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!
naththo: I had just come to the same conclusion myself; in JPEG the concentric rings at the corners are noticably softer than the competition; a disadvantage that vanishes in the RAW image.
I was initially wondering whether the ISO100 JPEG sample was slightly shaken, but it's the same at ISO200 - JPEG soft, RAW sharp.
Bernard Carns: Was I reading the specs right?8k is somewhere near 35mp?The Blackmagic URSA mini 4.6K is almost 12MP (pretty close to the A7s) and it can record 4.6 raw internally and has a global shutter, 15 stops DR and takes Canon lenses....hmmm.Add autofocus and flash.Who needs an slr anymore?
Perhaps someone who wants to spend less than $20,000 on a camera? You can buy a Sony a7R for a tenth of that price...
ISO 100-SAM_1542 appears to be noticeably less sharp on the left hand side; any idea whether the lens is slightly decentered or if the camera twisted during the shot?
From the way the distortion appears to radiate from the centre, I'm guessing it's decentered...
I guess those 28MP APS-C pixels are demanding on the glass you put in front of them!
Lan: Lovely composition and a well deserved 1st place; those are some very nice ties.
As a matter of interest, who makes the tie at the top of your photo?
Thank you for the info!
I do love ties... and I love photography. This shot makes me wonder why I haven't taken any pictures of them myself. Maybe this will be the inspiration :)
Lovely composition and a well deserved 1st place; those are some very nice ties.
If they'd made it native 2:1 that would have been interesting...
No lossless RAW? No sale!
laueddy: Now, I want a 14mm for my 645Z
That sounds like a fair exchange ;)
I'm worried; there are more than five consecutive positive replies from commenters on DPReview below. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?
Oh, right, I get it - my router's been hacked, and someone's playing a practical joke on me! Ha ha, very funny!
They are really good photos though :)
I wonder whether these bags secretly send all your information to the government ;)
>" the X-Trans sensor should be well-suited to native monochrome capture"
Surely *no* CFA would be best for monochrome capture? More light hitting the sensor, at more sensel positions. No CFA would mean greater sensitivity and greater resolution.
The only advantage would be if you intended to colour filter the results either in camera or post capture - even then it would be only a win if you were using green sensitivity. If you wanted to use the blue or red channels, you'd have better results with Bayer.
I accept that green channel mimics conventional B&W film, but I'd be looking for no CFA for preference.
OK, so how many people looked at #7 and checked out the lines on the field to see whether the lens was front or back focussing?
> "Masaya Maeda - Chief Executive of Imaging Products ... tells us he's saving up his own money to buy one"
If even your Chief Executive can't readily afford one, you know you've pitched the price too high!
Jim: Rhetorical Question: I wonder how much better the G3X image quality will be over an SX50HS when compared at 600mm and below? Especially so, since the SX50HS can be had for $200. Maybe it's just me but I am not seeing the value proposition here.
I know you said rhetorical, but I can't help myself.
As you know, the G3X has a larger sensor, and a higher resolution sensor; so I would expect the image quality to be higher overall - assuming both lenses perform adequately. Of course if you want something cheaper and that might fit in your pocket the SX50HS might still be your best bet...
It's just another choice on the Price vs Pocketability vs IQ graph. Personally I think it looks interesting; but I'll reserve judgement until I can try it.