Context: a 42" TV is roughly twice the size (area) of a 27" TV. 1080p vs 720p seems more noticeable on the larger screen but in most video formats, including NTSC, a 42" screen has about 5 times the visual impact of a 27" screen. 4k, and eventually 8k video formats will multiply the visual impact for larger displays much as HD multiplies the visual impact compared with NTSC.The absolute resolution is less relevant than the production techniques that can take advantage of it. In particular, 3D presentation without glasses might be both more practical and more affordable.Future video manipulation software can use additional video detail to render imagery with greater appearance of depth and other appearance of reality cues. I imagine there will be new video processing features innovated to take advantage of the more detailed video stream much like audio engineering has innovated processing methodologies unimagined in analog days.Does anyone want to go back to black and white NTSC?
migus: Timely topic, thanks!One question on the OVF vs. EVF race: Eye accommodation for those bespectacled, either short- or long-sighted, and worse for bi/tri-focals? Seems that an optometrist should be invited in the dialog OVF/EVF... :-)
A landscape seen *thru* an OVF maintains the same focus as in real life (negative accommodation)... no adaption effort required. OTOH, the same landscape seen *on* an EVF requires a massive refocus, i.e. (positive) re-accommodation. I love my NX100's AMOLED, and yet often i'd prefer even a tunnel OVF as in P&S or rangefinder. Mitch
As a lifetime wearer of eyeglasses, coping with any viewfinder has always been a compromise.EVF`s by themselves are unlikely to change thatBut possibly installable software that can modify the EVF imagery to compensate for vision variations could help some.`Haven`t seen anyone write about that, yet, but certainly is do-able.
Last year laser eye surgery completely re-vitalized my interest in photography.
Edmond Leung: Definitely OLED is the future. For the time being, manufacturers are still so conservative in building new plants for manufacturing OLED because their past investments in LCD were so huge; and the current written-down value of those LCD plants are still representing a very important asset/investment in their books. No CEO will take the risk to build new OLED plants and write-off the LCD plants in the short-run for prevention of negative impacts to their share price. Since the market of OLED is already there; once the investments in the old manufacturing plants for LCD are amortized to a certain level, manufacturers will begin to build new plants for OLED; then the price of OLED panels will be dropped significantly. Let’s wait for another one or two years…
I have trouble thinking of Fuji, Pentax, and Olympus as small companies. That said, they are likely to offer OLED based viewfinders sooner than Nikon, Canon, and Leica.I doubt the current generation of OLED, even MicroOLED`s, will replace better prism viewfinders, but the next evolution of OLED might.
The single biggest factor is where the photo is captured from - "point of view" - and as Lbr0805 specifies, what is in the frame and what is left out.
The next biggest factor is lens selection, specificially field of view typically referenced by focal length. While 50mm (46 degrees) has been popularized as "normal", analysis of people suggests a median of 43mm or 44mm (a "28mm" lens on an APS-C sensor) - between 50 degrees and 55 degrees. So any telephoto or wide angle lens manipulates the context by cropping or expanding view together with consequent geometric distortion.
By the time you get to post processing the biggest decisions are all in the past.
The key remains, as it always has been, the intent of the journalism team to accurately convey, to accurately "quote" the context for the journalism audience.
Authenticity in photography has always been an issue.
A journalism photo should accurately represent the context as faithfully as an exact quote from a witness or expert should state exactly the words spoken.But once transcribed into text the quote no longer conveys the rhythm, cadence, tone, or volume of the original speaker, some or all of which is always relevant.Just so, nothing a photographer can do will reproduce every element of the context.
SaulTh correctly pointed out that "intent" is the critical issue, and jmmgarza pointed out that journalism is a team sport and the intent of all of the players have an impact on authenticity.
Advertising and sensasionalist media have so severely manipulated imagery that authenticity became an issue in photography, and that dates back decades.
As Lbr0805 pointed out, editorializing begins before the photograph is captured.
The best camera in the world is the camera you have with you when the photo op presents itself.
A very small number of people carry a bag of bodies and lenses with them everywhere, in spite of the highly desirable IQ.
A very large number of people carry a camera equipped cel phone everywhere, in spite of the lacklustre IQ.
Contemporary MILC's and traditional 'rangefinders' aim to be the camera you have with you when the bag of bodies and lenses aren't practical.
On 'paper' X-Pro-1 suggests IQ approaching FF (35mm sensors) with an APS-C sensor in a smallish body.If true, anyone who cares for IQ will love to have the X-Pro-1 with them everywhere.
Fujifilm has a history of generally delivering good value for dollar.
If the X-Pro-1 delivers good value for dollar at $1700+600=$2300 then a lot of very good images will be captured with these cameras.
If the price is too rich for you, then choose the camera you can easily afford that you will be happy to have with you everywhere.
If the sensor lives up to the on paper hype the X-Pro-1 may deliver image quality close to better FF (35mm) digital cams, and that WILL be worth the price.If.I doubt the auto-focus will impress, but top IQ in smaller form factor seems to be the popular quest these days.
Excellent step forward for mirrorless cameras, and attractively designed.
In this decade we will see 'full frame' cameras, mirrorless, with EVFs.To date, mirrorless has been all about making a DSLR fit into a compact camera form factor. But that will not remain the only use.
We await EVFs that can render pentaprism OVF detail, at a favourable mass production price point, and sensor based auto-focus that can match or exceed current phase detection auto-focus performance.
Pentax's K-01 represents the clearest step toward future mirrorless cameras.
For photographers that have learned to depend on live view for framing the K-01 looks, on paper, like an excellent and attractive camera choice.And the price point makes it competitive with entry level DSLRs.
All in all, kudos to Pentax.
I suspect the 1 System will have a short shelf life.
Nikon adapted their dominance in auto exposure that NAILs it every time, and fast auto-focus, to a wonderfully compact camera.That gives them a huge advantage over competitors.
Nikon's marketing campaign before Christmas was excellent. Together with that and Nikon's excellent brand prestige and brand loyalty the 1 System should sell well and profitably for Nikon.
But I anticipate that mirrorless cameras with APS-C sized sensors will offer considerably greater overall value.Fuji is already there with the X Pro 1.Canon's G1 X, while not interchangeable lens, perhaps implies a near future mirrorless Rebel class camera, with access to a a huge range of truly fast lenses.
1 System is definitely a top choice in small footprint interchangeable lens cameras today.But Nikon will really have to work hard to hold that edge over coming much larger sensor mirrorless cameras.
If there`s a huge price difference between version 1 and version 2 then I would expect version 1 to continue to sell, at least for a while.While the coatings on the newer lens may be a little better, version 1 is awfully good and you`ll have to look hard to see the difference.So if you don`t need the new motor, and the price is much higher for version 2 . . . . .The fast constant maximum aperture is one of the biggest advantages this lens has.The narrower zoom range still offers dramatic change in field of view.At its widest, the depth of field is so deep that an image focused on a foreground subject has a background with so little boket that most viewers don`t notice and usually photographers take a second look to pick it out.So not a great lens for isolating a subject from the background.
marike6: By no means am I a luddite, but having used several decent EVFs and OVFs, I can't understand why the photographers on here are so anxious to see the demise of the OVF. Is a mirror-box so large that you must do away with it? Peaking is cool, and WB preview is fine, but I would still rather actually see what the lens sees than have a representation of the image created for me. Reality is always better than virtual reality, especially when the light gets low. :-)
I`ll be surprised if future statistics show EVF`s wearing out or needing repair more often than mechanical mirrors.
'See a lot of comments about the representative effectiveness of EVF's to, ultimately, the mind of the photographer.Quick analogy:A good pair of earphones, or even a good pair of earbuds, deliver as good a music listening experience as most decent speaker systems.Similarly, a good EVF can deliver as clear and useful a visual representation as glass (prism). To match top quality glass will require an EVF I have yet to read about.But either way they're for FRAMING the scene to be captured.Just as neither speakers nor headphones can match a live concert performance, neither prism nor EVF can substitute for pulling the camera away to LOOK at the scene BEFORE you frame it in the viewfinder.
arndsan: looking trough the lens is just such simple but wonderful idea what all photographer enjoy. I wonder why the guys need to question that because they have a good new product. - anyway, if there no optical viewfinder anymore I don't need a DSLR and sick to my IPhone 5.6.7s
EVF`s depict what the sensor sees, which is looking through the lens.
jj74e: are our eyes even able to perceive that much resolution?
not to mention, wouldn't that slow down refresh rates? people have highly acclaimed sony, panasonic, olympus, and fujifilm viewfinders. certainly they could be better, but performance is more important than resolution now IMO, and I would rather save a few hundred bucks than get the ultimate EVF display
Yes your eyes can resolve 1280 x 1024.Plus you`ll have the option to digitally zoom for focus or detail examination.The REAL performance bugaboo has to do with auto-focus, as `live-view`electronics trail badly behind optical in auto-focus performance.
Generally, an EVF is smaller, lighter and cheaper than a good prism viewfinder. Electronics are generally less maintenance intensive than mechanicals. More importantly, eliminating the mirror reduces vibration and improves speed.I doubt this EVF can match the prism on a five or six thousand dollar camera, but will probably stand up well against the optical viewfinders on anything with an APS-C or smaller sensor.
IcyVeins: This is a pretty unintersting lens, f/2.8 is almost never useful at such a wide angle, and the zoom range is very poor. The Sigma 8-16mm is the class of all wide angle lenses.
I've shot many, many frames on Canon with version 1 of this lens.f2.8 is VERY useful just before/at dawn and just after sunset.This lens produces great urban landscape images and great wide shots of festivals, races, or any busy event, especially at slower shutter speeds for a little motion blur.There is obvious rectilinear distortion at the widest end but easily corrected in DxO, or even Photoshop.I don't see a good reason to replace v1 with v2 but if you need a wide zoom for APS-C I like this lens better than any competitors in this range.'Doesn't compete with a $1500 wide zoom on full frame,Duh.
When push comes to shove, resolution is a secondary consideration in movie, television, and advertising commercial production. BUDGET is the primary guidepost. Red camera SYSTEMS and Canon's new C300 camera SYSTEM offer the potential to approach the quality of much more expensive camera SYSTEMs within more modest budgets. Production budgets in these markets tend to be more substantial than typical still photography production budgets, with a correspondingly heavier burden of expectation to generate revenue.And while you debate the ten and twenty K camera body price tags take a moment to consider the high five figure and six figure price tags on cinematography LENSES. Canon, for example, stands to make lots of perfectly good money selling their new lenses for use on RED and other camera bodies that can mount e
When push comes to shove, resolution is a secondary consideration in movie, television, and advertising commercial production. BUDGET is THE primary guidepost. What RED camera SYSTEMS and Canon's new C300 camera SYSTEM offer is the potential to approach the production quality of much more expensive camera SYSTEMs within more modest budgets.And while you debate the ten or twenty K camera body prices take into to consideration the high five figure and six figure prices of commercial production quality LENSES, 'cause the camera ain't really the key price tag in the system. As with still photography the useful life of a good lense can span several generations of camera bodies. Canon in particular stands to make good money selling their new lenses for RED and other cameras that can mount