Resolving Power: Your ability to coerce the Professional Service division of your chosen camera/lens supplier to repair or replace your favorite sensor and lens combination and then explain exactly what they've done when they get around to returning it to you. Theoretically constrained by the NightFedEx Limit, but in real world use, this level is rarely achieved.
I think they're just slightly different renderings of the same subject, one's the 'accurate' view according to current technology and the other has been re-interpreted to create a shift in meaning - towards what war photos are 'supposed' to look like - and those expectations are based on the renderings we got from mid-20th century lenses and film, Leitz, Nikkor and Kodak in particular.
This is an old debate and it's not deceitful to reinterpret color and light balance so long as you don't distort the meaning too much. It's more than twenty years ago we were changing the color of Kate Moss' eyes, using early Photoshop, so they matched better with the clothes and makeup she was wearing that day. She has fabulous eyes when you see them really close up.
Now I understand, I've been doing it wrong for all these years using an analogue one.
And that looks like an OM1 there (maybe an OM2). Is there also room in that digital rucksack for a portable E6 lab and a scanner, along with a few rolls of film?
Hope you don't wear your camera rucksack whilst riding a bike, if you get spat off you can expect serious harm from your 5D Mark III continuing it's journey through your liver, kidneys, spleen etc...
Have a Happy New Year and enjoy driving safely.
At least this is fixable. I can't say I miss having to retouch film and prints with a Cotman 0000 paintbrush. Although retouching Kate Moss was kinda fun, even if it was on the Mac.
Thanks for doing that, smart approach to investigating the problem.
Looking at 0:43 to 0:51. Is that more like a liquid condensing than a lump of something getting sputtered on the sensor? As it's a time lapse we can imagine a slow deposit forming in each blob between shots and some of them appear to get bigger over time.
Maybe there's a volatile oil or similar, so it's evaporating from a nearby part and re-condensing on the sensor, rather than being slung around by the shutter or mirror assemblies. We'd then expect to find other (non-sensor) surfaces where the offending liquid would condense inside the camera too. Then Nikon change it to something with a lower volatility which won't evaporate.
We could test this with DP readers. Do people who DON'T get this happen to use their cameras in cold places? And can we expect a DP Challenge for artistic pics of "Sensor crud"
bertibus: So if I pay a photographer to spend x hours over a period of x weeks to obtain a certain genre of photo(s) for me, I do not own the work that I have paid for? And he / she can use them (the photos) as they see fit, provided that I am also allowed to use them? Is that correct?
Photographer retains copyright, assigns a license to publish the work (probably with exclusive use) to the client.
this makes sense, a photographer could license a pic for use in print, or in a gallery, but not for unlimited online publication through the picture libraries.
It's a change that's consistent with how digital rights should be managed; i.e. separating the originators copyright from the distribution and publishing licenses.
CameraLabTester: I imagine the feel of this new M baby to be the same as that of the Walter PPK.
Do you mean "...it's for ladies, and not very nice ladies at that."
duartix: 4K@60fps is impressive, although I can't think of any personal use for it for the next 5 years.
OTOH why isn't everyone talking about 240fps@HD which it is also capable of???
More info on the readout modes in here: http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol69/pdf/imx144cqj.pdf
High frame rate is where it's at.
300 fps is better because it's a common multiple of 50 and 60, so global standardisation is possible.
I've seen R&D samples of 300 fps and it looks very special, because the picture refreshes so fast it's indistinguishable from reality (except for the parallax at short range).
ProfHankD: Well, the price isn't bad for medium format + Leica branding, and the mostly ordinary feature set isn't that ordinary for medium format, but I wonder if IQ can beat the Nikon D800. Sadly for Leica, my guess is no.
for VivaLasVegas...If you see Angelina with a big Leica it's one she got off Brad - after he replaced the one he had stolen.
Wood shouldn't appear on any camera smaller than 4"x5" format.
Is this a repeat of Sony-Ericsson, Sony does like Swedish brands (perhaps Sony-Ikea next? Ewww, no ! )
2) For a moment I thought they're going to make a baby-Blad with a square sensor and a smaller form-factor.
Franke & Heidecke did that with the Rollei and it put off the inevitable decline for a few more years...
vFunct: Sweet! I still have my hand-crank 8x10 polaroid film processor & view camera.. just need to buy back some lenses.
PROTIP: This is one of the few techniques one can use to create photos without any electricity. Large-format lenses have spring shutters, and the Polaroid film can be processed by hand-cranking!
Not strictly true about the zero electricity, because your hand-held Weston light meter generates a tiny amount of electricity from its selenium photocell, just enough to drive the moving coil attached to the meter needle the correct distance across the (analogue) dial.
Here's one. http://scruss.com/enterprise.net/weston/
I learned about light with one of these. Absolutely excellent when using Ansel Adams' zone system for controlling exposure.
davidkachel: WOW!T-Rex is dead!Does this mean all Kodak camera films are done? I guess so.This may go down in history as the biggest mismanagement case ever.After all, photography is not dead, just Kodak.
It was Tri-X not T-Rex, but I like your name for that classic mono film much better :-)
Dan Nikon: Both still and motion stocks are made in Building 38 so how can they separate them? Well, who is to say that Kodak is not selling both lines to the still film buyer only to lease the line back when needing to make motion stock? And who is to say that a big, big player in the motion picture industry is not going to buy the stills division and then make, sell and distribute both motion and still stock, even if for a few more years until MP film is no longer viable.
There is still good profit to be made on Kodak film, even the still version. A lot of pros like my self have re-employed the use of it in niche projects and especially fine art where the price of a real silver gelatin print from real talent just keeps going up and up. I have personally invested over 30K in film, paper and chemistry in the past few years because after using digital for 20 years, I can not live in a world where that is the only choice of medium I have to use.
This is not over yet, lets see what happens..
Hope Kodak material stays in production. I saw the Travel Photographer of the Year exhibition in London yesterday, 16x20" colour prints. The content was excellent, well worth a visit, but the technical quality of large prints from digital was shockingly bad. Poor colour, contrast, edge artefacts, various optical aberrations and all with much lower resolution than Kodak film. These were shot with top-end cameras and lenses, Canon full-frame mostly (why do Canon pics have a grey cast?), a few Nikons in FX and DX sizes and the odd Sony alpha. The Hasselblad H2 wasn't much better. Honestly, an Olympus OM2 with the 35mm and 85mm f2 Zuiko lenses and a pocketful of Ektachrome did better large prints for travel and landscapes. A 180mm for "long" shots - could always crop from that later. That setup probably weighed less than a DSLR too, and it still worked in sub-zero temperatures. Have we really gone so far backwards on quality in the name of "convenience" and "automation"?
km25: Sorry but, the technology is new in that one may do so easly. But the idea dates back to someone, I cannot recall his name. But he used multi cameras trip wires to prove how horses real ran, their gate. But to do so easly is real amazing. You also can do it with a low level room light and strobs, single fram, multi strob flashs. I did not read all the comments, if someone else has already stated this, sorry.
also filmed people running, may contain nudity and is possibly NSFW
malcolm82: From Engadget:"Ultimately, there's plenty of reason to believe the BBC's project head, Tim Plyming, when he says that "8K is the maximum the human eye can understand" and that "it's the end of the resolution story.""
That's only true for a field of view equivalent to about 40mm (or about 55-60° diagonal). For ultra wide angle viewing we need much higher.
Tim has a point about resolution, but that's not quite the end of improving the moving image. Frame rate is highly significant. In parallel with working with NHK on the 8K Super HiVision, BBC R&D experimented with higher frame rates. We know that interpolating frames into a 50 or 60 fps video for motion blur gives artefacts and a slightly weird look, but native 300 fps (6 or 5 times faster, depending) updates quicker than human vision can distinguish from reality. I've seen their demos and a very odd thing happens. The picture suddenly looks much more "real", it has a clarity of movement that is magical. It's like looking through a window or being there in person. The BBC has a demonstration of a game of table tennis that shows this perfectly. The improvement is most obvious in fast moving balls and in facial expressions. The data processing for this is (of course) fearsome, but it is a worthy avenue of improvement for video.
Vegasus: Hi Guys.... Finally... SLR with " WIFI " system... but.. why attach to the side? Good Idea but not convenience ... but good enough. I like the WIFI system. Good Job.
Separate unit because WiFi specs vary by region. For example, the channel 14 frequency is forbidden in UK but can be used in US and JP. So if it's internal the camera needs to know where it is - integrated with GPS perhaps?
Typically T numbers show a little less light gets through compared to f number, so I'm guessing the Zeiss zoom here has some family resemblance to their SA mount 35mm format 70-200 f2.8 zoom. The Compact Primes are cine mounting of the stills photography lenses - which is a good thing.
Cine zooms are a special case, they mustn't "breathe" - change focal length (and framing) as you pull focus from near to far, or focus shift when you zoom. This makes the lens design more complicated - with more floating elements moving around inside, hence a lot more expensive than the stills version.
Practical answer... because T indicates the amount of light that actually makes it through the lens and onto the film/sensor, irrespective of lens design, different coatings and amount of glass, rather than f ratio, which is a mathematical construct based on the apparent size of a virtual hole inside the lens.
Necessary because a movie can use many different lenses of various designs and it's important to get the exposure and colour grading the same between shots or else you're into a world of pain in post-production because of variation in your multi-camera scenes.
Why the price? a) smaller production runs b) tighter tolerances and calibration, when it says focal length 75mm and 1.9 metres it actually means it. c) colour consistency so you get whole sets of matched prime lenses from Fujinon, Zeiss or Cooke and soon Leica, where they all have the same "look". They have same outside dimensions so gadgets for filters, hoods and for pulling focus all work the same way too.