mumintroll: I don't get it. Why nikon or canon just not add 4x FF sensors together in 2x2 square. And have medium format much cheaper.
or expose four times.
just use a GigaPan if one can use a GigaPan.
a Michael: For some reason, I was bothered by the claim that consumers in the West incorrectly conflate size with performance. Until very recently, this has mostly been true. Full Frame cameras are big. The nicest APS-C cameras are big. Micro four thirds' capability has just now caught up with APS-C cameras. I suspect that many of the non-enthusiasts who step up to system cameras want something better for family photography, which is often indoor with low light, and bigger sensors are usually more favorable for that. Add to that the fact that only the more expensive mirrorless models have a viewfinder, making lower end DSLR's all the more attractive. And concerning size, if you're just using the kit lens and not carrying around other lenses, there really isn't that big off a difference in size between an entry-level DSLR and mirrorless camera. Either way, you're buying something that isn't pocketable so why not get the bigger sensor with a viewfinder?
one can write down all the sensor scores, or better lens-camera scores from DxOMark and place all the data on a chart: weight-score, have a look at it, and even an analphabet person should be able to understand.
larger = better,
an undeniable trend with sound root in basic physics.
misolo: "sensor with almost twice the physical size of the largest 35 mm DSLR sensor"Hasselblad math: 1.67=2
> which is indeed "almost" 2.
if the camera can only set exposure (shutter speed and aperture) in 1 stop steps.
the number will be 0.5 stops if it can do half stops, or 0.7 stops if it got 1/3 stops.
> incorrectly conflate size with performance
exactly, those who cannot understand larger = better should go to a high school and learn their lessons again.
Anastigmat: All manufacturers are pushing the envelope. The difference is the size of the envelope. Olympus is pushing the 4/3 envelope. Hasselblad is pushing the 6x4.5 cm envelope. Canon, Sony and Nikon are pushing the Full Frame envelope. Sigma, Fuji, and Pentax are pushing the APS-C envelope.
sensor format cannot be changed easily unless it's inwardly. but the evelope can be pushed larger on the lens side. larger aperture lenses that Olympus should work hard to make.
lacikuss: I used to own Olympus in the film era. It was great to have a Japanese manufacturer caring about size and IQ at the same time.
Nowadays, I think of IQ and I ask myself why should we trade camera size for IQ? Why is Olympus is not pushing for FF and smaller size? Is Sony the old Olympus?
By the way, I don't own neither but do use FF.
did you buy your OM-1 new 40 years ago?
for used ones, no OM-1 can be complete with original parts, and that's why someone can still use their OM-1's today: third-party parts made in back-streets in Tokyo or somewhere else are of better quality than Olympus originals.
used OM-1's are dirt cheap but one that's never openned should go to a museum (don't try to use it for it will break). Canon and Nikon also have problem buying back old models with all genuin parts while you can find loads of them in shops.
peevee1: This Masaya Maeda comes off as incredibly smug, even in the picture.
"Up to now, we've been known by consumers as leaders in still photography,"
By ignorant consumers maybe.
there used to be some competitive motor bike makers in Japan but some were crushed by larger companies via aggressive price campaigns. one of them was Honda vs Tohatsu (who is still making good outboard motors) and the story is still told in some business schools now.
Canon can sell cameras at lower prices and still above cost while its rivals will have to bleed in a war of attrition. Japanese won't usually do it though (Honda was offended by Tohatsu who tried to takeover the position).
LWS2013: Have Hasselblad not heard of the X-Trans sensor? the pinnacle of digital sensors have already been reached
You could buy 20 X-T1's for the price of this, Heck you could buy 40 of them if you wait 6 months.
X-Trans is definitely a rubbish from users' point of view, and Fujifilm is keeping looking for new holes where they can take shelter, hope they can find a new world for both users and makers to move to, like mirrorless which isn't yet so good a place but a very promising place.
OM bodies were famous for their low quality. many people used to love OM cameras for lower prices than major brands, and most of those who bought a low price camera didn't take many photos for same cost reasons.
a logarithmic figure may look better1.67 area ratio = 0.74 stops higher performance, ... though it's nearer to 0.5 than 1.
this is no 645 format camera and cannot make full use of 645 lenses, which will result in less SNR (for less light gathering capacity at 61%) and less resolution (cropped, 78% linear) image projected on the sensor.
I don't have a chance to test well tuned MF lenses (all haven't seen service for ten or tens of years). I don't think MF lenses will perform well, and I don't know a good place to repair MF lenses.
KAllen: You will not need to go a D800 to ask that question.I don't own MF digital but I would if I could despite all the comparisons people make with the D800 etc. It's not all about the number of blades of grass you can record But I can't justify it.I wouldn't go the Hassy route all the same, the 1/800th of a second top speed kills it for my needs.
HDR, sometimes over 20 stops will be needed.
what do you mean by IQ? is it a camera issue?
topstuff: Whats this about Americans not liking small cameras?
It is bizarre. Do Americans think that large = better?
Makes no sense. No sense at all.
Canon is trying hard to make lenses smaller while having the same or higher performance and they are more successful than Nikon. but neither Canon nor Nikon have to cheat customers by providing lower cost smaller and lower performance products like Oly, Pana, Fuji, and Sony. their customers are way better educated and know the gears.
btw, 7D fits my hand best but size of cameras is less an issue.
I don't know it's a good idea to ask someone stare into a strong light source. I may try it later.
the sensor size is of little problem beyond 35mm. you won't get good image quality without good lenses.
jon404: I'm out of touch. Could someone tell me why, in this digital age, we need detachable backs? Don't you just swap out memory cards? Or, do these backs include a hard drive -- and , if so, do you actually need one... with the high-capacity memory cards that are available now?
Canon and Nikon may also have detachable backs, or modular camera designs for studio use.
entry level DSLRs can do 1/800s at lower GN though.
there are some tricks for shots against the sun but I don't see the need to choose flash over reflection pads.
photonius: I thought they use a trick to have multiple exposures at different sensitivities?
then should test with a flash.
at least larger = better is more true than smaller = better, which is not true for most of time.