TomasT: I never understood why wide angle distortion is "by design" with this kind of camera's.Really do not like this "feature". Camera and features looks great btw
With ultrawide lenses, there's always distortion. Rectilinear lenses preserve off-center straight lines, but they stretch and squeeze humans into weird shapes. Fisheye makes humans look more natural, but butchers the architecture.My guess is that the action cams use fisheye designs because they are cheaper to build and are a better fit for the typical subject matter. Not many straight lines in the mountains.
iAPX: Sony and the patent system are inventing a new definition of vaporware...
They can't patent the *idea* of vaporware because of widespread prior art. But a specific implementation - sure, why not!
LWanTeD: Less is more (expensive).
The price is usually based on the expected sales volume, so no surprise there.
Reminds me of mountaineering "by fair means".
Ribbit74: I wish car manufacturers would do the same thing. Wouldn't it be great to buy a brand new Lamborghini with manual transmission, no synchros (gotta double-clutch and rev match!), no power steering, drum brakes, hand-crank windows, no A/C, no instrument panel, and a hand-crank starter?
True automotive aficionados would appreciate it.
And a floor pump. Must not forget the floor pump.
Chris Page: The focus point still cannot easily be selected manually. That is the killer for me.
@Androole: Well, touchscreens can be both a blessing and a curse. You're 100% right - many tasks are much easier with touchscreen. For example, the "lock AF and recompose" technique won't work on a tripod.
On the other hand, as soon as you get a stray drop of water on that touchscreen, using it becomes an exercise in frustration. It also prompts the photog to constantly touch the screen, causing smearing and even scratching. Sun lotion? Bug spray? Rock dust? Sometimes it's hard to keep your hands clean.
Unfortunately, when the touchscreen *is* available, the camera designers don't necessarily make sure you can easily do everything you need through the mechanical controls.
Based on a quick web search, what used to be "focus and recompose", now is "lock AF tracking and recompose". Just as simple as before (when AF tracking is enabled, you engage it with a shutter half-press), and no need to mess with AF point selection.If, that is, the AF tracking works as advertised. Which it should.
D135ima: Теперь "Лейку" можно утопить в лейке.
It's a pun. "Leica" in Russian is normally pronounced identically to the word "Лейка", which means "watering can". Lakes are not involved.Amusingly, the English pronunciation of Leica sounds closer to Russian word "лайка" ("Laika"), which is a Northern sled dog breed also known as Siberian Husky.A Russian dog by the name Laika (though not the breed) made history in the 1960s as the first dog in space.
A waterproof camera LaikaWas made in the city of Wetzler.It did not fly to space,it did not pull a sled,And was way too expensive to like it.
Steven R. Rochlin: Am a longtime journalist in the field of CE, with that said DRM has worked pretty much never.
'DRM' video tape was easy to defeat
DRM CD was easily defeated
DRM video discs also defeated
DRM'ing anything you put on the Internet is a waste of time.
And yes there is Watermarking and only way that works is to broadly watermark the image so as to make it hard to alter said image to remove the watermark.
Encryption is the way to go, yet, ummm, good luck encrypting images to then have it freely displayed online. Even then, once someone has the key, they can easily find a way to copy said file in an unencrypted manner. DRM JPG images online... what is to keep either a screen capture or getting the image file from your browser's cache and then using software to defeat the DRM?
While I like the DRM concept if you insist on such things, it'll never work in the real world. Strong encryption with no back-door access is the only way to go at this time if you desire security.
Encryption, no matter how strong, won't guard against somebody saving a screenshot, or (if the images can only be seen through a signed app that disables screen capture) photographing the screen.They'd also have to lobby the camera companies to detect the © symbol in the field of view, and disable the shutter button :)
RidgeRunner22: One issue I see is the problem of handheld 42mp shoots. Without any form of IS I think this was meant for the tripod.
Well, people also routinely check image sharpness by viewing the images in 100%. It's a huge magnification and overkill, but it's also a very common practice.
A higher resolution sensor has a *potential* benefit. It gives an ability to use larger magnification (or more cropping) before blur becomes visible.
So if you need higher magnification, you have to hold the camera more steady, but you'll end up with sharper images (I mean, the cropped/magnified end result will be sharper).
If you don't need higher magnification, the higher resolution sensor doesn't really benefit you at all - and it comes with larger files, slower camera operation, and higher price tag.
What's confusing here, is that talking about anything "pixel-level" or "100%" automatically ties magnification to resolution.
"But that blur will look exactly the same in the photograph"Yes it will. That's why "sharpness" is different from "pixel-level sharpness"Pixel-level sharpness may be needed for images that will be magnified to huge sizes, or heavily cropped. Depends on the intended use of the image.
"Increasing resolution doesn't increase camera shake. Camera shake is exactly the same wither you are shooting 4 megapixels or 40 megapixels or 400 megapixels."
It matters if you want pixel-level sharpness. Looking at a 40 MP image at 100% means you're using about 3x the magnification of a 4MP image.
The same camera motion that blurs a 4MP image by 1 pixel, will blur the 40MP image by about 3 pixels, and the 400MP image by 10 pixels.
"That 1/fl shutter speed rule of thumb was for the film era, Probably useful for up to 12MP digital cameras today."
I'm pretty sure it's based on the 1/1500 of image diagonal, which is somewhere around 2MP. 2MP puts about 5 times less pixels across the FOV than 42MP does.
So, at 35mm all you need for a pixel-level sharp image is 1/5 of 1/35s, which is around 1/200s.
"You need 1/35sec, which isn't a problem"1/35sec will only give you a sharp-looking image. It looks sharp at normal viewing distance, but if you zoom in, you'll see the motion blur.Pixel-level sharp image doesn't show motion blur when you zoom in all the way to 100%. It requires a (much) shorter exposure time, or a much sturdier tripod.
Now that I though about it, to get a pixel-sharp 42MP, all you need about 1/200s. So it's not really a huge deal.
"The pixel density on 42 MP FF is same as 18 MP APSC"It's not the pixel density, it's how many pixels you have across the field of view. A 42 MP sensor puts about 1.5 times more pixels across the FOV.
If you need 1/2000s to get a pixel-sharp shot on a 18MP sensor, you'll need 1/3000s on a 42MP sensor (assuming equivalent focal lengths).
There's a difference between "sharp" (as in, looks sharp when you view the image from a normal viewing distance) and "pixel sharp" - when during exposure, the image doesn't move more than 1/2 a pixel.
An image looks sharp if the smear is under 1/1500 of the image diagonal. That's about 2MP, give or take.
For pixel-level sharpness, the more pixels you have, the less smear you can tolerate.
To take pixel-level sharp 42MP image without any kind of stabilization, your exposure time would need to be about five times shorter than what you'd need for a sharp-looking picture, and about two times shorter than what you'd need for a pixel-level sharp 10MP.
Photato: I like the concept of this camera.Utmost quality in a small package.The quality I am sure is there but the small, hmm not so much.I would like to see this concept expanded for a larger market using smaller bodies with crop sensors and accesible prices.
RX1 Mini APS-CRX1 Nano 1"
I think this would be a better value proposition.
"Ricoh GR II $499"You have a point there. But Ricoh GRs have a tiny niche market. If Sony was to barge in, they would've split the market. The less units you sell, the higher your price has to be - and it's not a linear dependency. Halving the number of sales can easily quadruple the unit price.
Yeah, tripod, flash, or broad daylight. And yet, if I said that 5mp was overkill for handheld 100mm without IS, I'd be chased out of here with pitchforks and tar.