7 hours ago
 |
malcolm82
Lives in
United Kingdom
Joined on
Sep 17, 2005
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
The lenses shown are much too small and will be diffraction limited, they should be similar in size as normal high end smartphone camera's. 16 8x crop sensors with F/2 lenses would give exposure equivalent to full frame F/4, if they put two of those 16 camera arrays on both ends of a phone it will give F/2.8 equivalent exposure and better information for realistic 3D. Of course there will be some losses in efficiency compared to a single large sensor so it wont exactly match F/2.8 full frame exposure quality but it can potentially come very close.
stoneinapond: "why does it look so choppy in pan?"
Possibly your computer video card can't keep up with the footage.
I sometimes have flying dreams. This was just like them. Amazing.
It is 24 fps so it will always be choppy.
dorff: The A is not a system camera. There are quite a few other options that offer much better value for money. Why didn't Nikon just put in the 24MP sensor that they already have? The D3200 is way lower in price with many more parts and a better sensor. Go figure! My bet is 12 months from now, there will be heavy discounts on this thing. Buy early, and you will probably suffer buyer's remorse a while from now.
Why would removing the AA filter make this camera more expensive? It is not a feature it is just a new marketable trend of the controversial idea that this is better. The AA filter was added for a reason, they did not do it because it would make camera's cheaper to produce.
marike6: It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.
If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.
While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.
Well I would not consider this a trend just yet, I will when there are as many of these from different manufacturers as there currently are dslr's and other ILC's to replace the regular tiny sensor compacts. I do not know how likely this is but it might happen. The only thing a regular compact offers over a smartphone camera is the zoom, i think it is about time image quality takes over as the main selling point...
I just wonder how long it will take for the public to become educated since i believe consumer ignorance is the main obstacle to camera's like this becoming mainstream, after all people wont be able to tell that these will deliver higher image quality by checking the megapixel tag. :)
marike6: It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.
If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.
While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.
The price of the viewfinder for this camera is actually higher than the price of the cheapest dslr kits which have an integrated pentamirror viewfinder and reflex mirror system on top of everything else in the camera body which is similar to what is in the nex camera's so apparently the viewfinder and mirror in a dslr is thrown in for free, clearly manufacturing cost has nothing to do with the pricing of this camera and its viewfinder.
marike6: It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.
If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.
While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.
There are many Canon and Nikon dslr's that are also priced much lower than this compact and it has been said many times that most people that buy these only ever use the kit lens so clearly they are not sold at a loss to later profit on the lenses.
Your point about it being more expensive because it is a niche product does have merit, but i wonder if it would really sell less than those affordable dslr's if they price it on a similar level?
trungthu: "... This means it has only one photosite per output pixel, so won't offer the same color resolution as Canon's EOS C300 professional video camera, which has four capture pixels (a Red, Green, Blue, Green quartet) per output pixel... "
I don't know how it can record color information in only one photosite. While almost all others use three color filter in four pixels (RGBG).
Please help me. Thanks.
For this reason 7680x5120 sensors should become the standard to provide near optimal image quality for the new 3840x2160 ultra hd tv standard in the same way as the 3840x2160 sensor of the c300 provides near optimal full hd quality.
marike6: It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.
If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.
While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.
Look at the price of the nex3.
What reason do you see to double the price of this camera over that one? putting the little prime lens in a retractable barrel does not add $500, every cheap compact camera has such a retractable lens barrel.
I have been waiting a long time for a compact with aps-c or larger sensor and fixed focal length lens but this price is simply absurd.
SunnyFlorida: Another pricing failure for nikon, why would anyone pay over $1k for a DX sensor compact and limit their choices to one lens when other DX interchangeable compact cameras like the Samsung NX210 or Sony Nex with can be had with a sinmilar lens for under $1k??
I agree it cannot be worth more than the nex 3 with kit lens.
128GB flash is worth only $100. The lowest capacity version should be 64GB since 10% of the total price for the storage seems the sensible minimum for nearly everybody.
toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.
Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.
JensR and ppastoris also explained it is not about light intensity and yet you keep going on about it as if we are saying small format lenses have a reduced light intensity for the same F-number? Did you read what they are saying at all?
Equivalent focal length= focal length multiplied by crop factor
Equivalent F = F multiplied by crop factor
Equivalent iso = iso multiplied by crop factor squared
Did you read this:
"Would you rather use a Nikon 1 camera with the lens at F/1.2 exposing ISO 1600 than a full frame with lens at F/2.4 exposing ISO 6400? Guess which picture will be better?"
toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.
Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.
"You are cropping the lens which means you are losing light obviously... What do you think is happening to all that light not hitting the small sensor? It is not being put to very good use is it?"
Does it look like i was talking about a reduction in light intensity to you?
This lens barrel is big enough to fit a 25/1 m43 lens. Do they think it looks more professional this big and will sell better for the price? Maybe they realized people will not want to pay this much for a 5 gram lens if it was too obvious so they built this massive barrel around it.
toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.
Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.
Why do so many people seem to think that the goal of low light image quality is to expose at the lowest possible ISO setting? Would you rather use a Nikon 1 camera with the lens at F/1.2 exposing ISO 1600 than a full frame with lens at F/2.4 exposing ISO 6400? Guess which picture will be better?
toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.
Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.
"You can use medium format lens on 35mm camera without light loss (you are just cropping the centre part of the imaging circle), but You cannot do the same in opposite direction."
You are cropping the lens which means you are losing light obviously... What do you think is happening to all that light not hitting the small sensor? It is not being put to very good use is it?
toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.
Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.
I did not ask any question. I was illustrating equivalence by pointing out that not only are small format lenses equivalent to higher F larger format lenses but they are actual higher F lenses when used on the larger formats as a macro lens. Equivalence is about total exposure or amount of light captured and not light density which is irrelevant.
toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.
Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.
This lens would make a great macro lens when used reversed on a 5x4 large format camera. It would be an F/17 and image a 12.8x9.6mm area with the same image quality as you get using this lens on the 1 system for normal photography.
toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.
Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.
Not only is this lens equivalent to 50mm f/4.9 but you can actually use this exact lens on a full frame sensor with the exit pupil of the lens 2.7x the distance from the sensor surface as it is on a nikon 1 body. This will give you a 50mm f/4.9 macro lens. So does the lens magically capture more light by using it on a smaller sensor?
Jan Kritzinger: My only complaint is that the lens is slightly bulky for the body form factor - give us a 23/2.8 APS-C RX10 the size of the RX100, for $1k! Come on Sony, Do it!
A 23/2 lens for aps-c can easily fit in the RX100, I am sure it could be made significantly smaller actually, so why would you want a 2.8?
The only reason this RX1 is so big is because the lens is not retractable, it could be less than 50mm in depth with a retractable lens.
malcolm82: From Engadget:
"Ultimately, there's plenty of reason to believe the BBC's project head, Tim Plyming, when he says that "8K is the maximum the human eye can understand" and that "it's the end of the resolution story.""
That's only true for a field of view equivalent to about 40mm (or about 55-60° diagonal). For ultra wide angle viewing we need much higher.
Exactly. Cy Cheze do you always keep your eyes fixed exactly on the center of your display?