photomedium: 16.5 stops DR...damn! Can we have that on a stills camera?
TL;DR We all agree that how RED sensors differ from most others is being able to handle several more stops of brightness than other sensors, not having several stops less noise.
@Wild Light: Red's promised 8K sensor is four times as big in area (about 40x20mm, almost "Vista Vision") along with having four times the pixel count, so about the same pixel size. So same DR seems reasonable. Though either way, I am skeptical of these DR claims – has anyone confirmed them in independent tests? If it works, it is probably expanding highlight headroom by something like a sub-linear response as a photosite gets close to full.
snapa: Great news, now maybe we can see a 1" sensor XZ-3 in the near future :)
@snapa: As a compromise, how about the new "even better" Sony 20MP 4/3" sensor, as is probably used in the 20MP Panasonic GX8?
Just a Photographer: Now all mirrorless camera manufacturers are profitable.Sony, Fuji and now Olympus all presented black figures recently for their imaging business.
While Nikon and Canon are suffering. Its not that these DSLR manufacturers make losses on selling systems, but they do loose heavily in profitability and marketshare over the recent years.
Times are changing.
Or at least three mirrorless systems have moved into profitability (Fujifilm, Sony, Olympus) and those three systems are taking distinctly different approaches, so combined with the financial health of at least two DSLR systems (Canon and Nikon; don't know one way or the other about Pentax) the prospects are improving for continued diversity of choice and real competition in the ILC market.
Why some people seek to put a negative spin on this run of good news is a mystery!
Michael Ma: 5mm. I never knew sensors had to be so thick. I've had a Note 2, 3, 4 and S2 and S4. The bump never bothered me, especially with a S View (flap) cover which evened it out. I would much rather have that space filled out with a bigger battery. 2.5x of what it is now.
"... thinner, more compact, camera modules. At under 5mm thickness, these new modules ..."It is the whole camera module with lens that is now 5mm thick.Part of the downsizing is the smaller focal length lens needed with the smaller sensor at equal pixel count.
falconeyes: Ok, the RWB Bayer CFA is real, I researched it a bit.
If anybody wonders how it can work, well, the green channel can be easily computed from white when already knowing the red and blue channels. However, there is a problem with increased color noise (because the color matrix now contains large negative factors -- the difference of two noisy signals is an even noisier one) and early saturation of the white pixels. At least, conventional demosaicsm applies with just a modified color matrix table. Converters should have no problem to support it.
I found a 2006 research paper where Samsung discusses their ideas related to the RWB Bayer CFA:
That reference proposes a method to avoid blown out white pixels: read the charge in each white pixel partway through the exposure and again at the end (without reset?) Then combine the two readings, or just extrapolate from the first one if the later one is blown out.
joe6pack: 5mm for a sensor is thin?
What about the lenses? And the screen in the back? All that has to fit under 7mm.
5mm is the whole camera module height, from back of sensor to front of lens: that is the height that has been thinned down.
AbrasiveReducer: All this technology. But it seems that when they try to get the best quality from a compact camera it still ends up pretty big.
I agree with the above two replies: as a telephoto photography enthusiast, I like bodies just big enough to provide a good handgrip (also comfortable for carrying the camera one-handed with a long lens attached) and controls that are not too small, too few or too close together.
The smaller format size advantage comes in the shorter focal length _lenses_ need for a given telephoto reach. This is helped by having an abundant pixel count, to allow loose framing and cropping.
For those priorities, this new body, its 20MP 4/3" sensor, and the new 100-400 lens are very appealing. (I like the Olympus OMD EM1 in hand too, but have only tried it in shops so far.)
BeaverTerror: Mirrorless is the official term now? So instead of choosing a term which describes the camera, they have moronically chosen a term describing what the camera does not have. One day DSLRS will be a nostalgic memory and we will still be stuck with "mirrorless". Same situation as clipless bicycle pedals.
We have settled on "wireless" for computer networking connections that do not require wires, so I can see "mirrorless" (and its claim to reduce the bulk, vibration, shot-to-shot lag etc, that a flipping mirror and pentaprism add) staying around for a while.
mosc: So, I have a question. This sensor is 0.64x crop correct? Are the lenses made specifically at that crop? It's awfully close to the old 6x4.5 film format. I'm wondering if the lenses cover the area of 6x4.5 or if they're specially made for this sensor size?
It is bizarre to described this as a "crop" of the smaller 36x24mm format. The 60MP and 80MP sensor options are 53.7 x 40.4mm, so 67mm diagonal, very slightly less than the 70mm diagonal of the 56x42mm so-called "645" film camera format. Despite the inaccurate name, "645" format was never 60x45mm,and slide mounts knocked a few mm off that.
And yes, the lenses used are designed for that 70mm diagonal "645" format.
Tungsten Nordstein: 'If successful the algorithm may have serious consequences for the flexible rubber lens hood market, though early indications suggest polarizing filter manufacturers will be safe for some time to come.'
I'm so glad the main concern here is for possible effects on industry and commerce rather than the implications for personal privacy.
Tungsten, this was obviously a joke -- at least to anyone who remembers that jokes were not always automatically followed by a smiley face.
mpgxsvcd: I am not seeing a lot to dislike about this camera. They would sell a lot more of these if they advertised them more and also sold them in stores like Best Buy right from day one. As it stands right now Canon will sell many times as many T6s/T6i cameras as Panasonic will sell G7 cameras.
That is also despite the fact that the Canon cameras had a significant defect in a large portion of their initial shipments(Which they addresses quickly), the T6s only does 5 FPS vs. the 7 FPS for the G7, The G7 is cheaper, and the G7 does 4K @ 30 FPS video vs just 1080p @ 30 FPS for the Canon cameras.
Panasonic’s issue is not that they don’t make great cameras. There issue is that not enough people even know they make cameras.
@neez: "Actually hard drives are downsizing because they are switching from optical drives to SSD."No one is being forced to abandon a larger hard drive in favor of a smaller SSD, and people who want to store a lot of video, photos and such can easily opt for a large capacity, or an SSD/HD combo. With Macs at least there is also the option of a fusion drive: basically a larger capacity hard drive combined transparently with a smaller capacity SSD, keeping the stuff that benefits most from speed on the SSD part.
So, no: there is not the slightest sign of a trend towards people have less access to large storage capacity on their personal computers if they want it!
@neez says that "less than 1% of the population owns 4k TV's or 4k monitors, so 4k is useless to most people. Plus most people buy laptops ..."Apart from the trend to ever cheaper 4K TV's, those laptops along the desktop computers that lots of people also still buy are already moving to screen resolutions beyond the 1920x1080 of HD TV, so 4K video will already look better on many computer screens, which is where many of us watch videos these days. Those computers are also acquiring ever more and cheaper mass storage, both onboard and with the option of external drives for those with big photo/video collections, so the "not enough storage space for higher definition images" fails, as it has repeatedly.
J A C S: The 8mm is about 10% longer than the Canon 15mm, the same width and a few grams lighter only. More expensive and collects less light.
Similarly, the 7-14 is 23mm longer than the Canon 8-15; width and weight about the same, 1 stop less light, same price.
What happened to the portability of the m43 system?
"Cheaper - no. There are FF bodies for ~$1,200" and there are MFT bodies with EVF for $450 (E-M10). Or are you for some reason comparing the cheapest, superseded, end-of-life model in one format to the most expensive in another?
alatchin: Every time I read equivalence pop in such as the f 3.5 comment about the fisheye, you should always add "which in turn makes the ff biddy own like a m43s body. Otherwise you are just being misleading with only half the information... The half that makes a ff Ensor like a cure all for less light... Which is only true if you have a large physical aperture, not an equivalent aperture.
Every statement about f-stop equivalency should say something like "this f/1.8 MFT lens is 'equivalent' to a f/3.6 lens of twice the focal length used in 35mm format AT FOUR TIMES THE ISO SPEED", just case people forget to consider _that_ change into noise and IQ comparisons.
snapa: Now, if they can only update the 3.5 year old sensor, they will really have something worthy of consideration. Changing body material, colors, firmware updates is nice, but... a new improved sensor would be even better, IMHO.
@mosc: why are you obsessed with limiting MFT resolution to what its slowest lens can handle at its slowest f-stop? And when you say "There is plenty of f2.8 m43 glass, it's just very expensive and large", you are thinking only of zoom lenses; there are plenty of MFT _prime_ lenses of f/2.8 or faster that are not particularly expensive and far from large: I love my 60/2.8 macro.
nikkornikon: They Need to, Like Fuji...to Step away from 16mp. It is time to move on. When 24mp is truly old...16 seems freaking ancient.
@mosc, i agree; I am not really suggesting going to 80MP for the sake of the f/2.8 lenses! I am just saying that many existing MFT lenses can give a resolution/detail advantage from sensors going significantly beyond the current 16MP. I am a fan of the idea of mid-speed f/4 or f/2.8-f/4 zoom lenses, and if the diffraction limit the useful resolution from f/4 is about 40MP (as for the equivalent f/8 in 35mm), then other factors will probably set a limit between 16MP and than 40MP. Frankly, i would use 20MP+ mainly to crop for more telephoto reach than the lenses I prefer to carry.
P. S. Pixel sizes that give too much noise at high ISO speeds do not worry me either: so long as a "high res. low ISO" sensor can give nice highly detailed images at low to moderate ISO speeds, then higher ISO speeds can be handled by trading some of that resolution for noise control by downsampling or other noise reduction strategies, or there can be different models for people with different priorities.
@ mosc: if as you say "F2.1 16mp 1/2.33" is not diffraction limited", then with the 4/3" format being over 3x larger, neither is f/6.3 16MP in 4/3", and so nor is f/5 24MP or f/2.8 80MP in 4/3" format -- the MP count for a similar level of diffraction effect goes up as the square of the f-stop and the square of the linear format size.
There is a bunch bunch of MFT lenses (including most MFT primes) offering f/2.8 or faster, and for them 16MP is a very long way from the point where a further increase in pixel count will stop giving further increase in detail due to diffraction effects when used wide open. And when these lenses need to be stopped down beyond f/2.8 for more DOF (the same DOF needs that require higher than f/5.6 in 35mm format), the diffraction limit for equal DOF sets the same MP limit for any format, due to the higher f-stop needed for equal DOF in a larger format.
Give as much resolution as the best lenses can handle, I say.
@ 5inchfloppy: people have been saying that 4/3" format is at its limit since the original 5MP E-1 model! Meanwhile there are smaller 1" format sensors at 20MP in some Sony cameras and 18MP in some Nikon One models.
Diffraction is far from being a limy at 16MP for the faster MFT lenses. and why should bodies be limited to what benefits the slowest kit zooms?
Ace of Sevens: So this is aimed at filmmakers, but has no 24 fps option?
It has all the usual frame rates from 23.98 to 60; the article only mentions 30FPS as the maximum with global shutter.