GabrielZ: Good results for a smartphone. But I really don't believe tiny smartphone lens's can genuinely resolve 8MP worth of detail let alone 21MP...no way! Its a marketing gimmick, the vast majority of those MP's are just eating up memory while going to waste.
Gabriel, have you looked at the 100% crops at the start of this preview? It's clearly showing excellent detail; albeit at base ISO and in the centre of the frame... I'm surprised by how good the image quality is; there are a fair number of compact cameras on the market which wouldn't resolve as well.
I know some people who would pay $450 to get a custom Lego minifig of themselves - and they would probably be more realistic than the models Panasonic are selling now ;)
ratzass: These "real world" samples mostly shot under daylight conditions show me very little. How about some images shot indoors under very,very dim Tungsten lighting at very high ISO's ?
That's excellent news Allison; if you're taking requests, please can I have some nice landscapes (with plenty of foliage) taken at ISO100?
Ideally taken on a good tripod and MLU, just to see what the beast is capable of at best. You could go absolutely hog wild, and shoot them with the Otus ;)
Actually that's not a bad idea in general - representative images for each camera, and then one or two shots which you showcase the best of what the camera can achieve. They don't have to be amazing compositions, just the best the camera can do technically.
Greg Gebhardt: No Apple OS, no deal. Who cares about that thin.
No Apple OS, deal. Who cares about that Apple OS.
Lan: I still can't understand why they've launched this lens. There are a lot of 100mm 1:1 macro lenses out there already, and many of those are quite affordable too... Those competitors often include auto apertures, autofocus, and image stabilizers.
A 2:1 macro lens would have been interesting, but this is just perplexing.
I'll concede that the geared version might make some sense for macro videographers, but how many of those are there?!
Just to follow up; I shoot roughly 50/50 - for plants that's usually tripod/MLU/MF (live view 10x), but I generally shoot handheld for insects. Decent AF and IS (OS/VR) make life a lot easier with the insects.
I haven't noticed much LCA with any of the three Canon Macro lenses I tend to shoot with - my old workhorse (Canon EF 100mm USM), my new favourite (Canon EF 100mm IS/L) or my brother's often frustrating but sometimes kinda wonderful Canon MP-E65; but I may just be lucky in that respect. (or not have noticed it, since I usually have green in the foreground and background anyway ;)
What I'd really like is an easy to use version of the MP-E65... A focussing rail really helps with it, but it's still difficult to use. Maybe if I only ever used that lens I'd adapt, but always having to go 1:1 or higher doesn't really work for my preferred subjects.
I still can't understand why they've launched this lens. There are a lot of 100mm 1:1 macro lenses out there already, and many of those are quite affordable too... Those competitors often include auto apertures, autofocus, and image stabilizers.
jkrumm: I'm looking forward to the day we all wear copyrighted detection chips, surgically implanted (and linked to our bank accounts). Then when we look at or listen to copyrighted material we can be accurately charged for the priviledge. It's unfair that so many people gaze upon copyrighted material for free!
Careful, you'll give Apple ideas ;)
So, the question is - does the new HDR video mode use the Dual ISO trick from Magic Lantern? That tends to be moiré prone...
I guess the noise levels in the highlights and shadows would tell you what it's doing.
win39: Kind of disappointing. Look at the green foliage. The Nikon looks like green fog. Not sure what is going on there. Even at base ISO. I suspect the Sony looks superior because of higher default sharpening on the JPEG. Seem like dpreview could devise a sharpening target so that all their test cameras could be adjusted to the same actual sharpening before a comparison is made.
Compare the same sample but in RAW; and you can see that it's definitely a JPEG sharpening/NR issue. There's just a lot more fine detail in the RAW, of course there's more noise too, but that's not as objectionable to me...
From the website:"each entrant grants to Marwell Wildlife a non-exclusive irrevocable license to reproduce, publish and communicate to the public by any means and exhibit their awarded image(s) and copies of their awarded image(s) in all media throughout the world in relation to the competition and the exhibition including but not limited to all use in the context of: - Judging the competition. - Display in the exhibition. - Inclusion in Marwell Wildlife magazines and/or similar. - Inclusion within Marwell Wildlife websites and social media channels. - Inclusion in promotional, press and marketing materials associated with the competition and/or Marwell Wildlife.- Inclusion in any merchandising associated with the competition and/or Marwell Wildlife.non-refundable entry fee of £10 is payable for adults by credit or debit card and up to 5 images are permitted per competition entry."
nandbytes: As for image quality comparison I'd liked a more apples vs. apples comparison with other 1" sensor cameras. Its better than other smartphones with smaller sensors (duh! big surprise!)
I'm not sure that's fair though; the fact is - it is a smartphone. Hardly fair to compare it against much larger and in many cases more expensive devices.
That said, Spencer's done just that in his link above ;)
Shaken, probably because you were shooting at f18. Why did you take it at f18?
I can understand you were after motion blur with the panning shots, but that doesn't work when they're coming towards you like this.
Very nice RAW results; disappointing JPEGs.
Assuming these are JPEGs taken with the camera defaults; the JPEG engine seems to apply too much NR at base ISO, and the sharpening appears to be excessively wide radius and clumsily applied. Standard JPEGs in other words ;)
Lan: Adobe, please add support for Magic Lantern's Dual ISO mode.
Except that they're not the same thing at all.
Dual ISO changes the sensitivity of the sensor on alternating scanlines. So for example the odd numbered lines are exposed at ISO 100, whilst the even numbered scanlines are exposed at ISO 1600. Net result; significantly improved DR compared to a standard Canon sensor.
Those files need special processing, which is something those controls don't address at all.
Yes, ISO invariance would be nice, but we don't have it yet, so in the meantime I'll make do with dual ISO ;)
Adobe, please add support for Magic Lantern's Dual ISO mode.
If Adobe are listening; a feature I would really like is native support for Magic Lantern's "Dual ISO" RAW files please. Thank you :)
Mike FL: The zoom seems has BAD QC issue as always:
dagobah: It doesn't appear to be distortion correction; or if it is, it's being applied to both images - I just downloaded both the native SooC JPEG and the ACR JPEG, and the distortion is the same in both.
The ACR JPEG shows jaggies that are not in the SooC JPEG. Also the colour resolution appears better in the ACR JPEG. It looks like there's some minor NR being applied to the SooC JPEG.
I also prefer the colours from the ACR conversion, as the edges are better defined. Which I guess clinches it; it's NR!