Felix11: I don't follow the logic of this:
"The lack of colored filters increases the amount of light that reaches the photodiodes compared to a filtered sensor,"
..makes sense so far, but then ...
"and thus the lowest ISO setting the camera offers is ISO 320"
Firstly, to avoid confusion, does 'lowest' ISO setting mean small value, less sensitive, closer to 100? Yes? Good!
In that case shouldn't the lowest setting be less than competitor cameras?e.g. 200 ISO is a common lowest value on APS-C models, and 100 ISO on full frame models.
If more light is able to get to the sensor due to the benefit of not having a CFA then a less sensitive setting (i.e. lower) should be required to avoid over exposure.
Please explain :-)
ISO is just a number which ADC uses to amplify the signal by. Lowest ISO setting usually corresponds to the amplification factor of 1. You can go lower than 1, but I see no point in that.
Vitor hugo: EDIT: Nevermind, someone had the same idea as me in the comments.///What would happen if one: 1) get this camera on a tripod 2) get 3 color filters (Red Green and Blue) 3) takes one photo with each of those filters 4) stacks the resulting pictures as RGB channels in PS?///
I'd prefer sensor shifting like pentax k-3 and hasselblad have. Much less hassle with vibrations and time between shots.
Tom 13: A stitch in time saves three thousand three hundred and ninety nine.
You are right about me not being intended buyer for this - I want UWA only rarely. But you are not going to compromise quality by using APS-C this way. You can probably get even better results because you will use several cameras, which means not only more resolution, but also more sensor area used.Personally, I find stitching acceptable on some occasions. It doesn't take much time on a good computer.But I agree, if UWA is someones favorite style then this lens is a nice addition.
Why do you need 6D for that? APS-C will do just nicely. And pretty much every professional already has some backup camera(s). Sure it is inconvenient way of taking pictures, but if you do not take very wide FOV pictures very often it is better than paying $3000 in my opinion.
Well, it is possible with some editing. Another possibility is to use several cameras at once which would probably still be cheaper.
FRANCISCO ARAGAO: The potential for disaster is enormous.
@AlexisH: And the point of regulations is not to completely eliminate risk, but to reduce it to acceptable level. There still will be disasters, but not as often if not regulated.
Sure, airplanes and automobiles are also dangerous. But you do not often see airplanes flying over people heads, do you? Or automobiles driving though parks full of people?That is because they are regulated by laws and rules.Besides, drones are very loud and annoying.
Raist3d: So sad to see Russia doing this. I hope the rest of the world can serve as a living example of why this is ridiculous.
I live in Russia. I care about gay couples about as much as straight ones - not at all. It is not my business and not my life, they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Same true for all. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins."
@D1N0: About US political system: there would be so much less trouble in the world if US would simply care just a little bit less for things like gay rights in OTHER countries. US very easily imposes its own way of life to others, but doesn't want to take any responsibility for it.
@Raist3d: and you should probably read less news ;)
Jonathan Lee: would it be full frame mirrorless and take k mount? i would hold on buying the other brand's FF mirrorless.
And waste 40mm of space inside? Much better choice would be some-other mount mirrorless body with K-mount adapter.
LBJ2: "which offers a fast maximum aperture of F2.8 throughout its zoom range"
Applying the crop factor, is this new lens really an equivalent f2.8 "throughout its zoom range" or is it really equivalent to 24-83mm f4.2 ?
I see it that way - when you press shutter button, what your camera does - is simply collecting light. And in the end, all that matters is how much light you've collected. And that is defined by shutter speed and aperture diameter (focal-length divided by f-stop) and maybe sensor efficiency too.
Well, maybe we a bit off on semantics then. I understand light gathering capabilities as "how much light in total goes through this particular lens". Not how much it projects per unit area. I simply don't see how "per area unit" fits in "gathering" - you either gather it or not, doesn't matter how you will project it afterwards.In the first case, f2.8 is not f2.8 across different formats. In the second case, I agree, f2.8 is f2.8, but then you still have to consider different sensor (gathering) areas as separate argument.
Exactly - to gain exposure! If as you say we assume DOF is not considered here, then why bother with f-stop at all? Just use higher ISO setting to gain exposure. Only you would use larger aperture rather than ISO to gain exposure because with larger aperture you will gain more light and have less noise, and that was my point.
Original question was about light gathering capabilities, which is not exposure, because lenses for bigger format will gather more light at same f-stop.
But you can easily have same brightness by changing ISO setting. And have two photos that are equally lit. Why bother with f-stop at all?
Ok, why do you want to compare same exposure?
Total Light = Exposure x Sensor Area. You cannot ignore sensor area if it is different. Same f-stop will produce different result on different formats. If total amount of light was irrelevant, then f/2 on my tiny mobile phone camera would have been same as f/2 on full frame. It is not. Full frame gets more light -> more signal -> less need for signal gain -> less noise and more DR.Brightness however is irrelevant, as digital sensors have only one real sensitivity value and most cameras today use "isoless" ADC (except maybe for Canon), which means that noise produced by them will be the more or less the same regardless of ISO setting. You will get similar results by increasing exposure in post-processing. You can check it yourself by taking two pictures at for example f/4, 1/500, ISO100 and f/4, 1/500, ISO800, and then increase exposure in post by +3 for ISO100 shot.
But it's like comparing engines for cars and trucks. 1hp of power is 1hp on both of them, but doubtful, that 600hp truck can go as fast as 600hp car.If you want equivalent shot or looking for equivalent lens on other camera format, then you need 3 things to be the same: DOF, angle-of-view and shutter speed. Aperture size defined by DOF and angle of view for specific format. Brightness of shot is irrelevant as it can be changed either afterwards in post processing or via ISO on camera, does not really matter.You say, by using same focal length, angle of view will be different, therefore you cannot treat same focal length lenses for different formats as the same. I say, by using same f-stop on different formats, DOF (and total amount of light) will be different, and therefore, you cannot treat same f-stop lenses for different formats as the same. It will be unfair.Either use same both focal length and f-stop (and then crop larger format) or none at all.
Sure it is. 16-55mm is still 16-55mm also, not 24-83mm.
Michael_13:But learning is such a great thing! Theory can help to choose right system for those rare applications where sensor size can make difference.Any person can take pictures without any knowledge of optics and physics (most consumers probably do). Sometimes even monkeys can do that ;-)
HowaboutRAW:But why do you reduce noise? Reducing noise simply to reduce noise is not very rational thing to do. Let there be some noise if it looks good enough and not disturbing.
Michael_13, I disagree. It does help with buying decisions as it shows that bigger sensors will not necessarily be a better choice as they only offer you more flexibility on open end and slightly better low light performance. As for optical performance - yes, bigger sensors have less demand for lens quality. For sensor efficiency - smaller sensors usually have advantage here.For your last post - that is true. I am just saying, that whole cult about bigger sensors and full frame is irrelevant.
My point was, that they are getting same exposure, but not same amount of light and therefore it would affect noise levels in the end.We are not increasing ISO on FF to match noise on APS-C. We are increasing ISO to match same level of signal gain, so we can fairly compare both results.If you want fully equivalent picture (that is DOF, AOF and shutter speed) then you will get same amount of light regardless of camera format you use.f2.8 does not equal f2.8 across different formats. Just like focal length will give you different angle of view, aperture size will give you different amount of light.
@HowaboutRAW: It does not reduce noise, but isn't it the point to have aesthetically pleasing picture?Read noise tends to be about the same regardless of pixel size. High res cameras would produce more detail for NR algorithms to work with. But, you are right, low res sensors have less read noise. For video low res sensors definitely have advantage.