I have no idea whether to give any credence to the rumors of a full frame Sony NEX camera in 2014, but if there is any truth to it, then an affordable LV-only Lecia M mount camera might be a way of heading off competition from a FF Nex body that could (possibly) be used with Leica M lenses via adapter.
JEROME NOLAS: Well deserved wins! Wonder why there's not "Lemon of the year" (the most silly idea like Nikon 1, Pentax Q and so on...)
4th place ... but look who's behind them.
Mssimo: "depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system" Why not just say this is a 32mm f1.2. It has the same DOF on a FF or a Crop system. Bokeh and light intensity of a f1.2 is also the same.
So you if like the Bokeh or DOF you get with a 32mm f1.2 lens...it will act the same way on a crop than a FF.Only thing that changes is the crop/FOV.
@Combatmedic870I agree. I was replying to Mssimo who said that DOF is the same if you use the *same* lens (not equivalent lens) on different sensors.p.s. I suspect you misread BroncoBro's post as a reply to yours instead of Mssimo's, too.
Comparing 32mm on 2.8X crop to 2.8X on FF is pointless. And even if you wanted to bother, to prove a point, DOF is NOT the same. The circle of confusion is different for different sensor sizes. Try any DOF calculator if you don't believe it.
HubertChen: Nice read indeed. What a relief to read about a marketing strategy that makes sense for the company and the user. An interview leaving me with the taste of honesty and learning. More such interviews are needed to offset the damage Adobe has done in recent interviews. Where you come back from the interview with a feeling of anger and distrust. And worse, where they create the impression that a company is making more money when being at adds to the customer rather than working with the customer. This Leica interview clearly shows Leica's success of entering a complete new market segment is created by working extremely close with the customer, making the customer's success their success. This is an important role model for other marketing directors. I wish more photography company to win - win marketing such as Leica and less do Win-Loose marketing such as Adobe.
Thank you very much for sharing.
I agree. It's refreshing to hear from an executive that sounds like he knows the ins & outs of his market and why his company is producing the product it's producing, rather than the typical talking head. Gosh, what a world of difference between this and the last interview from Hasselblad explaining the merits of the Lunar !6,000 units a year and they felt it worth getting in. Of course, 1200 units (20%) at 22K is over 25 million in revenues plus the lenses ...
photo_rb: Maybe dpreview should do a poll to try and separate the rage. Is it the subscription model or is it the pricing. For me it is the pricing because I think Adobe should be able to charge less rather than more by streamlining their services.
Having said that, just to take a devil's advocate approach, $20 is about what I spent on a 36 exp. roll of Velvia after processing in the old days.
It's the subscription model. With perpetual license, I decide to pay a one time fee for a known product (plus bug fixes). If I find no value in the next release, I skip it. With the subscription model, I'm stuck paying for ongoing development whether or not that development adds value for me. Of course, the perpetual license model was broken to some extent due to the occasional need for new camera support (you can work around it with DNG). So you may end up upgrading solely because you buy a new camera. That's still better than Intuit's model - shutting down features (like downloading transactions from financial institutions) to force you to upgrade every 2 or 3 releases.
dylanbarnhart: I'm not against a subscription pricing model. What's out of touch here is the pricing model. The current price makes sense for a professional who uses the product 40 hours per week. However, for those of us who use it once a week and an hour each time, the price can't be justified. I think there should be a pay-per-use price, like $5 for a 10-hour block or something like that.
Great point. I rarely use CS6; LR does most of what I want to do. I suppose Adobe's answer to that is Elements. I've tried it and dislike it. From the tax man to AT&T and Verizon, cable companies, Adobe, everyone wants their hooks in you - take the decision out of your hands and just charge your account every month. Then what happens when revenue slips a little ... Adobe counters by cutting costs and now PS sees less development. But you're still in for $50/month for the next 2 years (and beyond unless you want to find a competitive product).
The perpetual license model lets you decide whether you want to pay for the development the company chooses to do. So you like the product at version X, you pay money for it, and the money that the company makes selling so many copies should pay for the development with some profit left over. If you think that they wasted time implementing stuff you don't need on version X+1, you skip it. With the monthly license fee, you're paying for all that development, whether you like it or not. Intuit is horrible: every other version or so (of Quicken and Quickbooks) they force users to upgrade by disabling some features, but the upgrades are to new versions with revamped UIs that you have to learn all over again, features you're used to that are now hidden, new bugs, and some fluff features that nobody wants. I can understand Adobe's motivation. But as of right now, it's not for me. I'll stick with CS6 and LR (until they pull the same thing with LR, and then I'll reconsider).
3dreal: f1.8 APSC=the same lightgathering like f2.7 on FF.so comparing both formats at iso 100 and 1/30 apsc-lens at 2.7 shows darker image than ff-lens at 2.7? i dont get it. discussed here endlessly.that would mean an external lightmeter must be recalibrated whe switching from FF to aps-c? very strange. fstops- no matter on which formats are all the same in relation to Evs.
Spunjii - yes, the noise you'll see in practice at varying ISOs will depend on the actual cameras used (not just the sensor sizes) but that's a two way street. You can find a FF and APS-C camera to compare where the SNR on the FF is even better than the sensor size would suggest.The point is: APS-C aren't getting something better than FF users have with this lens (just as those f/2 zooms didn't give 4/3 users anything that APS-C or FF users didn't have). Just as an f/4 lens on medium format isn't "slow" and an f/1.8-f/2.8 zoom on a premium compact doesn't make it a DSLR slayer. Sensor size has to be considered when evaluating the capabilities that a lens with a certain max aperture gives you. Knowing that you can shoot a given scene at a specific settings is useless without knowing what DOF and noise you'll see at those settings and that depends on the sensor size (and, as you've pointed out, the sensor techonology, for noise).
I can't believe that after all the debates over equivalence, there are still people who don't get it. Yes, your exposure is the same; of course the light meter doesn't need to be "recalibrated" ... but why do you think FF is known for being able to shoot cleanly at higher ISOs ? Why does APS-C give you cleaner images than a point & shot ? Because the larger sensor gathers more light. More light = better signal:noise ratio. If that concept is too hard to understand then forget equivalence and just consider this:f/1.8 on APS-C does not give you any capabilities that you don't have with f/2.8 on full frame. You don't get shallower DOF. And you don't get low light capability because the FF user can increase the ISO. So it's a neat option, but FF users already have 24-70 in a lens that gives them the same capabilities.
pancromat: i'm referring to the press text here. i do understand the term: "depth-of-field equivalent of a constant F2.7 on full-frame". more (sometimes unwanted) depth of field because of the smaller sensor. but "light-gathering equivalent of a constant F2.7 on full-frame", that's new (or nonsense) for me. a f1.8 on FF does not "gather" more light then the same f1.8 on APS-C. if my meter tells me i need f5,6/ 1/30s @ 100ISO to get the right exposure, it is the same on every lens/camera-combination, from 8x10" via 4x5", 4,5x6cm, 35mm, APS-C, 4/3, 1" etc. or will you tell me that i have to step down if i change from an APS-C body to a FF body retaining the lens and the scene.
The exposure is the same because the light intensity is the same. Same intensity over larger area means more light gathered. Thats why an image shot with a larger sensor has less noise - more light means lower SNR.
It's certainly intrusive. Which is fine. I wouldn't call it art. But that's not because of the technique. I'm sure another photographer could do better using the same technique (and others would do worse). There's nothing in most of them to hold my interest.
If it weren't for new colors, Pentax would have hardly any press releases.
They also make binoculars and cameras, both widely used by peeping toms and terrorists.
Seriously, though, between the "first rifle scope designed for dangerous big game hunting" and the "coyote special" designed for killing coyotes, I was wondering if the whole thing was an April Fools joke ... I guess I don't understand what kind of marketing appeals to hunters.
OutOfFocus student: Using primes on all NEXs is still a big pain since you don't have AutoISO in Manual mode . In general there is no significant AutoISO control as one would expect on a modern enthusiast camera.This is really a major drawback of using any NEX camera with NEX primes, and the reason I've not upgraded to NEX-6 from 5N.I'm surprised this was not mentioned by in the dpreview ... do you guys only shoot the crappy kit lens?
Gosh, and yet sports photographers around the world rely on Auto ISO in M mode on a daily basis ! Nice of you to tell us what's needed and what isn't. So neither is A more or S mode ? Because Auto ISO in M mode is just the third missing mode where you pick two of three variables and let the camera calculate the third. Shooting sports in an arena with changing lighting where you want to maintain 1/500s and f/3.2, Auto ISO in M mode lets you set it and forget it.
As for exposure compensation in M mode, in M mode with a fixed ISO, all it really does is alter the setting at which the camera tells you you've matched the meter (and if you're only looking to match the meter, there's no reason to shoot in M in the first place). But in M mode with Auto ISO, shooting hockey at 1/500s and f/3.2, EV compensation of +1 ensures the camera sets the ISO brighter to compensate for the meter being fooled by all that ice.
This will undoubtedly keep a few potential ILC buyers in the Canon camp, but otherwise isn't much of a game changer. It will probably make it onto store shelves and be more visible to consumers than some of the ILC options. I could also see some Canon owners picking one up as a second body, though it seems a little pricey for that. It will probably
Thanks DPR ! I'd love to see more features like this in the future.
It's a great technique - I'm not hung up on issues of "cheating". But I also don't like techniques that result in images that look fake. When I look at the composite, I see strong shadows on the building from an overhead sun that obviously isn't there (yes it would be out of the frame, but couldn't be there with those clouds). Still a useful article, but it would be better with a photo that shows why you would want to do it, not just how you do it.I think the author has some fascinating stuff on his own website, very different from anything I've done and very different from the landscape shot used in this article.
Nightwings: Further proof .... that... the larger the pixel.. the less noise the overall image will have. ;)
I don't think it's proof of anything like that; rather, that 2MP native beats whatever is currently being done to get HD from high res sensors at 60 frames per second.
14th generation ? They must be counting each time they offered a model in some new color scheme as a new generation.