M Jesper: I'm European, what's a 5lbs? ^.^
@Richard Butler: how about the sensor diagonal in mm? This is also used in the sensor industry, as in "diagonal 11mm" for type 2/3" format; see the Sony product list at http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/sony/44/
This conveys the information that most people want: a single number measure of (linear) sensor size, and in the units used by all but three nations in the world, plus many scientifically literate people in those three nations too.
(Some might complain about the different sensor shapes that can have the same diagonal length, but weirdness like 1/3.2" is no better on that score.)
@Rickard Hansson That gap from yard to miles is bizarre, but the US has a solution, in the form of two new units of measure often used in the news media: the "school bus" (about 20 meters) and the "football field" (about 100 meters.) I preferred the old-style chains and furlongs.
But its; not just the USA: last time I checked, Liberia and Myanmar were the other two official users of the old British style measures.
Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.
Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.
HowAboutRAW: I was not disagreeing with what you said; my post just happened to appear after yours, but I was commenting on the thread as a whole.
Raist3D: I agree with your defense of Pentax as having made some innovations in the realm of IBIS: for example, using the IBIS motors as an optional moiré avoidance tool, in place of a low pass filter, is cool! But the early IBIS models from those two companies being mentioned mainly reflect that Olympus and Pentax both followed the IBIS lead of Konica-Minolta at about the same time, a years or two after K-M pioneered IBIS, so I would not get to excited about claiming either O or P as the great innovator on the basis of those 2006-2007 models.
HowaboutRAW: There was IBIS from the very first K-M DSLR, in 2005: http://www.dpreview.com/products/konicaminolta/slrs/konicaminolta_5d/specifications
What am I misconstruing? I am just stating some facts, along with my opinion that debates about finely-defined and minor points of tech history do not interest me very much!
It's strange that this sub-thread has wandered into a rather trivial debate about which company had what aspect of IBIS first. But since we are here:Didn't Konica-Minolta have IBIS first, before either Olympus or Pentax? (Strange that the new owner Sony moved away from it for a while, but now is moving back!)
Anyway, I care far more about what various companies have now and are likely to provide in the foreseeable future, not who had what when in past. And on that front, Olympus and Pentax are between them doing the most interesting things with their "levitating sensors", so I am inclined to praise both, rather than pick nits with either.
The OMD EM5 II multi-shot samples (at least some of them, at some sites) show a clear, substantial improvement in image detail over the single frame 16MP images, so why should we care that Pentax says that it was not able to achieve any significant IQ gains in its efforts? I am tempted to quote Aesop "Those grapes are sour anyway."
1) Some commenters have missed Canon's description of that this sensor is for: "video production, monitoring, aviation, and space applications". So _not_ DSLR's. For some uses like wide-area security monitoring, aerial mapping and satellite-based surveillance, ever higher resolution is still sought.
2) The sensor size of about 30x20mm fits within the maximum field size of 33x26mm of all suitable IC fab. equipment, and so avoids the higher costs and lower yields of on-wafer stitching that everyone including Canon need to use when making sensors in sizes like 36x24mm and up. (Yes, Canon used to make a stepper capable of 50x50mm, but it had a minimum feature size of about 0.8 microns, too big for making SLR sensors.)
3) Sounds like Canon is finally implementing column-parallel ADC, as in Sony EXMOR etc.
TylerQ: I guess some people have no understanding how great film is. Given it's so called limitations, it's a wonder anyone ever took great photographs before the invention of digital sensors.I remember shooting and not worrying about changing the iso, checking for image quality after each shot, doing a time lapse, 10-20 fps, etc. All those are just gimmicks.Real photographers knew how to shoot photographs without all the so called "advantages" of digital cameras. You all should try it some time.
I can also happily leave my ISO speed setting at its minimum (as I almost always do in daylight shooting), I have never do time lapses and maybe use burst mode less than once a year, etc., etc.. So in what way do any of those additional options with digital relate to film being great? I do remember hauling several camera bodies on occasions where I wanted several film speeds, or wanted both color and monochrome; that was not so great.
It gets tiresome reading people pretend to be incapable of just using the features that they want on a camera and ignoring the rest, and making a vice out of more choice, and a virtue out of less choice.
RichRMA: I saw used original 8mp digital Rebel DSLRs selling for $50 with chargers and batteries the other day. You can buy used 4-7mp point and shoots for $20 or less. Film is his-to-ry unless you have a specific need for the particular look it provides.
Isn't Kodak still making moving picture film in 8mm and 16mm format (having sold its _still_ film business) It is according to its website http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Production/index.htmunless that is out of date.
Yes, MF and larger is the obvious prime territory for film. But what does this former maker of cheap store-brand films offer that Fujifilm, the remnants of Kodak, and Ilford do not?
bossnas: To all of the people that claim digital photography is so cheap, did your computer, software and hard-drives for backing up all come free with the camera? If they did, tell me where I too can get them. Thanks.
- My $80 1TB backup drives each holds over 50,000 photos, so less than 1c per image even when I keep two copies on separate drives, internal and external.- I have a computer anyway for many other purposes, so photography at most requires $50-$100 worth of extra disk space, counted above.- A great many photographers use free software, like the stuff that comes with every camera or the stuff bundled with many computers. Even those of who buy software pay far less for that than for films and processing: my photographic software expenses have been about $200 over the last few years, comparable to the film and processing costs of about a few hundred photos, but I have instead taken thousands in that time.
So the costs for most digital photographers are far, far less than with film.
marco1974: OK, so now we finally will have a 35/1.4... but it'll be the same size as the 24-240 superzoom! So much for the mirrorless advantage in terms of size and weight.But oh, wait: we also have the more compact 35/2.8, don't we? But then the DOF and the total light-gathering ability is the same as that of a 23/2 on APS-c (which could obviously be much more compact to begin with). So much for the FF advantage in terms of DOF and ISO.Mmmh, it seems that in spite of marketing claims, one just can't beat the laws of physics. Bummer.
Low f-stop wide angle lenses can be small because their effective aperture diameters arre still small (focal length divided by aperture ratio). But that is not where shallow DOF is most often sought, and the iron rule remains: shallower DOF at a given angular FOV comes from larger effective aperture diameters, not format size alone. And bigger aperture diameters require bigger, heaver front elements.
Omexis: Anyone know who previously owned this lens? and no comments about perverts, CIA, MI5/6 or someone with a inferiority complex.
I've read that Sports Illustrated was a major customer (meaning they bought more than one): the AF is what distinguished this lens from any number of 1200MM or longer alternatives.
The custom lens for photographing falcons in Qatar or whatever was the far larger Zeiss 1700mm f/4 for a Hasselblad F series body; #3 on this list: http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/top-10-outrageous-lenses
photogeek: Too bad most of their lenses have noisy, slow motors and are worthless for fast moving subjects. FWIW, I ended up going with MFT after trying both X-T1 and E-M1 side by side. E-M1 is just much better made and all their lenses (at least all I have tried) have ultrasonic motors. The only real flaw that I could see in Oly lineup is their 17mm f/1.8 lens, which, while not that bad in absolute terms, is not that good either, and worse than their f/2.8 zoom.
When you say "USM", you mean "linear stepper motors" ["LSM"], which seem to be the best type for working with CDAF, whereas USM is the best with SLRs and their PDAF, but is sluggish with CDAF.
Several mirror-less system offer LSM focusing, so I doubt patents are a major barrier, and I loo forward to the X system getting something like LSM AF soon.
P. S. Olympus uses the marketing name MSC (movie and stills compatible), but the underlying technology is linear motors.
Teru Kage: Let me begin by saying the following is in no way meant as a criticism on Simon Harsent's fine work.
Having read the background story to these photos, I can appreciate the muted approach that Harsent used to convey his ideas. However, I wonder how many people would have provided as much praise if they saw some of these photos with no frame of context. I posit that if someone posted photos like 2, 5 or 6 onto a critique forum, the majority of comments would be along the lines of "too flat/dull", "needs some punch".
It makes me wonder if we've become victims of an abundance of images. With everyone and their uncle taking and posting photos these days, perhaps our expectation of "good" photography has been set so high that we eagerly place photos into the Snapshot category if they don't grab our attention right off the bat.
In any case, I like that these photos make slow down a moment to think whether I find them average or there's something more to be discovered.
Or maybe our perceptions are being skewed by the pervasiveness of the "digital Velvia effect", where almost every image we see online has been hit with the saturation or clarity sliders, or "auto-Enhance". For example, Google+ applies auto-Enhance to every uploaded photo without even asking or teling you; it takes special intervention to disable that. IPhone has it too, though at least you have to choose to edit and touch the "magic wand" icon to apply it.
wootpile: 1.4... not enough to make sense
Cudos to Fuji for keeping their systems fresh and alive. But.. the jump from 35 to 50mm is marginal and is certainly something within crop range in edit. (a crop your 16 megapixel image to about 11.5 mpix)
I would have liked it to be a 2.4 instead, offering just over 80mm equiv, and wouldn't mind sacrificing apertures to get there.
wootpile, you misunderstand:- to get the "50mm FOV" by cropping without a TC, you have to use 1/2 the sensor area (dividing both horizontal and vertical pixel count by 1.4) so getting 8MP, whereas with the 1.4x TC, you get that same FOV with no crop of the image from the sensor, so using all 16MP.- to get a "70mm FOV" without the TC, you have to crop by 2X, to half the width and half the height of the total image from the sensor, or 4MP, whereas with the 1.4xTC only a further 1.4x crop is needed to get that FOV, so 8MP.
Perhaps you are missing the fact that the 1.4X is a linear factor of image enlargement, not a pixel count factor. That is, it increases the focal length by a factor of 1.4.
A 1.4x crop halves the pixel count (1.4 linear, so a factor of two in image area.) So from 16MP to 8MP.The 1.4X TC could also be combined with a further crop, so that for example using both the 1.4X TC and a 1.4X crop gives a combined 2X for a "portraity" 70mm equivalent FOV with 8MP, instead of the 4MP got with just a 2X crop.
LensBeginner: Cons:1. never shot jpg2. ditto3. that's a problem with lenses, not camera4. true. But it's a camera, not a videocamera5. true
...not many cons there, are there? ;-)
And this is why I would be happy if these DPReviews ended at the pros and cons and discussion, leaving each of us potential users to decide how important the props and cons are to us, instead of attempting to reduce all these many aspects to a single number, or a single color of award.
Manfred Bachmann: again a new akku? slowly i think nikon needs a break!
akku is German slang for battery I think (as in "accumulator").This uses a new smaller battery along with its new smaller memory card format, microSD.
BJL: Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?
It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.
Agreed that "super 35mm" is used loosely when describing video sensors. But it makes more sense to me to indicate roughly the format of a video sensor by comparing to a similar, well-known, widely used motion picture format than to compare to an obscure, failed still film camera format in a quite different shape: this sensor is in the roughly 1.9:1 shape of cine-4K, 4096x2160.