rrccad: this would be a fascinating advancement for astro work. as so many image stackers would take a 30 or 24fps stream and stack the images to improve contrast,etc. usually this is limited to planetary .. but the sensitivity of this is impressive.
that's roughly the same as -8 EV or around f1.4 for 8M exposure at ISO 100. or around 1/30th of a second f1.4 at 819200 ISO for video work.
Like your explanation. And the calc.-8 ev!!!
But there are some guys comparing that sensor to the one in their cellphones... Amazing!
Still use both listed cameras: Sony R1 and Olympus E-330.Sony R1 is very good for a walkaround camera, on daylight or long exposures at night. It's very light for a camera with a 24-120 mm (eq.) lens.Olympus E-330 is often paired with a 25:2.8 pancake lens and comes a very compact camera (for a DSLR).Two amazing cameras!
It's the base idea of a Lomo Holga with an Instant Back.But with better build body, problably a better lens, electronic fuctions and expensive. Nice look, BTW.
lomo konstruktor in digital
List of to-do's for tomorrow:
1-clean the dust of my old R12-buy a peace of wood (oak, pine...)3-design an handgrip in CAD4-talk with my carpenter friends for a help with tools5-sell it on ebay for 5000€
Well, much cheaper than the new X Vario!And a much brighter lens, too!And comes with a leather case!Wow!
Remember the old Minilux Zoom?The lens was a 35-70 f:3.5-6.5.But the lens was fully retracted in to the body when the camera was off. And was really compact.An it had a viewfinder. And was full frame.And was much cheaper.
Mistral75: "world's first compact camera with an APS-C sensor"
What about the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 from 2003?
At least, Sony R1 has a 24-120 (35mm eq.) f:2.8-4.8.Much brighter lens. Carl Zeiss!Even Canon G1X has a faster zoom lens. And a quarter of the price...
tkbslc: 45mm seems like an odd choice for APS-C. Did they just try and copy m4/3?
A copy from a korean brand? Of a japanese product?That's the first time it happens...
Canon EOS 100D is the perfect body to match with my 100-400L...
delastro: The message is that you are a sport photographer if you have a lot of money and buy the latest equipment. This is right but it is only one part in a collection of parallel worlds.
I made sport photography with a canon 100-400 and an EOS 40D and I think you will not see the difference.
If you want to earn money today with sport photography it may be necessary to have the newest bodies and the right exif text in the shots.
If you make sport-stockphotography . I think - it is enough to use a camera like the Pana FZ200 and the worklflow after the shot.
And if you leave the sport field and the show room you need other cameras for landscape, free animals or streetphotography.
And for food photography in a hotel (not in a show room) it is often better to use a small digicam - this is my experience.
Once, I tired to photograph night surf, with a combo like yours: 40D + 100-400L. Right at my left side was a guy with a 7D + 70-200:2.8L IS II. Every photo was brighter, faster, sharper and better focused than mine.While he shots at ISO 6400, I stopped at 1600 (4 times slower), 2.8 lens is different of 4.5-5.6 (2.3 to 4 times slower, too). I had longer lens, but he has more pixels (1.8 times), so a crop wasn't a problem. And 7D has a dedicated AF processor.This is when we compare two amateurs. Do you still want to compare yourself to a well equipped professional with a 1DX and a 400:2.8?
JakeB: Superzooms -- for those who don't give a hoot about IQ.
Tamron 18-270 3.5-6.3 (6.3!!!)Nikon 18-300 3.5-5.6 (yes: 5.6!!! one third stop faster and 30 mm longer)
Voigtlander Bessa (any) - 700 or 800Voigtlander 40:1.4 - 400 or 500Kodak TMAX 400, 800, 1600... 4 or 5
That's a better BW option for a "cheap" rangefinder.
One body and 3 lenses, 25000? Not expesive (for Leica), incluides a 10000 50/0.95...
The extra 25000 for a "limited" serie, now thats expensive!
Very good!Works very well on Samsung Galaxy Tab (7").Waiting for the foruns update!
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review