Randomly I was in Vianden a few weeks ago and instantly recognised it from the thumbnail!
Summit_pg: GoPro > that thing ;)
Sadly the ability of a Nokia phone to survive atmospheric re-entry was a feature they scrapped when moving into the smartphone era.
The Name is Bond: Big Dynamic range? That's the only reason I didn't go Canon.
Lan Dual ISO mode gives extended dynamic range, at the expense of halving your vertical resolution and introducing other artifacts and difficulties.
I don't know what the "normal mode" that you refer to is, but unless you mean "ISO 800" then I'm afraid the sensor in the D800 and A7 completely blows away the 5D mkIII in terms of dynamic range.
Disclaimer: I own both.
Something "big" to get your camera ready for, that'll be the 24-70mm f/2.8L with image stabilization then!
Why am I suddenly reminded of the opening scene of "The Terminator"? ;)
mgrum: The bottom line that everyone always misses when the whole equivalence thing comes up is this:
*** It all depends on what lenses are actually available ***
A 24mm f/1.4 full frame lens is equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 lens for micro four thirds. But no-one makes one so there is no equivalent to the 24mm in the real world. Likewise Hasselblad's claims of medium format offering shallower depth of field due to the larger sensor is nonsense, as the required lenses simply don't exist.
My point was just that when deciding between formats you **have to** take lens availability into account. Equivalence says that any system gives the same depth of field if you keep the entrance pupil the same size... but in real life it's not that simple, and due to lens availability there are genuine differences in the depth of field and light gathering abilities of different formats.
@Kipplemaster no camera with phase detect AF will be able to focus an f11 lens, hence the lack of such lenses for DSLRs. Also the optical viewfinder would be pretty dark.
Mirrorless full frame would work better but I still think it would be hard to sell an f/11 lens.
@BorisK1 I'm well aware of the speedbooster, the micro 43rds version would convert the lens into a 17mm f/1.0 (it's 0.71x and only 1 stop)
What about the M-mount 21mm f/1.8 Voiglander lens, you would need a 10.5mm f/0.9 in m43rds, and there's no space for a focal reducer.
The bottom line that everyone always misses when the whole equivalence thing comes up is this:
Jonathan371: A drone is a flying fan which can easily go out of control and hit a person or overhead wires etc. The smaller the drone the more susceptible to light breezes, unexpected gusts, etc you are. When you factor the above in plus the anxiety the general public has regarding privacy you realize there is hardly a time or place you can use a drone. I found that in aerial photography you need to have different solutions for different environments. kite photography, mast photography, or simply getting a camera up on a pole are often better solutions that a flying fan blade drone.
A car is a rolling battering ram which can easily go out of control and hit a person, demolish your living room etc. The larger the vehicle the most susceptible to box roll, under-steering, snaking or jack-knifing. I found in life you need different solutions for different situations, walking or using a bicycle are often better solutions than driving a metal death box.
Seriously, I don't understand how society has become so risk adverse whilst billions of people pile into their cars every day with no idea of the risk they pose to themselves and others.
Drone piloting is comparatively a walk in the park.
b craw: What a bloated and laborious dialog over such negligible difference.
I found both the article useful and the difference non-negligible (did you even look at the results above ISO 102400? I can only assume not).
Joachim Gerstl: No thank you for posting these. Now I know it makes no sense to produce low resolution sensors like 12MP on full frame anymore.
Try pulling decent video from a 36 megapixel sensor. You're going to need an ultra heavyweight processor (and serious active cooling to match) or subsample to give horrible aliasing and loss in resolution.
A7s is a low light video camera, that doubles as an ultra low light stills camera for when you need fast shutter speeds in the dark.
abluesky: If it weren't for the subscription model, I would never have been able to afford Photoshop and Lightroom. For me, it's more economical to pay the subscription fee. I also appreciate all the updates. If you really want Adobe products, they are all pirated anyway, even CC. If you are going to blame anybody, blame the pirates.
How about giving people the choice, pay X upfront to own the software forever or pay Y per month.
gianstam: Too low resolution for too small advandage
When shooting in dim conditions in the real world (I'm thinking specifically of shooting bands, here) I can rarely produce a shot detailed enough to justify a megapixel sensor.
In other words, noise, SA from fast lenses, small focus errors all mean you get nowhere near enough detail to exploit 36MP, compared to say, an ISO100 landscape shot at f/8 on a tripod.
Given this I'll happily take 12 megapixels and the ability to pull off just about reasonable images at very high ISOs (some gigs just aren't really lit at all!) oh and 4K video to boot.
shutterbud: I for one am disappointed by the performance of the A7S. 52,000 ISO is "moderately high"?Can we please get real?What I was hoping for was clas-leading stills up to 6,400 or 10,000. Who on earth needs higher? Instead, it seems you lose a lot of resolution for littel practical advantage.
@Rishi sensor efficiency is already hitting 50% in some cases so there only around 1 stop more improvement to be had. There will be no more big jumps in ISO performance (unless you count 1 stop as a big jump).
we're pretty much in the golden age of photography when it comes to low light performance. Film photographers who regularly shot ISO 50 and ISO 25 film would have scarcely been able to imagine ISO 409,600
jenbenn: What you forgot to mention is that the 5D has vastly superior dynamic range in all shots. The highlights in the sony raws are all blown out while the canon retains considerably more detail.
BTW I own a 5d III and a Sony A7 (non-r). The canon consistantly delivers less noise and better dynamic range at all isos above 400. The exception being at iso 100 and iso200 where the sony has less shadow noise if you need to lift the shadows dramatically.
To complete this: Any test site (hint: DXO) rating the canon sensor far below the sony sensor, should start using their cameras to take photos instead of performing absurd measurebating tests which do not translate into real life.
@JKP that's because the lights on the arches weren't switched on when the 5D photos were taken!
There are areas where the Sony does slightly better and areas where the Canon does slightly better. A more controlled test would be required to draw a conclusion, but the cameras are pretty close.
Jonath: I often think these reviews prove how subjective this kind of pixel peeping is. Personally having looked at the comparison I'd say there isn't a huge amount of difference, certainly not enough to claim you'd be an idiot for buying one over another if you wanted a camera that was good at higher ISO.
For me personally the A7S is the cleaner of the 3 cameras the higher ISO that you go, but there's not a lot in it. I accept in saying this that I'm both being entirely subjective, as in I have no quantitative way of saying why I hold this opinion other than they're my eyes I'm looking through and its my own personal taste. I also accept fully that some of you may have far better taste than me :-).
DPR - these tests would be fascinating if you removed the brands and had to guess which camera was which from the images - it would generate a lot of clicks and hopefully good debate and also prove once and for all how subjective this is.
The differences from 102400 and up are striking. Obviously this isn't where a lot of people will be using the cameras, but to say there's "not a lot in it" I can only assume you've not looked at the highest ISOs.
Elandreth: Fascinating! Maybe in a few years, interchangeable lensor cameras, like the Ricoh GXR, will become the new norm.
Lens design will be easiest when the sensor curvature is tuned to the exact field curvature of the lens, this will only be achieved in fixed lens systems.
Anyway this advancement doesn't have a lot to do with reducing cost, it's more about increasing quality whilst reducing size.
mailman88: Ok....answer this question, is it cheaper to make of more expensive?
Sensors will be more expensive whilst lenses will be cheaper!
Jim Evidon: What a great idea. It is so obvious, but the ability to to precision manufacture the "film plane" or in this case, the sensor plane was not economically available previously.
Leica approached this concept with their M8 sensor which incorporated tilted lenses in front of the sensor to reduce edge distortion so that their standard M lenses could be used. But to curve the sensor and avoid extra compensating hardware is simplicity in design even though the manufacturing techniques to arrive at the solution must have been a real bear.
My hat is off to Sony and I'm sure that their customers will line up to incorporate this breakthrough in their many cameras. The obvious advantage will be in in lens design which will result in much lighter and simpler lenses. Of all of the "design breakthroughs" that have been issuing from camera companies for several years, this one is by far the greatest.
The idea is as old as the hills (older in fact, the first creatures to evolve eyes had curved sensors) and has already been put to use in telescopes, the breakthrough here is purely a manufacturing one, in the ability to produce curved sensors economically.