horshack

FYI, the NX1's H.265 may be DOA due to licensing royalties: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/07/new-patent-pool-wants-share-of-revenue-from-content-owners.html http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/26/0149234/hevc-advance-announces-h265-royalty-rates-raises-some-hackles

​There are other inconsistent fields as well. For example, the ACR-generated focal plane resolution fields are for a 36MP A7r: From linked image: Focal Plane X Resolution : 2049.067291 Focal Plane Y Resolution : 2049.067291 From an A7r image processed in ACR: Focal Plane X Resolution : 2049.067291 Focal Plane Y Resolution : 2049.067291 From an A7II image processed in ACR: Focal Plane X Resolution : 1675.257385 Focal Plane Y Resolution : 1675.257385

"The 15 stops is done by taking the raw sensor data and running it through dual image processors at two different ISOs (high and low) before making a composite image from the dual raw stream." This sounds like the "Dual ISO" feature of previous Canon sensors that Magic Lantern unleashed for stills. Andrew, what is your source that the C300II is using this technique?

Has every serial killer spent a decade planning and exhibiting bad behavior and every common assault perpetrator only a few seconds exhibiting his? It could be argued that Clarkson's years of progressively worsening behavior toward others that ultimately escalated to violence is an imputed form of planning. Certainly Clarkson was aware that his behavior toward others was unacceptable yet he failed to stop its progression. That means he's either guilty of consciously planning his bad behavior or guilty of consciously not planning to correct it. As for my intelligence, I would kindly ask we limit the debate to the topic at hand and not try to color the discussion with personal insults.

​How could we know that if we don't know interact with them on a regular basis? The same as how we can't know how normal Clarkson is for the 99.999% of the time he's not pummeling his producer.

​Serial Killers spend 99.999% of their time living normal lives. But the .001% of the time they spend murdering people is rather significant.

Nobody should be allowed to keep their job after physically assaulting a coworker. The rest of the discussion is just moral relativism gobbledygook. Clarkson isn't a scientist inventing a cure for cancer - the world will go on without him, including the careers of the victimized parties.

Jeremy Clarkson 'to be sacked TODAY' after BBC probe finds he launched '30-second attack' on Top Gear producer during steak dinner 'fracas' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010167/Top-Gear-presenter-Jeremy-Clarkson-sacked-BBC-internal-investigation-concludes-did-attack-producer-steak-dinner-fracas.html

Making cameras as seamless for online operation as Smartphones will make existing camera enthusiasts happy but it wont do anything to bring the P&S and DSLR market back. That ship has sailed. Most have no reason to buy a separate camera.

WIth LA-EA4 you'll get much better AF vs Metabones but you'll pay a 1/3 to 1/2 EV noise penalty due to the SLT.

The 1DC grabs look decidedly soft vs the A7s, as does nearly every other DSLR compared to the A7s. Any color issues can be corrected in post - acuity not so much. For IQ alone I would take the A7s over the 1DC.

​I'm going to redo this with a resolution chart. I made a poor choice of subject for evaluating resolution

Here's a base ISO comparison with the same cameras, including a comparison with the D800/D810 moved back to match the D750's wider crop. Not sure I picked the best subject for the comparison. All using Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 @ f/8, Cloudy WB, Standard Picture profile, 1/50 ISO 100. https://www.transferbigfiles.com/2c0a7a0c-d7c5-4298-b728-ad49bab8bd1c/J1jQVSQY-eNa1eX5r5IWag2

The D800's video IQ drops off a cliff between ISO 6400 -> 12800, whereas on the D810 and more so the D750 the decrease is more linear. Btw I'll try to get a base ISO video comparison done tomorrow.

Here is the original video file for download - the following link is good for 5 days or until the download quota has been exceeded: https://www.transferbigfiles.com/e9270268-c766-48f3-b271-05c18076a3f9/WRxTxw2Cd9aocePN4nIvvg2

Thanks for the review Andrew. Regarding your High ISO comments about the A7s's ISO 12,800 being equivalent to the A7 at ISO 3,200, my tests indicate the A7s doesn't start pulling ahead until ISO 12,800, at least for stills (which is the context you made your comments in). Video of course a different matter. Here's a carefully-controlled High ISO stills comparison I did between the A7r/A7/A7s, all normalized to the same resolution (stills): http://***URL removed***/forums/post/54031579

This 5DM3 vs D750 comparison (

Yes, on a noise basis that is effectively what happens. On an exposure basis it matches the user-indicated ISO.

One issue with the microlenses is that they have an associated max aperture, like normal lenses. Producing very large aperture microlenses is difficult and expensive apparently, so commercial sensors have to compromise a bit. The downside of this compromise is loss of light when using large aperture lenses, mostly at f/1.4 and larger. You can read it about it here: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/F-stop-blues

That's only because sensors and sensor procesisng ASICs aren't yet fast enough to process higher MP streams for video. It's not a pixel quality issue since those same high MP sensor produce equal or better IQ than their lower MP bretheren for stills, for everything except the very extreme High ISOs (+12,800 for FF).

The typical analogy used is buckets of water. Four small 8oz buckets placed side-by-side hold the same amount of water as a single 32oz bucket. Since the smaller buckets are side-by-side you would expect some loss of water when pouring into them for the gaps in between the buckets; this is where sensor microlenses come in. They act as a funnel to keep water from spilling around the sides of the extra boundaries/edges of the smaller buckets (ie, the funnel light into the photosensitive portion of each pixel, preventing the light from reflecting off the additional edges of smaller pixels). You'd be surprised to learn that the highest-efficiency sensors available right now for any commercial camera are tiny P&S cameras, where they convert 75% of the light they receive, vs 56% for the best full-frame sensors.

At the individual pixel level they do. But pixel-level metrics aren't relevant since images are rendered by area irrespective of the number of pixels that area contains. On a per-area basis the best technology high MP sensor (D800/A7r) has the same or better quantum efficiency as the best technology lower MP sensor (A7s/D4/D4s/Df/D3s/1DX), and have better base ISO dynamic range.

Larger pixels are not more sensitive to light - the A7s's sensitivity ("quantum efficiency") is about equal to that of the D800/A7 - this is why midtone noise on the A7s is the same as the D800/A7r when compared on a per-area basis (via downsampling). What larger pixels do provide, at least with current technology limits, is better Higher ISO dynamic range, which is due to the total lower cumulative read noise from fewer pixels having to be read over the same area vs a higher MP sensor. This translates to lower noise in the shadows. This larger pixel advantage turns into a disadvantage at base ISO because of the read noise penalty from holding a larger charge (full-well capacity). You can read more details at my dpreview thread here: http://***URL removed***/forums/post/53860364

Someone who had an early copy of the A7s posted a video to youtube showing no resolution loss in crop mode. That video has since been pulled but it was pretty convincing. In the meantime here's another video showing the relative noise between FF and crop mode - looks about the expected 1.x stops: