RStyga: It's a very nice camera and all but the RAW output is still fuzzy with pixel-level artifacts due to the X-Trans structure. Fujifilm needs to resolve the RAW conversion otherwise X-Trans will become synonymous to low high-ISO noise at the expense of "double"-AA-filter style IQ. At a time where manufacturers remove the AA filter to achieve a crisper image, Fujifilm advertises a sensor with no need for an AA filter but -in essence- with an even more blurry IQ than traditional Bayer sensor that have an AA filter. No moire is great but I'm not sure why one would prefer an X-Trans camera since applying PP on a Bayer sensor can remove moire completely and obtain the same "blurry" image that an X-Trans camera produces.
It's well known that Iridient developer is able to achieve far better results than Adobe with the Fuji X-trans sensor in RAW. I've read comments from some people who use Iridient developer to covert the Fuji RAW files to 16-bit TIFF and then use Lightroom to edit these. That just sounds like far too much effort for me, not to mention an unnecessary use of disk space.
LukeDuciel: As an illiterate in optics, my 1st reaction is "renamed Fresnel lens?"
But I feel this might be the break through we have all been waited for. We know from high school physics: when the dimension of things are reduced to be comparable to the wavelength of light, a lot of strange stuff start to happen.
People often confuse Fresnel lens (refractive optic) and fresnel zone plate (diffractive optic). Both cause chromatic aberration but in opposite ways. Evidently this is neither.
Lexxie: the same as an old principle: the Fresnel Lens.
@ Lexxie, No it is not
Ivan Lietaert: In which country is the 'National Media Museum'? As any reference or even link is missing, this is just another example of poor, sloppy journalism...The writer of this piece must think his country is the centre of the universe...
Anyone who knows how to use a search engine could work that out
My guess is that the decision to leave out RAW is necessary. At 357mm f6.5 on a tiny sensor, the unprocessed image quality is going to be very poor. They probably have algorithms built into the camera based on deconvolution that are lens and camera specific to compensate for diffraction and lens softness. 3rd party RAW software would not be capable of doing this and would give dreadful results.They could at least give you a tiff option though.
bmwzimmer: With such a wide focal range, don't expect this lens to be very sharp. According to dxomark, the only half decent FE mount zoom available is the 70-200 f/4. It resolves a whopping 23 perceivable pixels when mounted to a 36mp A7R. Sony's Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS high end general purpose zoom only resolves 15/36 pixels. This one will likely receive a score of about 9 or 10. To put this in perspective, Canon's best general purpose zooms, the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 mk ii's resolve 18mp and 21mp out of a 22 mp sensor respectively. The $2000 Canon 28-300 resolves 13mp/22 and the cheaper Tamron 28-300 resolves 10/22. I've said it many times before that I think putting these large zooms on a small mirrorless camera defeats the whole purpose of mirrorless. The Tamron zoom weighs 555g and is almost an inch shorter in length than this new lens which kills the advantage of mirrorless. That said, props to Sony for at least pushing out more lens options and being an innovator.
What I don't like about DXOmark is their insistence on dumbing everything down to one number. All the data is there for viewing, but most people will just look at this one number and make a judgement based on that. One number tells you very little about a lens. e.g. "Perceptual MP" tells you nothing about evenness across the frame or wide open aperture performance.
fmian: WOW WOW WOW WOW!!As someone who has been collecting British glass plate photographs from the early 1900's I am just in an inspired awe. I really need to contact print some of mine and do the history some justice by making an album of them.
Thumbs up for one of the few positive comments here. These pictures are simply stunning. I wasn't even aware that this quality was possible using mid 1800's technology. A truly talented photographer.
Marty4650: There seems to be a real disconnect between making an "affordable camera" for lenses that cost between $4,000 and $10,000.
I mean... why bother?
Can't the Leica lens owner afford a Leica camera?If someone can't afford those lenses, they why would they buy this camera?
Did I miss the part where Konost was planning to create a few affordable lenses for their affordable camera?
I'd say Konost is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Perhaps they might have been better off creating an affordable rangefinder camera that uses Nikon F lenses?
Sarcasm aside, there are a LOT of Voigtlandter and Zeiss M mount lenses that are priced well below leica lenses. Some of them are quite good too.
adr23: My kick starter company is making a new car. A true classic.It'll be on leaf springs, with 2cyl 600cc engine, drum brakes, no powerlocks or powerwindows and no airbags. And it will look like a classic beetle, made out of stainless steel and accept standard sized tires from Bridgestone and Michelins via an adapter. It will be priced competitively to current well established auto manufactures...
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between
Beckler8: Enough with the stupid minimalist design now. It has no place *anywhere* in my opinion but certainly not on cameras designed to be used by fingered humans.
@Beckler8, you're confusing minimal buttons and minimal functions. These are two very different things. The cameras you mention have minimal buttons with an enormous number of functions. The Konost has minimal buttons BECAUSE it has minimal functions.
If you read the Konost website, their analogy to this camera is a 800bhp manual ferrari. ROFL
zorgon: It's an interesting camera no doubt, but this is a startup company looking for investors so don't hold your breath. I do hope this digital rangefinder technology will find it's way onto the market however.
So what's your point? The Lytro made it into production therefore this will too?
@tungsten, my thoughts exactly. The market is already saturated with over complicated digital cameras with every possible function imaginable and this camera is not going to affect that in any way.
It's an interesting camera no doubt, but this is a startup company looking for investors so don't hold your breath. I do hope this digital rangefinder technology will find it's way onto the market however.
Yxa: Why is it called Super 35 its smaller than the still 35mmIt should be called sub par 35 (that would be more true)
The name comes from the film era. Both still and video cameras used the same size film, but the frame was orientated differently. In 35mm video, the long side of the frame is orientated ACROSS the width of the film, whereas in 35mm still photography, the long side of the frame is orientated ALONG the length of the film and is therefore bigger. Regular 35mm video also contains the audio track so the frame is smaller still. Super 35mm video does not contain the audio track.
This reminds me of an episode of family guy. This bird is an endangered species, so it's illegal to remove it from it's chosen nesting place!
oscarvdvelde: It is only 1.5 times the resolution of the 5DS. Explain the drama?
@kelpdriveThat's a completely meaningless argument as dpi is a linear resolution by definition and the term "actual resolution" is something you just made up. Yes, for printing, dpi is the commonly used unit, but for image sensors it is megapixels. These are facts.
It is you who can only accept one meaning to the word resolution not me.
No one's arguing with the mathematics, but resolution means total pixels by default, not linear resolution. If you ask someone what the resolution of a camera is, the answer is in megapixels not MTF scores.
Then he should have said linear resolution.
RStyga: Diffraction relates to lens aperture and sensor size, not sensor resolution.
Resolution does matter in the sense that diffraction becomes apparent sooner on a higher resolution sensor.