DotCom Editor: Two days, and I'm only the second to comment. That's about all the market research you'll ever need regarding "Windows Phone."
No, That's about all the market research you'll ever need regarding "DPReview Connect".
yonsarh: I don't like to use filter on my cameras. It will effect on your sensor as well.
For me English is also a second language. But JWest's comment is just so funny. I don't believe he intended any offense.
HowardChernin: This lens will not "act like an 85mm lens". It will give you angle of view of an 85mm lens, but the perspective will still be that of a 58mm lens. Just sayin'!
Perspective only depends on the distance between you and the subject. If you take a picture with FF + 85mm lens, and then from the same spot with APS-C + 55mm lens, then perspective will be the same.You can easily check it yourself even with P&S. You can even take a picture from the same spot with FF + 85mm, then with FF + 21 mm, crop it to have same FOV, and you'll still have same perspective.
Strikeroot: "Ugly" must be what people revert to saying when they have no other avenue for meaningful criticism.
Want a beautiful camera - buy Leica. Sony talks function here, not fashion.
Axibis: Is DSLR going to die soon?
Well, AF will match DSLRs sooner or later, but I guess battery life will always be a downside. Constant sensor read-out consumes a lot of power.
kecajkerugo: why so many people is talking abouit the tiny FF? Real prof. use larger format and Pentax got it: 645. For advanced amateurs the APS-C is perfect and the m4/3 can be even more.
Well, I'd rather have APS-C with superb features than FF with mediocre.
Pentax may not have FF, but in APS-C DSLR market Pentax provides best price/performance in my opinion.
kbryd: Yeah...very nice, but still I don't understand why two Sigma lenses I had (100-300/4EX and 10-20/3.5-5.6) were rubbish. Both were extremely out of focus, actually only one side of the image was out of focus...
But USB dock available only for Nikon, Canon and Sigma mounts, isn't it?
3dreal: It IS possible to produce best possible series of lenses. Zeiss are currently proving it with its coming HQ lenses. They will beat every currently FF lens.
Maybe Zeiss just have very strict QA and throws away most of the lenses. That's one reason for high price I guess.
ARTASHES: with my limited acknowledges about sensor I think this one isn't any better than any actual FF sensor on the market, but the it's advantage is that it will use total surface of the sensor to create an fullhd video because the whole sensor has exactly the same resolution as the fullhd while the 20mp+ sensors can't do this, in fact to create a fullhd D800 for example will have to take only several pixels from given surface to avoid re-sizing from 36 mp and so it uses only some part of whole surface that's impact the IQ in low light, conclusion : the size of individual pixels is important for video making but is irrelevant for photography where you can resize and so this penalize big resolution sensor for video making and that's why Canon made this one with such big pixels
"grabbed from the whole sensor not just a cropped portion" Not a cropped portion, but not the whole sensor either. Just skips some pixels to keep bit-rate in check.
panoviews: I would buy a Nokia with a plain Android OS and the possibility to root the device - but never with a Windows OS.
Did I miss something? When did Nokia go bankrupt?
T3: I remember there was a big discussion a while back where people were claiming that the key to lower noise was having more pixels, and of smaller size. Wonder where those people are now?
@JadedGamer: Bigger pixels have bigger noise! There is less "light data" per pixel, but also less noise. Therefore, SNR remains the same.
@Eike Welk: check data at sensorgen.info and see that read noise is pretty much the same for D4 and D800. Also look for "Equivalence" article from Joseph James.@T3: First of all, I mentioned that sensor efficiency should remain the same. Second of all, circuitry size simply does not make any difference for big sensors. Unless you go to the P&S pixel size that is. As I said below, it is the reason why Sony claims that BSI technology will not give much advantage for big sensors. And you always can use CCD sensors to go even smaller. "LOL"
And people actually paid for this...
@Eike Welk: Apparently it's you who don't know what you are talking about. It doesn't matter how much pixels you divide your sensor by. Quantity of light hitting the sensor will not change. As long as sensor size (and efficiency) remains the same, overall noise will not change as well.By the way, "averaging neighboring pixels" (I believe correct term would be downsampling) in general produces much more pleasing noise.
DUSTY LENS: This is finally getting down to serious light gathering Photography , worthy of owning in a second specialized body . I love it .So I would personally want a very Hi resolution Sensor body too , for good lighting uses . maybe 50MP to do the daylight quality photo work .
What could be a better reason for owning two bodies ?
Makes me think about the possibilities of offering a FF body having the ability of Sensors switching by the owner , in a clean clear plastic bag .
Why would you bring video camera if you're doing photo work?
Bogdan Spineanu: Wow .. if you make sensor pixels larger you can capture more light ! Why didn't I think of that ? Revolutionary !
You can capture more light only if you make your sensor larger.
Marksphoto: just confirms that all we need is a 2-3mp sensor on the full frame Canon 5d MK 4 for the general purpose photography in low light and still be able to get great enlargements under daylight conditions.
Finally the consumers need to understand that there is no need for 21mp at an expense of noise.
"There is no need for 21mp at an expense of noise" - I agree. But there is no such expense :P
stevens37y: This will be never used in consumer cameras.
Probably because consumers don't go shooting video in total darkness.
sportyaccordy: This is a far more exciting development to me than the generally useless MP race. I'd rather have 6MP @ a clean ISO51200 than 100MP at no more than ISO3200
@Leandros S: I was not talking about file size or processing power needed. I wanted to say that pixel size does not matter for noise performance.I agree, whole purpose of this sensor is to make video processing much more effective and be able to use data from all pixels in video recording. For stills it is useless.@Plastek: Yes they will (more or less). In this case 7.5 pixels will gather rougly same amount of light as one pixel in this sensor. Have you ever seen a big BSI sensor? Area of supporting circuitry is pretty much insignificant in bigger sensors. That is why Sony said there would be little benefit of BSI technology even in APS-C sensors.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review