Dr_Jon: When comparing with Canon you should also do exposure pushes starting at ISO 800, as if the user wants more highlight room at high ISO that's probably what they will do (as well as from base ISO that is, not instead of).
That's basically what I was saying... if you want more than ISO 800 with good highlight room you can just leave it at 800 as Canons are pretty ISO invariant at 800 and up, just not at 100.
Also the Nikons/Sonys do lose out a bit at low ISO, e.g. on a D810 shooting at 400 then pushing is better noise-wise than 100, unless you really need the extra headroom 100 gives you.
When comparing with Canon you should also do exposure pushes starting at ISO 800, as if the user wants more highlight room at high ISO that's probably what they will do (as well as from base ISO that is, not instead of).
SKPhoto12: To me this lens looks very much like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. Is it possible that Ricoh subcontracts the lens to Sigma.?That might be the reason why the lens is out before the camera housing.Hm, I see further down that you all think it is a Tamron manufacture. You may be right, if yes, Tamron has the best 24-70 f2.8 on the market at the moment, so good for Ricoh. Nothing wrong with a proven product to make sure you have the lenses out when the housing arrives. Are you listening Sony? sony will never show a f2.8 transtandard lens, because it would show the whole world that even if you make a small housing, when it is FF, the lenses can not be reduced in size.
The spec is basically identical to the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, so it seems they just wrapped a more Pentax outer layer (well, probably Tamron did) around that lens. (Hence size/weight is slightly different, but all optical stuff looks too idebtical to be coincidence.)
Nice article, thanks. Some more info on when they drop to 12 bit and which cameras it affects would certainly be useful, so I'll keep an eye out for it.
Sixpm: Mitakon's announcement date are usually reliable, I expect this lens will ship out on time as I have experienced with both their 50mm f0.95 and 85mm f1.2 lenses.
So what did you think of those lenses?
mclaren777: The data throughput made me laugh when I read it. With an uncommonly small 12 MP sensor, here are its fastest speeds...
• Continuous shooting: 2.5 fps• High-speed shooting: 5 fps
Nope, 1080p is 2M not 8M...
LKJR: If I have a bag that weighs 3 lb (Retro leather 7) I need to carry my mirrorless...If I have a bag that weighs < 1 lb now I can carry my full frame!At least there are choices! Ha ha!!! ;-)
I have some Kata Nimble 3-DL bags I use instead of the Retrospectives if I want to carry more stuff, as they are much lighter...
I have both Retrospective 5 and 10 (Pinestone) which are mostly great, but they are quite heavy and don't have padding in the base, in case you put them down a bit too quickly, which makes it hard to justify the cost IMHO. They do look good though...(I put some of the Velcro dividers horizontally at the bottom to help with impacts.)What are the weights for the leather versions and is their any impact protection at the bottom of the bag?
Albert Silver: Is there a single SLR lens capable of resolving 120MP?
It's 55% more resolution than 50MP, so yes, Canon have a lot of them.
oselimg: Put Sony badge on these cameras I'll buy them in pairs now to take errm...much more detailed pictures of my cat. Are they mirrorless by the way?
Put a Sony badge on it and it'll be replaced by a model fixing stuff that didn't make the cut the first time while you're only half way through paying for it... Which will kill the resale value...
photomedium: I dream in 8K.
I dream with high-def colour, surround sound and smell. I'm not sure I need a TV that does all of those... ;-)
jaykumarr: What lenses would support more than 50 MP? even in the center? I am not sure how practical these things are..
The way resolutions add all lenses will get better performance, just the worse quality ones will be improved by increasingly small amounts. Remember a 120MP sensor only has about 1.5x the resolution of a 50MP one, it's not a huge jump.
Rooru S: wait... Canon currently recommends only a few lenses from their lineup for their 50MPx SLR camera, and now they're telling us the majority of their lenses will be up to the task to get the most from a 120Mpx sensor? One thing is to be compatible and another one is to be really useful.
Such high resolution also requires great AF accurancy and dampening mechanisms.
The list is 36 lenses, which is a fair few... including pretty much all the recent ones. It's not surprising some of the really old designs didn't make it.
The sensor in a Samsung Galaxy S6 phone has 1.12um pixels so the Canon's pixels are about 1.9x the area, so not completely tiny.((29100*20200)/(19580*12600))/(1.12*1.12)
jaxson: Does anyone car about dynamic range or low light/low noise at high ISO abilities any more?
Higher resolution blurry photos don't appeal much to me.
Canon sensors are about as good as anyone else for DR/Noise at high ISO, it's low ISO and good light where they have a lack of DR compared t the Sony sensors (which is not the Canon sensor but that they digitise the data off-sensor which adds noise).http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D810
AbrasiveReducer: It's a run-up to their expo this month. Typical Canon, following the money, aiming for lucrative industrial and government sales. The way the world is going, security and surveillance are going to be bigger businesses than consumer cameras.
It's good for industrial use too. anywhere where there is a wide area to scan. For example a 20 feet wide conveyor carrying fruit. You could do the inspection with two cameras rather than an array of them (one before and one after the fruit is rotated).
esmoxd: Didn't I see the original prototype for this in the movie "Bladerunner".
I took a 5Dsr photograph of a bird that was some way away (and not a huge part of the frame) and was able to pull up the reflections in the black eye to the point to where you could see what was around it but off-photo. My first thought was an Esper too... (Although that word has been borrowed for ESP people now so people don't think photo investigation any more.)
JonHob: Good to see their marketing photo shows their SD card with a camera that only used CF or XQD cards!!
I'm sure they just made a mistake, but I can can use my SD Eye-Fi card in a Canon FF Compact-Flash-only camera via an adapter and it works fine. (Over WiFi as well as for storing pictures.)
TheEulerID: I'm glad at least that the non-issue of gamma encoding has been deal with (shot down, one might say, due to the shot noise effect). Given the full well capacity of a typical pixel location, there's never more than about 9 bits of actual data in any single RAW measurement. The rest is just shot noise (in the bright areas) or zeros (in the dark areas).
You do need a couple of extra bits captured though in order to provide a degree of "dithering" such that posterisation isn't an issue. This stuff was deal with long ago (2008) by this excellent paper from Emil Martinec.
The second stage item is the important one. It reduces the encoding levels in high contrast areas in the compression blocks, so posterisation can occur.
I guess Sony will respond, but I'd guess there would surely be a performance penalty, and the real world impact on the vast majority of photos will be pretty well zero.
Of course you eyes/brain do a chunk of the processing work for free, at least when looking at the image rather than a handful of pixels. It's a really handy portable image processing and feature recognition system.
You do want a decent amount of noise info so you can analyse it. I do wonder whether the 16-bit ADCs people seem to want will be of much use though.
bclaff: @Rishi,As far as I know, every place the article says 14-bit should read 13-bit.I'm not aware that Sony uses anything higher than a 13-bit ADC in any of their cameras.The raw data is stored at 14-bit for encode/decode convenience.Regards,
Interesting - is that from analysis of raw data or some Sony information? (Unlike Canon you can't just read the ADC's part number off the top of the chip.)