mosc: So this sensor is a standard sensor? I still can't figure out if this technology requires any actual hardware or if it's just a multi-exposure + software amalgamation.
In a traditional camera, the lens focuses light rays from a single plane in the world to the sensor. So all the light rays that originate from a single point on that plane, converge precisely to a single point on the sensor. However the light rays from any plane in front of or behind the focus plane, get merged into each other giving you the out of focus blur. In other words the traditional camera only preserves information from one plane in the world. The lytro light field camera, introduces additional micro-lenses between the lens and the sensor which allow it to focus light rays from multiple planes to different pixels. In other words a light field camera is simultaneously recording information from multiple focus planes in the world. That's what allows the lytro camera to change focus plan after capture or create an "all-focus" image etc. However that also means that the number of pixels available to capture each focus plane are limited. That's why they have gone for 41MP sensor.
dark goob: I applaud DPreview for not mentioning "equivalence" in this article, and for not calling Super35 a "crop sensor".
I'm glad we've finally evolved beyond calling things "full-frame" vs. "crop". Clearly, when Canon's most advanced optics by far are made full-frame relative to Super35 (24.9x14mm), which is much smaller even than an 16:9 APS film frame, we are finally in the future where 135-format's long dominance over the cultural milieu has ended.
Maybe now DPreview would be open to switching to using Range Factor terminology. This lens is a 2.01:1–41.08:1 Range Factor. The ratio is D:W, where D=distance-to-subject, and W=width-across-frame. I.e. a 1-foot ruler will occupy the entire width of the frame left-to-right from 41.08 feet away at 1000mm. With the extender it increases to a max of 59.76:1.
"Compare" this to a Canon SX60HS which has a Range Factor of 0.62:1–39.55:1 on its 1/2.3"-format (6.2x4.6mm) sensor, which is a 27% crop of Super35.
@dark goob. You need to ease up man. Unfortunately people often think of arguments as black & white where one view is either completely correct or completely incorrect. I am not disagreeing to your basic ideas. I have in the past myself thought about similar schemes. However when I thought about my own schemes I realized two issues which are what I presented to you. First is the one which you did not address --- something like your range factor is not a property of the lens itself and depends on the sensor size used. What do you do when a lens can be mounted on multiple sensor sizes? How do you define the range factor of the lens in that case? Manufacturers today label lenses with actual focal length which is unambiguous. Second, people don't adopt a new system just because someone on a forum doesn't like the existing system. They do it only when the existing system has some limitations. When the existing system is working well then there is no incentive to switch to something else.
.....Now if we start using a different system like your range factor or AOV, then we have to develop the intuition all over again about what those mean. I don't really know how wide is a 50 degree AOV. The other issue which can potentially make such a scheme a big mess is that if you label a lens with say your Range Factor then you have to assume a specific sensor size for that and that's not right. You can mount the same lens on cameras with different sensor sizes and then the range factor will no longer hold. For example a Canon 24-70mm lens can be mounted on a 5DIII, 1D2 or 7D, giving different AOV in each case. For Nikon side there are also folks using their lenses on 1-inch sensor Nikon 1 cameras. I think the lenses should be labelled based on their FL's as that's inherent to them. Any labeling which assumes a specific sensor size is bound to cause even more chaos.
@dark goob. While I understand your frustration with the notations like crop factors, and agree in principal to the idea that every format is "full frame". However the problem is that the solution that you are suggesting and other similar solutions are likely to cause more confusion and can be even more cumbersome. First, most of us have developed a fairly good understanding of what various focal lengths mean for the 35mm format. i.e. how wide is 28mm and how long is 100mm etc. So it is very convenient and straight forward to convert everything to that same frame of reference. It is easy, convenient and works very well, as long as we don't get hung up on the terminology. Don't wanna call it crop factor? sure call it something else.......
Dyun27: As amazing as this camera sounds, the 28 megapixel crop sensor would worry me. It's already challenging not to introduce motion blur to the 16 megapixel D7000 sensor with longer lenses, it's definitely challenging with the 36 megapixel full frame sensor of the D800 and the D7100 24 megapixel sensor.
At 28 megapixels with a crop sensor it means having to use higher ISO settings, faster shutter speeds and using VR whenever possible. At that point I'd have to start taking a monopod or tripod wherever I go. Only the shorter lenses would be easy to use.
Dyun27: What I am saying is that the 36MP sensor is not taking anything away from you, it is only giving the potential to get more. It CAN give you higher resolution than your D600, but to exploit that you might need to use higher shutter speeds and better tripod etc. However in the worst case, if you don't do that, it will still be at least as good as your 24MP sensor.
When you look at a 36MP image vs 24MP image at 100% pixel level then effectively the 36MP image is at a larger viewing size, showing you the blur more easily. If you then resize your 36MP image to the 24MP size, then the amount of blur you see should be about the same as you see in the 24MP image. And then different bodies have a different balance in your hand and the balance also depends on which lens you have on. So there could be a few other factors influencing your evaluation of getting more blur with certain bodies.
That's a yes and a no. It is true that to take advantage of the extra resolution, you might need faster shutter speeds. But if you don't do that and use it with the same shutter speed as a 16MP cameras, then the worst that could happen is that your resolution would be only as much as the 16MP sensor. It will not actually be worse than the 16MP body, it will just be only as good.
I hope DPReview folks review this camera soon. Very interested to know how the new sensor stacks up against the other APS-C sensors. Samsung has always had a solid NX system, but lagged behind a bit on the sensor side. If the new BSI sensors bridges that gap then Samsung will really be as good an APS-C mirrorless system out there as you could get. Also I hope the new sensor tech trickles down to the smaller models soon, because as capable as the NX1 seems, I am more interested in the smaller bodies in the lineup.
KGP: Lets face it... mirrorless size/weight advantage applies only when prime lenses combined with these bodies. There is no way to skip the law of physic & optics... the larger the sensor the biggest the optical elements, the fastest the aperture the heavier the glass. So simple. This lens is a nice addition to Fuji's line up, im pretty sure its gonna kick ass !
Yes the size and weight advantage of mirror-less is not there with telephone lenses. However, those who have adopted a mirrorless system still need the option to use a longer lens when they need it. For those who maintain a mirror-less camera in addition to their full DSLR system, these longer lenses may not be relevant. But for those looking to switch entirely to mirrorless, the lens lineup needs to be more diverse and cover a lot of different needs.
MisterJohnnyT: The news release on the Fuji website: http://www.fujifilmusa.com/press/news/display_news?newsID=880649
...makes no mention of the increased shutter speed being a part of the Firmware update! Looks like the camera I bought ONE MONTH ago is already obsolete! Thanks Fuji !!!
Also, according to that release, the electronic shutter on the Silver edition is only compatible with 3 specific prime lenses.
Besides the fact that it will also come to your x-t1, if just one missing feature makes your camera obsolete then I think there is something wrong with your gear needs.
Compared to D3300 and SL1, it has:
1. A much bigger viewfinder, which is also penta-prism instead of penta-mirror2. 1/6000 fastest shutter speed3. In-Body image stabilization + related features (composition assist, atro-tracking etc.)4. Potentially better live-viewand5. The LED's :)
JDThomas: I like the fact that the lenses are starting to get bigger than the cameras. Everyone is always going on about how they want a light compact camera, but then they insist on having these enormous fast lenses. Where's you're weight savings gonna be when your lugging around a 90mm f/2?
@JDThomas: Yes it is true that in the telephoto range the mirrorless design does not provide much of an advantage in lenses. But it does provide an advantage in the wide to normal / short telephoto range. For me that covers 80% of my shooting needs and I am willing to accept that in the 20% remaining cases I wont have a size/weight advantage (though there will still be considerable savings in the overall system weight and size). If, on the other hand, I was a sports or wildlife shooter using mostly long lenses then yes I would question the gain I get out of mirrorless.
mpgxsvcd: For the average consumer the FZ1000 will make GH4 owners wish they had waited a few months.
The question is that how many "average consumers" buy the GH4 :)
Todd3608: How many consumers actually want 4K quality. I am the geek in our family and have zero desire for 4K. 1080P is good enough for me.
@Todd3608: Actually most people shooting 4K today do it to produce a final 1080p output. The 1080p created by down-sampling the 4K tends to be significantly more detailed then the footage captured by native 1080p cameras. There is also the additional flexibility of cropping the footage a bit if needed and still get 1080p.
random78: At what focal lengths the maximum aperture on FZ1000 drops below f2.8? And specifically what is the maximum aperture for FZ1000 at 200mm?
Just saw that the info I asked for is available on page 1
At what focal lengths the maximum aperture on FZ1000 drops below f2.8? And specifically what is the maximum aperture for FZ1000 at 200mm?
RichRMA: "I want it, I own it, I had it."So, 1 out of 5 who owned the Sony 7R dumped their cameras whereas only 1 our of 30 who owned the Canon 5D MkIII dumped theirs?
@RichRMA: This is what you would expect. Majority of people buying a 5DIII would already be canon users and just upgrading to the latest and greatest body. There is a very high chance that they will hold on to that camera. A person buying the A7r on the other hand is basically trying out a brand new system to see if they like it. A retention rate of 4 out of 5 is remarkably high for that. I suspect the actual retention rate will be lower, and the poll is skewed because those who currently own the camera are more likely to take part in the poll.
cgarrard: Changed the focus distance with firmware. Now that is interesting. Why did they hold back this whole time? Shouldn't that have been available since day one or, am I just totally missing something here?
The camera obviously can focus closer than this because it has a macro mode which allows focusing down to 10cm. However in normal mode allowing focusing down to very small distance would likely make the AF too slow as the contrast detect has to hunt over the whole range. So most likely what has happened is that their AF algorithms are now improved such that they could allow focusing to a closer distance in normal mode without impacting AF speed.
random78: "It doesn't fill a need that isn't already addressed by the competition; isn't better, smaller, faster or cheaper than other mirrorless cameras in its class."
This is generally true of all Samsung NX cameras - they are very capable cameras but don't offer any "headline grabbing" feature to hype about. Just nice solid products. However they are not behind other systems either - they are merely as good. So a comparison should really be about the system as a whole including the lenses, rather than the bodies which are more or less similar. For me the Sony NEX lineup just doesn't work whereas Samsung NX works - so for me Samsung NX is overall a better system. Compared to m43, m43 has a more mature and varied lineup but at the same time Samsung has some unique offerings like the 85mm 1.8, 16-50 f2-f2.8, and the 30mm f2 which are interesting.
@techno: We were specifically talking about compact pancakes lens. Fuji 23mm 1.4 is a great lens but not a small lens. Personally for me having a compact normal prime is a must in a mirror-less because I want a small package. My current carry everywhere setup is actually not a Samsung but the EOS-M + 22mm f2 and I can tell you once you use it, you will see that Samsung is fast. But I am OK with the compromise because it gives me the size that I want. Every system has a compromise, none is perfect. Just take the one that best meets your needs