Looks like a plastic kids toy
Sounds interesting but £419 for this is ridiculous!
Why not buy a Zeiss Jena DDR Flektogon 35mm f2.4 for ~£150 if you want similar functionality in a single and almost certainly sharper lens
Or a Helios 44 in any variant for £10 "That can't do macro!" I hear you say; well buy a 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lens for £10 as well then you wazzock!
Frank_BR: Moore's Law states that the integration of transistors in a monolithic circuit doubles every 18 months or so. Assuming that sensor resolution doubles every two years, and considering that today's state-of-the-art is 50MP, it can be predicted that the sensors will reach 3200MB in 12 years, ie, 2027, only five years after launching the LSST.
Only it isn't a law, merely an observation.
Anastigmat: The reason Canon and Nikon have dominated the professional SLRand DSLR market is their ability to manufacture high speed shutters and mirrors. In contrast, companies like Minolta/Sony, Pentax and Olympus simply could not and cannot equal Canon and Nikon in this area.
You know Pentax's mid range DSLRs have 1/6000 shutter speeds, where Canon and Nikon both have 1/4000 right?
Also the shutter manufacture is done by completely different 3rd party companies as stated by ProfHankD. In fact copal and some of the other shutter makers have been making shutters for many decades.
Perhaps a name change to reflect the new business model?
Photoman: What the?! I thought they closed that stupid Italian studio down. It's not even the RX100M3! Not to be judged against others...cause the other cameras laugh at it ;)
to be fair to them I doubt they need an entire studio to design wooden handles for sony cameras
Sannaborjeson: "...not intended to be judged against other cameras..." LOL :-)
Anastigmat: I am still hoping for an interchangeable lens Pentax auto 110 sized digital camera with the same tiny lenses. Those mirrorless cameras have lenses that are anything but tiny.
You can use the 110 lenses on a Q quite easily I believe!
Where is the MF camera?!?!
I LITERALLY only clicked this article to ogle that thing, and you couldn't be bothered to show the single best thing on the stand? WTF dpr
What did he actually want or expect to gain from posting to Reddit, I wonder?
(unknown member): "And this means that, for the same shutter speed, F-number and ISO, the camera with the largest sensor will have more total light to measure. And, unless the large sensor is significantly worse than the smaller one, it will produce a cleaner, less noisy image. It's likely that the large sensor camera will be bigger, heavier and more expensive, but it should provide cleaner images."
That is not right. Noise happens at pixel level not "sensor level". Noise is affected by how much light EACH SENSEL collects and NOT the total light gathered by the sensor.
f/5.6 is f/5.6 in terms of light transmission, not light gathering. As Great Bustard pointed out there is a rather large difference between the two!
Yeah I don't think that people who understand equivalence would suggest that lol.
Anyway dtmateojr I though this thread was about noise and the effect of image size on noise, not about basic exposure relationships
Is this actually meant to be a joke, or is it unintentional?
Great Bustard has posted an excellent example and thought exercise of why the mathematics and physics is correct and you are wrong here, you can either 'go back to basics' and read the reason I gave with film or perform GB's thought experiment/real experiment with a digital set up - both will show the same thing.
You can argue with us all you like and publish all the articles you like, but nature cannot be fooled.
Using your 120 vs 135 film example: the 120 film will perform better precisely because the grain structure is the same as the 135, grain is the same size but the image is larger - the grain has less impact on resolution because it is smaller RELATIVE to the image itself.
You shouldn't be so arrogant with things like this, you will only look like a tit upon being proven wrong if you act like one in the first place
Cloud technology AKA the internet
FinDERP: The actual Kodak company still make (amazing!) film.
This is just a brand name :/
The film division is owned by ex kodak employees as you say, and is still produced in their US based production facilities with the exact same specifications to my knowledge. Sounds more like they're actually still Kodak the film company that I know and love than this random name grab branding malarky!
The actual Kodak company still make (amazing!) film.
Good that they finally took some responsibility for this I suppose, but I would think this has come just a little bit too late for many people and is definitely loooong overdue.
I had a giggle over this, imagining that it actually took them this long to work out what on earth caused those sensor spots! Also, I guess the 'certain circumstances and settings' must be those ones where the shutter fires - I had no idea you could turn that off lol!