liquidsquid: I'm not sure if this is possible. White LEDs contain phosphors to generate the colors other than blue (of which the LEDs are based upon). The phosphors do not really turn on and off that fast. There is a charge time and a discharge time much longer than 1/2,000,000 AFAIK. If anything you will wind up with a rainbow effect on moving subjects as the various phosphors ramp up and back down in brightness as different colors will have different response times.
I suppose if you heat the phosphors, they turn on and off faster. Also it may be that the peak power so overwhelms the ramp-up and down, it doesn't matter. The again I don't think those images are in the 1/2Meg range.
Oh, bear in mind that a bare-die LED (one without phosphors) can switch on and off at a pretty good clip (small LEDs can go 10MHz+), but a lot depends on the physics of the LED's die, and the size of it. A big honking high-power LED has a lot of self-capacity, meaning it is difficult to turn the LED on and off quickly, especially at 2MHz rates. The assumption is you use a high-power driver circuit that can reverse-current briefly to drain that charge back out.
The developer is best-served using multiple-color LEDs rather than whites to avoid phosphors, and a good diffuser to mix those colors before reaching the subject.
In all, I think is price point is not going to be met unless volume is rather large.
(p.s. I am an engineer and have worked on such things, though not for flash photography)
I'm not sure if this is possible. White LEDs contain phosphors to generate the colors other than blue (of which the LEDs are based upon). The phosphors do not really turn on and off that fast. There is a charge time and a discharge time much longer than 1/2,000,000 AFAIK. If anything you will wind up with a rainbow effect on moving subjects as the various phosphors ramp up and back down in brightness as different colors will have different response times.
Surprising high ISO results for a first release. Hmm...
liquidsquid: Tempting... one of my favorite lenses is a 50mm F1.x (cannot remember right now) old good Minolta adapted to m4/3. It would be nice to get automatic features and less coma wide-open.
Hopefully it is under $1K, but I doubt it.
Yeah, but it was $35, and the center of the lens is far better than the edges. Playing in the "sweet spot". Honestly I don't use it much any more, got tired of the manual focus struggle on moving subjects. I could nail quite a few shots by pre-focusing, but it required too much thinking.
Tempting... one of my favorite lenses is a 50mm F1.x (cannot remember right now) old good Minolta adapted to m4/3. It would be nice to get automatic features and less coma wide-open.
I've got to try this! Plenty of subjects around here. To get rid of the monochrome result you could use a few color-tuneable RGB LED hobby kits placed at different locations. That may add some real pizzaz to the result without post.
REDred Photo: Lately, I've been downloading full size jpg portrait samples from the new cameras and comparing them in Photoshop. The goal is to see how well the images will perform at large print sizes so I up the resolution to 40 inches on the short edge at 240 dpi. I then view all the different images at about 42% so that my monitor is displaying almost exactly actual print size. Then I compare to a portrait I scanned from 6x7 medium format slide film roughly equivalent to 60mp.
Generally, all the digital camera files tend to look a little too plastic smooth, especially in areas where the image subject is a single color. When up-resed to 40x60, digital noise looks chunky and artificial. The film has a very random fine grain that shows even in smooth, same-color textures such as the whites of the eyes... this fine texture, although not as "clean" as digital, just looks so much more natural and organic. These observations are not surprising to anyone familiar with high resolution film.
Makes one wonder if you were to apply a "film-grain" process to the "clean" digital images if it would better resemble the MF image, which I would suspect is the case. I am curious to see what you think of this, and I am likely wrong. It sounds like you have the tools to check this idea though. Too bad there isn't a silver-halide crystal grower filter ;-).
I would rather start at the low-noise images and add noise to taste, then take a noisy image and attempt to extract.
Heefe: Funny how people are so obsessed with the size of the sensor...
OMG, for all of the "experienced" photographers around here, they sure fail at math.
F2.8 (or any F value for that matter) of full frame exposure time for the same ISO ratings is the SAME as exposure time on a smaller sensor like m4/3 at equivalent focal length. How hard is that? The ONLY difference is DOF.
Sure light gathering ability is greater on the larger lens, but that is to cover a larger area of sensor, so the light is spread over a greater area. The light intensity on ANY GIVEN SURFACE AREA of the sensor is the same. Note AREA not the same as PIXEL.
That little patch of greenery is the most telling, as it seems to confuse the snot out of the NR routines. The Sony NEX shows artifacting, The GX7 shows smearing, the EP-5 handles it well with just some resolution loss, and the RX100 II smears it out as well, but not as bad as the GX7. Of course this is all at ISO 12800, a setting I have never used.
Still considering the sensor size and resolution... if I have to look this close to see a flaw consider me really impressed.
Of other Note: Greenery is cyan-ish on Sony, yellow-ish on the m4/3 which is consistent with my experiences with the same WB settings.
liquidsquid: Any chance of taking a long night-exposure of the stars, aurora or a night cityscape? Something in the 10 second or more range lowest ISO and ISO400 or more would be awesome, as that is something all of my micro 4/3 cameras over the years would struggle with. Lightning shots were never really "pow" shots like with my old Sony DSC-R1 had.
I've owned G1 and the GH2, and after a few tries with long night exposures, have sort of put it aside until technology catches up on these smaller cameras.
The OMD is great at it from what I have seen, no argument.
The older Panasonic sensors (G1, GH2) would produce a mottled-looking dark background instead of a film-like grain gradient. Also they are very bad at hot pixel noise, which is worse the longer the exposure no matter the ISO or using dark-frame. You can get fake stars in post if two hot pixels are adjacent. Re-mapping doesn't help BTW as they are not saturated pixels, only more sensitive by a little.
Once I noticed these problems, I couldn't let it go as it looks very unnatural and almost impossible to remove in post. I do have some great lightning shots, but the dark sky backgrounds are still mottled, and it does show up in print. I also have to manually remove the hot pixel noise for those few fake stars. I also had problems with horizontal streak noise from interference on both cameras on anything but the lowest ISO if I pulled the exposure at all of the darks.
Any chance of taking a long night-exposure of the stars, aurora or a night cityscape? Something in the 10 second or more range lowest ISO and ISO400 or more would be awesome, as that is something all of my micro 4/3 cameras over the years would struggle with. Lightning shots were never really "pow" shots like with my old Sony DSC-R1 had.
Great price for a monitor with these specs and size. Too bad this is just a hobby!
photo nuts: This camera will (i) seal Nikon's status as the bestselling DSLR manufacturer worldwide (ii) stem the loss of converts to mirrorless cameras (iii) help ensure FF DSLRs stay relevant for many more years.
While Canon had a massive head-start when digital DSLR cameras were first launched, it appears they are now losing steam rather quickly... Way to go, Nikon!
Yeah, big, honking camera to drag with you on a trip that is darned near impossible to conceal or hike with vs. something that fits in a car console. I never have been a fan of FF due to bulk and feeling a bit ridiculous carrying one. I feel like people expect me to be a pro when I am only a hobbyist.
Each system has its place, and can compliment each other if you have bags of money for lenses. The gap for IQ is narrower than ever, so now DOF is the real differentiating factor.
nixda: Here are two things I'd like to see in a camera that haven't been mentioned before:
1. Square sensor. The image circle is a, um, circle, so why tossing out valuable sensor real estate? Aspect ratios can be selected via the menu or in post-processing, if desired. Also, one wouldn't have to struggle with landscape vs. portrait orientation and all that brings with it when it comes to holding a camera or mounting it to tripod heads.
2. The edges of the bottom plate should be shaped to be compatible with the Arca-Swiss standard.
Hexagon would make more sense, more could be cut from a round die and cover more of the image circle than even a square.
dbateman: Quote"Panasonic can't circumvent the laws of optics, and the 35-100mm F2.8's small size means it can't offer the kind of subject isolation and background blur that you'll get from F2.8 zooms on cameras with larger sensors."
I think they really tried. Look at the Minimum focus distance!! Its 85cm, that alone is one reason why I will buy this lens. Most are 150cm. Moving in close to your subject at a even a large aperture, WILL provide suject isolation from background.Dpreview should test this law of physics to show that subject isolation will be great with the panasonic!
Soon, easy in-camera processing will allow any level of subject isolation you wish, regardless of aperture. Start with a small aperture, and do anything you want to the image after the fact. Start with a large one... no way to recover an already blurred image. Already done with "toy" filters.
At least the F2.8 allows some fast shutter times on low ISOs for fast-moving kids without having to be in their faces.
In other words, having the desired effect of subject isolation produced by an expensive lens will not be a factor in the near future unless you are a "purist" (aka Ludite).
Timmbits: With smaller cameras coming out with larger sensors, I no longer understand why a modest sensor in such a large body. Take, for example, the Samsung NX20, with an APS-C sensor, a very nice size and great ergonomics, and the NEX system. With new developments and choices on the market now, I can't help but wonder if 4/3 was a myopic miscalculation.
Likely SYSTEM size. Try out a 300mm lens on any of these and tell me who wins. Of for that matter any lens of equivalent capability. It isn't just the body that counts.
nicolaiecostel: It's going to sell liike crazy, this camera. It's what everyone was asking for, for a long time. I know it has it's drawbacks, but it's 2000$ launch price people !! It has a 24 MP full-frame sensor for Christ sake ! It has a viewfinder with glass in it, unlike the A99, and you have access to all the nikon glass out there.
I own 2 nikon lenses and none required calibration or AF adjustment on my D700. And guess what, I also on two sigma lenses that did not need that either.
I think it's a great launch and I will probably get one next year. Hope the AF won't be a messi bussiness, like it was in the D7000 and D800.
Why do you complain about 1/4000 shutter speed ? The D700 is 1/8000 but the minimal ISO is 200 and 100 with boost. This one has 100 and 50 with boost, so it's the same thing as the D700.
Right up till they find out how expensive the whole system is with full-frame lenses, and then how BIG it is that it will be left at home more often than not.
I would love this performance, but there is a low chance I would bring it with me on the very trips I like to take pictures on.
Sheesh, if you separated the body from the glass, and made separate purchases, many of you who don't want to shell out $2800 would be singing a different tune.
How much good glass out there goes for over $1K? How many FF bodies go over $1K?
Not that I am going to get one any time soon.
Vadimka: It's fun and all, but c'mon f2.8 lens is like an equivalent of f14. I'd not be too keen on stopping it down to f4 because of diffraction. Not sure what is the purpose really. If they want to make a compact body, then I'm not sure it's really all that small either.
F14 for FOV, but F2.8 for shutter speed/lower ISO settings. May be perfect for long-range digi-scoping seeing the crop factor is so high with IS. Can freeze motion easier, and focus will not have to hunt as much meaning focus lock *may* be fast.
Also if the registration is closer (aperture to sensor distance) diffraction effect is reduced vs. aperture.