Jokica: Why would owners of A7R II needed SpeedBoster anyway. Why would they need adapter with PDAF ???
CDAF is generally superior to PDAF for accuracy. Mirrorless cameras with on-sensor PDAF typically use a hybrid scheme where they use PDAF to quickly get in the vicinity of the right focus point and then use CDAF for final adjustment to get high accuracy.
iAPX: I don't understand the choice between uncompressed/losslessly compressed/lossy compression of Nikon. At this point, only Losslessly compressed as sense.
Sony seems to like to offer wrong choices only: uncompressed/lossy compression. You either loose at lot of storage space (and have impact also on continuous shooting), or image informations.
There should be one and only way, losslessly compression. And 1 menu item less to understand :)
Hopefully dpreview could confirm with Sony if there is indeed a lossless compression option?
"Sony's cameras have only recorded compressed Raw files which can have a visual impact on some images" ...
@DPReview folks: you guys know enough to recognize that it is not compression that causes visual impact, rather it is the "lossy" compression scheme used by Sony which causes the visual impact. What we need is not an uncompressed RAW, rather a loss-less compressed RAW which reduces file size without throwing away any data.
privater: I really want fuji to consider upgrade their sensor to at least 24Mp to match the competition.
@brownie314: I agree. I would rather have Fuji achieve very fast performance and AF across its lineup with 16MP sensor, rather than being bogged down with having to deal with larger 24MP images.
@privater. Do you actually NEED those 24MPs or do you just WANT it because others have it? I have been using a 24MP A6000 for a while and can't remember a single instance where I made any use of those 24million pixels.
Hugo808: I used to like the little red dot on my lenses (no, not that sort) that showed where to refocus if I was using infra-red film. Because IR has a different and non-visible wavelength, normal visible light focusing would put the pictures ever so slightly out, so we had to focus normally and then move the lens barrel to allow for the IR shift. Imagine how tricky that's going to be with today's super fast lenses!
That's going to be a neat trick to pull off in an autofocus camera, and fun to watch on the screen. How many will think their pictures are out of focus?
Hugo, the sensor only has Red, Green and Blue pixels. When you remove the IR cut filter as with XT1, then the same Red, Green and Blue pixels also capture the IR light. The sensor has no clue that the actual light was not RGB but IR. A pixel is a photon counting machine. When a photon hits a Red pixel, the sensor counts is as a red photon regardless of whether it was actually UV light, visible light or IR light. So no matter what is spectrum of the captured light the sensor always reports it as RGB data. There is no need to do anything special to make that data visible. If the sensor is capturing any type of light then it will always be recorded as RGB values and will be visible on EVF / LCD. Of course you may need to change the WB etc as suggested to make it look better.
"But if you are using an IR cut out filter you won't be able to see anything through the viewfinder? "
That's only true for optical viewfinders. When you look at the LCD / EVF you are not looking at the actual light from the scene, instead the LCD/EVF take the data captured by the sensor and display it as RGB data which you can see. Your LCD/EVF don't/can't display the actual IR light from the scene.
Frasier Krane: Big deal. Apparently, all they did was remove the IR cut filter from the sensor of their original X-T1. This isn't innovative at all. I believe all existing and past digital ILCs can have this same conversion. It's not too difficult really.
I believe the only thing is that you might have to replace the IR cut filter with a piece of glass of the same thickness. And I'm not even sure that's strictly necessary.
To be clear, this is just an X-T1 without an IR cut filter. And, if you add an IR cut filter to your lens, this will probably work like an unmodded X-T1.
This camera/sensor has no more IR sensitivity than any standard off the shelf camera (when its IR cut filter is removed).
Neez (6 hours ago)Canon should do this for their rebel line, it's not like it costs anything to put in a clear glass instead of an IR filter over their sensor.....
By rrccad (6 hours ago)well i guess it's a better alternative than using lifepixel,etc - however with less filter options.
possibly still cheaper to get a used X-T1 and a conversion - but for a 400 USD price premium over a brand new X-T1, it's worth it if you are purchasing a X-T1 for the sole purpose of full spectrum / IR modification.
By hammarbytp (2 hours ago)Basically it is a standard camera with it's hot filter replaced during manufacture and with a heft price increase. Doesn't sound that attractive to me
By Leandros S (5 hours ago)That price is just asking for DIY videos of how to remove the filter from the standard model.
Are these enough examples, or should I go through all the posts?
"Only because there were 100 comments before mine, and no one else mentioned that this is just a VERY minor modification to their existing X-T1."
Really? Then you need to go back and read the comments. There are numerous comments discussing how this could be done by removing the IR filter on a regular camera. Most people who are interested in IR photography already know this. There might be a handful of commenters who don't know about it but majority of the posters already know this.
straylightrun: Now they're just milking it.
@ 2007-sensor comment: The Sony 16MP sensor is every bit as good as the latest 24MP Sony sensor. Yes the 24MP sensor has more pixels but thats about it. The 16MP sensor in my D7000 outperforms the 24MP sensor in my A6000 in terms of DR, and is the same in terms of high-ISO performance at image-level. At pixel level the 24MP sensor is worse.
@Hugo: It is focusing using whatever is being captured by the sensor. If you are shooting IR with it then it has no option but to focus using IR. There is no way for it to do anything else. The only way you can make it focus using visible light is if you put an IR cut filter on your lens to restrict it to visible spectrum. However in that case your picture will also be visible spectrum.
Mirrorless cameras use contrast detect AF which means that they continuously look at actual image data to move the lens focus until the sharpest image is achieved. So I don't think the issue you are describing should matter for X-T1.
For that matter even if you use manual focus on X-T1 you will not have that problem. In your old cameras you could only look at visible spectrum when trying to focus. However in case of X-T1 or any other mirrorless / live view IR camera you will be looking at the actual IR data captured by the camera on the LCD/EVF and so when do manual focus you will get the correct focusing without any shift.
@Fraiser: Normally you have to get the camera modded by a third party to get this functionality with no warranty to fix it if you damage it in the process. Its good that the manufacturer is directly giving you that option instead of having to go to a third party, I don't see whats bad about that?
EcoR1: UV- spectrum of light is from ~ 200 to 400nm. This camera should not be advertised as a true UV-camera in the key features as the sensor can see only a very small portion of UV-light. Of course the biggest drawback for UV- photography are lenses. Most glass-materials used in lens elements don't have transmission below ~350nm. So even if the sensor would record lower than 380nm, it wouldn't do any good without specific and very expensive UV-lenses.
I believe CMOS sensors are only sensitive till about 1100nm and the sensitivity could be pretty low around 1100nm. I don't think there is any reason for Fuji to specifically add a filter to limit it to 1000nm. They have probably just labelled conservatively the range over which you are going to get a decent response. Their previous IR camera also covered 380-1000nm but reviews mentioned that it did capture some spectrum above and below that range as well.
Well the camera is advertised as an IR camera for infrared photography. It has not been advertised as a UV camera. Its true that the specs mention capturing UV spectrum but no where do they say that it is a camera for UV photography. As you mentioned, lenses would be the biggest limitation in UV photography anyway, so it doesn't make sense for them to try and cover a broader UV range unless there are lenses to make use of that.
random78: "And in case you've forgotten some of our earlier coverage of the Illum, F1.0 gets you 30-250mm F2.7 full-frame equivalent lens performance"
But the previous coverage said that the lens is constant f2.0 which would be f5.4 FF equivalent in terms of DOF. The camera picture also says f2.0. Where does this f1.0 number come from?
@Wing2: Well generally the "crop factor" is computed using the diagonal size which in this case would give 3.28x. In any case bottom line is that the crop factor is in the 3.2x-3.3x range.
"It's a 1"-type sensor, so the crop factor is not 3.15x, it's 2.7x"
From Lytro wbesite (https://www.lytro.com/illum/specs/):Sensor Format: 1/1.2"Active Area: 10.82 x 7.52 mmCrop Factor: 3.19
So no. It is not a 1" sensor, and not a 2.7x crop.
Actually based on the lytro website the sensor is 1/1.2" not 1" and so the crop factor is about 3.15x, not 2.7x. That means that the constant f2.0 lens would be about f6.3 FF DOF equivalent.
"And in case you've forgotten some of our earlier coverage of the Illum, F1.0 gets you 30-250mm F2.7 full-frame equivalent lens performance"
Everlast66: The price checking thingy top right reads:"Buy on Amazon.com From $1,111.11"
Ha ha, yeah right, as if someone would pay $1.1k for this thing ;p
If it is really a 30-250mm f2.7 FF equivalent lens (in terms of DOF) then why not.