the same for any lens at a given aperture and the focal length equivalent is whatever the crop factor translates it to - in this case 80-300mm. Which is not 70-200…
@Carl Showalter - You're right, of course, f-numbers *indicate* focal length / diameter of entrance pupil.
I should have stated that: in an exposure context, f-numbers are used to *imply* light per unit area (And yes, I'm aware that even then, a more correct measure would be T-stops).
However, my slightly careless use of language in a comment shouldn't undermine the thrust of the article as a whole. If you genuinely think I've got something wrong in the article, then by all means send me a PM and I'll be happy to discuss it.
jennyrae: article is misleading. it should be Apple overtakes Nikon of pictures taken with device on flicker.
Actually it's not in terms of number of pictures (a measure that Apple has dominated on Flickr for some time). These numbers only count each device once per week, so it doesn't matter that people publish more iPhone photos than DSLR photos.
However, because it's sampled per-week, there's still a problem if some types of users post less frequently than once per week since they'll be under-represented.
Frankis: Comparing a 50-150 F2.8 APS-C lens to a 70-200 F2.8 full frame lens is comparing two different beasts. While the field of view is the same, the aperture is not. The reason is that in order to account for the crop factor, you also have to multiple the aperture by the crop factor. A 50-150mm F2.8 lens on a cropped sensor is effectively a 70-200mm F4 lens on a full frame and that's why they have similar weights and prices.
To get a true comparison to a 70-200 F2.8 FF lens you would need to compare it to a 50-150 F1.8 APS-C sensor lens which no one seems to make yet.
The article isn't arguing 50-150mm F2.8 on APS-C versus 70-200mm F2.8 on full frame (where clearly the large sensor size would bring a benefit), it's arguing for 50-150mm F2.8 lens rather thana 70-200mm F2.8 *on APS-C*.
I tried to make clear that: if you have a full frame camera, you could buy a 70-200mm F4 and get the same results (and, by inference, get even better results with an F2.8), but that's not the comparison being made.
kadardr: There is difference between FF and APS-C in use, which was not mentioned in the article. FF cameras has better high ISO performance and better DR. In general FF DR is one stop better than DR of APS-C cameras. High ISO can be 2-2.5 stop better with FF (ISO 12800 is good with FF, but APS-C can show the same quality at ISO 3200 at best). FF sensors can show less chroma noise in deep shadows, when elevated.The color sensitivity/depth is better at least one stop favoring FF. Better subject isolation you can get with FF size. In general, bokeh is function of absolute and not relative focal length, absolute and not relative aperture setting and the subject distance. With APS-C cameras you can have the same image quality if you know, what you are doing, but you need more light. APS-C may give you better reach, smaller lenses for the same angle of view, and generally less total weight of gear.
To try to avoid getting side-tracked, I summed this up by pointing out that full frame can offer better image quality (rather than trying to break that down into individual aspects of image quality).
nerd2: It is beyond absurd to see so many people has totally wrong idea of different format comparison. Here's one VERY EASY experiment you can do, with a single camera and a single zoom lens (or two prime lenses if you prefer)
a) Put your camera on tripod, pick some subject, and take a picture of it using the tele end of the zoom lens
b) Zoom the lens to the wider end, keep the aperture same, and take picture again
c) Now crop the second image so that the FOV exactly matches the image of (1)
d) Finally resize two images into same size and compare DOF, noise and resolution of two images.
Then you will see that the first image will be cleaner (less noisy), sharper and has shallower DOF compared to the second image, while being shot with the same aperture and same exposure.
Now you can repeat b) - d) with increasing aperture values and ISO values by 1/3 stop, then you will reach similar DOF of first picture. Then two will have similar FOV, DOF, noise level or they will be 'equivalent'
Well, yes, if you will bring *facts* into it...
Len_Gee: Where can i get one with the orange leather?
Colour options vary market-to-market but I've only seen the GM1 in silver/orange.
mosc: You know, Metabones keeps the truth in the upgrade path for people who are willing to give it a go. Get a speed booster and an E-mount body and you have yourself FF glass utilized on a less expensive body.
@martindpr - I think we're talking at crossed purposes. I wasn't suggesting a 'reverse SpeedBooster' (which already exists in the form of teleconverters)
I was suggesting a SpeedBooster for mounting FE lenses on an APS-C E-mount camera (Sadly it's not possible because FE lenses have the same flange back distance as APS-C E-mount lenses).
It's a shame there isn't an FE-E mount SpeedBooster - that would provide a seamless APS-C to FF upgrade path.
Though the question would still be: how does the cost of a SpeedBooster compare to the losses you'd make on selling some of your lenses to buy new ones? (This clearly depends on how many lenses you have).
Mark Tuccillo: IMHO, Richard Butler is coming from the wrong prospective. Going to cropped sensors was a serious downgrade coming from FF film. The transition from my F100 and the many manual focus and auto focus lenses I have to the D100 was just plain ugly. There were very few DX lenses and although I picked up reach I lost the wide end, not to mention the great handling of the F100. MY AI-S 20mm f2.8 was no longer useful, and the 24-120mm was no longer the great travel lens it had always been. With the D200 the handling issues were addressed, but I needed to buy the 16-85mm to get a decent travel setup.
For me, going to the D600 was not an upgrade, just a return to the way it was. And make no mistake, FF will always have better image quality.
I see your perspective entirely. However, since the first sub-$1000 DSLRs were launched over ten years ago, it's reasonable to assume there are plenty of people who don't have a collection of film-era lenses (or have found their film-era system no longer exists).
Birdy1970: wow how fast the reviews for nikon and canon always ready.why ths samsung nx1 review need so much longer?
We received Firmware v1.2 fairly recently.
The good news is that it addresses much of the feedback we offered to Samsung.
The bad news is that we have to re-test and re-learn some of the camera's behaviour.
FocusBogus: Full frame is a brainfart. Why just only 36x24mm quadrangle should call a "full"? Thought the 35mm format developers over 100 years ago that " now we invented full frame, now we can get lots of bokeh" ?
"35mm standard sensor" sounds little better.
The problem is, phrases like: 'a 35mm lens (in 35mm terms)' ends up being harder to understand than 'a 35mm lens (in full frame terms).'
Ultimately it's widely used and widely understood, which are the main reasons to use it.
But I absolutely agree that 'full frame' has some potentially misleading connotations.
shutterbud: The Myth of the upgrade path? What myth?The article states that it could be seen as a myth because FF cameras tend to be bigger and more expensive. So what? Then it advises us to buy more APS-C lenses and pretends that no-one knows how to buy a FF lens for a Crop body.The whole article is badly thought-out, slightly insulting, logically incoherent and seems to offer only one piece of advice, which, if followed, would ensure a bag full of useless lenses in the event of going to FF.
@Plastek - I agree that not everyone has infinite amounts of money: that's why I'm proposing spending what money you do have available on the camera you have now, rather than on one you *might* buy in future.
If you have all the the gear you need when you arrive at full frame then you *must* have been living with a compromise previously. The cost of selling *some* of the lenses you needed on APS-C and replacing them with FF equivalents (given that some may well shift to suit other needs), may be small and represent better value for money overall, if it means you have the lenses you needed on both sides of the transition.
And no, the last sentence doesn't assume that people want to change systems - it assumes that feeling you have the choice is a good thing. There is a wider choice of digital FF options than there has ever been - feeling that you could move to a smaller camera such as the a7II or something as good as a D750, regardless of which system you're in is no bad thing.
@ttran88 - you'd have thought so, yes. But I see lots of people say 'I'm never going to buy another APS-C lens' or 'I won't buy that system, because there's no full frame option' and I don't think either of these makes a lot of sense.
I'm not suggesting only buying APS-C specific lenses: I'm suggesting only buying lenses that suit your need on APS-C, rather than limiting your choices.
Because as soon as you stop making potentially restrictive choices today and consider that even those full frame-compatible lenses you do buy won't serve the same purpose on FF, you might find it leaves you feeling less stuck in a system if you do change formats.
Timmbits: @DPR: It is 2015, and you still haven't updated this by adding the Canon G7X. What gives? is the G7X that bad? Has it beeen recalled or something?
You update other evals, why not this one? Throw out a tiny sensor model or two, and replace it with a camera that has at least 1" sensor... it's not like there isn't choice out there today.
The G7X is in [this roundup](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6657172030/high-end-pocketable-compacts-2014-roundup).
Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.
My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.
I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.
So, it's no myth.
Clearly it would be mad (and rather insulting) for me to try to argue that you've not been happy with the process you've followed.
I personally think I would find 15 + 17-XXX rather different to 19 + 27-XXX but that's neither here nor there.
What you've also done is bought APS-C equivalent focal lengths (the 20 and 50mm), then sold them to buy 35 and 85mm primes, which is exactly what I'm advocating. So there is some common ground to our approaches.
It's the 'I won't buy APS-C lenses' and 'I won't buy a system without a full frame option' logic that I was mainly arguing against.