To continue loving video games, their programming while doing & improving my professional photography, punish the guilty, reward the good, educate kids and fight for all that is good. :-)
J A C S: Nice color and rendering.
This shot is a moire fest from a sensor designed to prevent moire:
@JackM- actually, I have seen the Fuji has quite some acuity and definitively punches above it's 16 MP mark. But you have to use a good raw converter, and that's not Adobe stuff, for best detail.
The new JPEG engine of the X-T10 though is really good at getting good detail.
As for the Sigma- yes, it's true the Sigma gets you amazing resolution *but only* under very strict conditions- ISO 100/200, full spectrum light. Even then it has some weird artifacts (green/magenta splotches) though much more rare at the lowest ISO.
Once you start climbing to ISO 800, for get it, the Fuji takes over and can give you detail in a far wider range of situations, including concerts/low light events that the Sigma can't touch.
Fuji originally said it eliminates moire, but they re-canted and says it reduces moire. I can say their claim is true, it reduces the chance of moire, but I found that there's definitively some situations that can trigger it and this is one of them.
But as someone who also has a Ricoh GR (Bayer, no AA), I can tell you that Fuji Xtrans definitely avoids color moire more than the Bayer.
Ktrphoto: Idiots. A digital image is a computer file. Anyone with knowledge of the format and programming skills can fake it any way they like. And there is a big difference between misleading modifications and merely removing distortion and CA, straightening up verticals, getting the right colour balance, and cropping out whatever is irrelevant.
But who can have any sympathy with the likes of Reuter and Getty? With an army of citizen reporters armed with smart phones Reuters is no longer the automatic source to go to for photos of World news
Did you miss the part where they also say they are doing this for workflow/speed reasons? Also several professionals in another forum said that this is hardly new - Associated Press (AP) has been demanding JPEG for years. This is Reuters catching up.
If you are not in this line of work, I would throw the word "idiots" more carefully just because you think you are smarter. They may know something by experience you don't.
Pandimonium: D4s and 1Dx forgotten much?
I think you are going to comment on their article, it's only commonsense to have read it. I can understand what you did to some degree, but it's good to read what you are going to comment on.
@Barney/Samuel/Rishi/Staff - not RX1R MKII related but Sony related- do you know if the RX100 MKIV may get uncompressed raw?
Have you asked Sony on this?
@Pandi - "I always instantly jump to the last page scan it and then read the comments because of tl;dr" Well, that certainly does not sound like DP review's problem then, does it? :-)
Imho, they should focus on their recently announced high end product. At the low end this tech just doesn't seem to scale up in resolution and a bunch of other areas.
forpetessake: Even though the foreground is very close to the camera and background is virtually in infinity, the automatic separation is pretty poor and defects are visible even on that small picture. The PS mask would do a better job in not much more time. And, of course, in real work creating a mask is the simplest of the tasks. Getting the lighting and colors consistent is more difficult.
Looks like Lytro is still looking for an application for their product and have hard time finding any.
Rishi- if that's the case, they are in trouble because this just doesn't seem to scale. I don't think these Lytro cameras are going anywhere good. They should just focus in their high end product at this point.
Joerg V: It looks like the lens has not been designed with landscape photography in mind (high amount of fringing and pretty bad corner performance). What a bummer given the great dynamic range.
Steve Huff published some shots and they look pretty darn sharp.
Raist3d: @Barney/Dpreview staff- can you confirm that the smart teleconverter feature only works in JPEG or did Sony also support a crop like the Ricoh GR/Leica Q for RAW?
I really really want Sony to give that option. It changes the usability for shooting at "50/70" tremendously.
@Digimat - this can't be hard to implement. The camera does it with JPEG and both Ricoh and Leica do it.
@Digimat - "doesnt show the cropped image when shooting on camera though...."
But that is *exactly the problem*. Sure, I can crop later though I have to frame the crop right. But taking the shot is the problem.
Thanks Barney. That corroborates my fear. (*cries*)Any chance you guys could ask Sony to please please allow for something like Ricoh GR/Leica Q raw here? It would be really great to have that.
@Barney/Dpreview staff- can you confirm that the smart teleconverter feature only works in JPEG or did Sony also support a crop like the Ricoh GR/Leica Q for RAW?
Neal Hood: Beautiful pictures....some even stunning. Sony should be ashamed for pricing the RX1 so high.
@OP - You want something for nothing. You are getting a best in class full frame state of the art sensor with a Zeiss lens design in an ultra compact body with built in EVF. How much is a Full Frame body alone with a good lens?
ThatCamFan: My interest died because of the megapixel count, a 16-24mp rx1 with the af improved would of been a must have for me.
@tesi/fed - also there'a a fallacy in thinking just a faster computer will get around the files fast just as. If I am shooting a weeding and have lots of shots, the faster computer will also... guess what... work faster on smaller MP count files ;-)
@Tesilab- I am with you. I also have been hoping Sony can do the smart teleconverter feature in RAW like the Ricoh GR crop mode but apparently it doesn't have this :-(
Barney - to be fair, too many mps puts w workflow bottleneck for some jobs regardless of the whole "just get a faster computer"
I am interested in this case in more only because it's a fixed lens and it allows for a virtual zoom while keeping redo able pixel count.
Definitively way better than the studio scene. Not as pixel exact as I would like to see an AA-less design but still darn good. That's fine.
DR is insane. And B&W looks pretty nice (converted from RAW). Would love to see how this camera behaves in the venues I photograph at night.
madeinlisboa: Time to separate good photographers from Photoshopers...
ewelch- someone with excellent / great photographic skills but ignorant of photoshop can be called a great photographer. Someone with poor photographic skills and excellent photoshop skills cannot. That alone tells you where the essential skills of photographer are.
That doesn't mean a photoshopped or retoucher doesn't have its own art on its own right, but it's not really the core of what makes a photographer.
dkirk7000: Oh I had a pulitzer winning shot but I underexposed it by two stops and can't recover the image in jpeg.
So with those examples in mind all you can say is what you think a "real pro" would do approaching JPEG/RAW shooting, and basically there's more than ample evidence out there that you are off on this one. Way off.
But to be clear, I am hardly doing a personal attack on the other point- I am merely pointing out that if you are not a professional photographer yourself, or have certain professional experience doing photography, then how can we take the categorial statement you are making as something said from solid grounding when the evidence goes against it and you have nothing to show for it?