Rare monster zoom for my 5N :D

Started Mar 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
neonexxer
Regular MemberPosts: 131Gear list
Like?
Re: Rare monster zoom for my 5N :D
In reply to Ed B, Mar 7, 2013

Ed B wrote:

neonexxer wrote:

Ed B wrote:

RonFrank wrote:

I never understand the idea of the tiny camera with a huge standard lens!

-- hide signature --

Plus 1

Kind of defeats the purpose of buying into a small system.

But not the purpose of buying into a *flexible* system like NEX. And I don't have a larger system to turn to (my other camera is an RX100). Small isn't every thing to everyone. Besides, I have my RF lenses when I wish to go small.

I will admit that if you want a constant aperture 2.8 zoom lens, for an NEX, that's about the size lens you'd have to put up with.

Well, the Tamron is a full frame lens, and its made of plastic, which tends to make it "chunkier".   Then there's the LA-EA2 added to the bulk.  The wider 28-105mm range doesn't help cut the bloat.  Hopefully, any 2.8 zoom for a NEX (an APSC one, that is) can do better.  The size of the SAL1650 might be a better indicator of what to expect instead?  I actually think Sony can do much better even.  Read on if you're interested.

I have a personal theory about where the climb in megapixels might lead us.  With better sensors and smaller+faster+cheaper processors, even more aggressive lens correction becomes possible, giving a chance that final results will be no worse than today's software corrected Nex lenses.  For purists, there's always the Zeiss way, which stands by real glass to do the work.

More raw megapixels also might help stabilization. All-digital stabilization, that is, like what you get in Apple iMovie, or when you apply its rolling shutter correction.  You can throw around pixel offsets in RAM far more better than you can shift a physical sensor/glass, and with no size penalty (no complex, wear/damage-prone mechanisms).  Nex lens correction and stabilization already crop your image to some extent when activated. Battery life/size might stand to improve as well without physical stabilization.

So, an oversized resolution and wider-than-advertised FOV could allow for, say, a raw 36MP 14mm FOV unstabilized+uncorrected image, to be processed into a finished 24MP 16mm FOV stabilized+corrected image.  Small lenses, which would be unacceptable for their raw output, would make for usable glass. Silicon wizardry takes up the slack and bends physics once photons have become pixels.  Digital image processing has come a long way.

I hope that's where things are headed if it yields us higher performing small camera systems.  Owning and using the RX100 has instilled in me a faith of what can be done, even with truncated dimensions.  Those who choose to go the traditional route with intrinsically good glass can fall back on larger systems with established standard offerings.

 neonexxer's gear list:neonexxer's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-2 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony SLT-A37 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow