ponyman: Imagine what they might have achieved with pixels of twice the size in this sensor. Sony loves mega-pixels! Still seems to be perhaps, the best small camera out there at the moment, but I think it is a missed opportunity.
Yes but with half the resolution, imagine that!
JMartinP: I think her arguments are brilliant! I'll use this for my next salary negotiation. "Since I only work one day a week, I should make at least five times more per hour than my colleges working full time"
"And in contrast to most other humans, I even need shoes! Because my job sometimes involves walking"
Bernd M: Nikki Wagner forgot to mention, that the statistic average liftime or a professional camera is 18 month!!!! People (even photographers) often take for granted, that a 2,500$ camera will live forever. This way they are cheating themseves. In Nikki's case she should count 160$ in for her two Canon 5DII, for every wedding, making it 3,200$ a year.
The shutter life expectancy of a 5DII is 150000 cycles. Thats 5000 shots per wedding! I guess I'd charge at least $3000 to process all those photos too.
"And unlike most of my colleagues, I need extra money to finance a house and a car"
So a professional camera should not be expected to survive more than 30 days of operation?
I think her arguments are brilliant! I'll use this for my next salary negotiation. "Since I only work one day a week, I should make at least five times more per hour than my colleges working full time"
yabokkie: at 28mm equivalent angle, the effective/equivalent f-numbers should beG1 X: f/5.1 (f/2.8x1.82 which is sqrt(area_ratio)), GX1 + 14-42/3.5-5.6: f/6.9, X10: f/7.9, and XZ-1: f/8.2.these equivalent f-numbers apply to everything controlled by aperture, from low-light performance to dof, that you can see from a photo.
I always thought the dof was related to the absolute, and not equivalent, f-number. But I realize now that I was wrong. So whats the reason for not displaying the equivalent f-number, in stead of the absolute, in the specifications of a camera? The absolute f-number doesn't really say anything.
ok55: Why can't someone make a compact with decent apertures at the tele end?? F5.8 at the tele end is useless for subject isolation. Isn't a constant f2.8 (or wider) possible??
The sensor in the Fuji X10 is a lot smaller than the one in the G1X, only 1/4 of the area actually. It's only slightly larger than the one in the XZ-1
Thats an interesting comparison!
mjdundee: Nice specs, well designed - but hey Canon: I want lensring control on this camera!!!Don't care much if it zooms or dials but I want it. l- anyone else?
My XZ-1 manages F2.5 at the tele end. I guess making a lens with equivalent aperture for a sensor of this size would require much larger lens elements and would not fit in a compact camera like this. The XZ-1 and its rivals have much smaller sensors and can hence use reasonably small optical elements to obtain large apertures.
Kiril Karaatanasov: ok this is misleading the cool effect of having sine is not due to rolling shutter at all.
On may blame rolling shutter for the distorted sine in the lowest string, though I think the cause is again in how different frequencies combine to produce something not seen.
Ok, I'll try to be clear. The wavy shapes of the strings are due to the rolling shutter and not their real shapes. The real shape of a vibrating guitar string can be seen in the vid I posted. I'm not sure what "cool effect" you're referring to in your original post but what I found striking in the vid was how the rolling shutter effect was elegantly used to show the time evolution of the strings. This can be seen in every separate frame and is not dependent on the framerate of the cam or the oscillating freq of the string.
Lilianna: Cool effect, however ALL camera phones will do the same thing, this is not an Apple Innovation.
Sorry about that. Getting obsessed with proving everyone wrong here. You're right, almost all camera phones have uses CMOS sensors
Man, i should get back to work...http://xkcd.com/386/
CCDs with electronic shutter can't do it
Sorry, heres the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSQ9wr32v1k&feature=related
Here's what the string looks like wo the rolling shutter effect. She shape is nowhere near what you see in the iphone movie.
Peter G: There are science demos of similar that don't even need cameras:
While this was shot on camera, the point of this one is you see it real time, in person without a camera frame rate interacting with the frequency of the sine waves on the strings, the strobe effect of the background does a similar thing.
While rolling shutter may have played a small part. The biggest part that lets you see the waves in the first place if frame rate interaction effect.
Haha, what you showed is essentially a demonstration of a rolling shutter! If the string were instead illuminated by a stroboscope, you'd only see a slowly moving slightly bent string
Please see my reply to yours.
Color Blotch: No kind of " interaction between the vibration frequency of the strings and the frequency of the video capture" can produce such asymmetrical effects on strings. Regardless of capture frequency, any single stopped frame shot by a camera that captures the image as a whole represents the actual shape that string has at that particular moment. A camera without rolling shutter effect would have captured strings as slightly curved lines. No kind of complex "oscilloscope-like" shapes actually run through strings, those are capturing effects caused by the fact that upper lines of the image represent different moment of time than the lower ones.
What you see on the oscilloscope screen is not the shape of the string at a time instant but rather the time evolution of the position of the string (which gives rise to teh sound wave). The effect of the rolling shutter is similar to the oscilloscope: what you see is the time evolution of the position of the string during the exposure of each frame.
There's also the stroboscopic effect: is causes the string to appear stationary if the oscillation frequency is a multiple of the framerate and slowly moving if its close to a multiple.