18 hours ago
 |
kb2zuz
Lives in
United States
Works as a
Digital Imaging Techician
Joined on
Jun 6, 2006
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Marty4650: If this camera was around the same price as a Canon S100, then it will be a huge hit.
But Sony is planning to sell it for around the same price as a Nikon D5100 with lens, or twice as much as an S100, and that price just won't fly. It's a nice little camera but it just doesn't offer enough value for the money.
The problem is with the sensor so much larger than the S100. The sensor alone costs drastically more. Add in the fact that a larger sensor needs a lens that can project a larger image circle and you're increasing cost further. If Sony sold this for $400 I'm certain they would be loosing quite a bit of money for every unit they sold.
...But I would think that Sony would be used to that by now.
Michael49: Silly, Silly, Silly. Leica really has lost it.
Mescalamba, while you can remove the AA filter from many sensors, the CFA is very difficult to remove on most sensors and has to be manufactured without a CFA at the sensor foundry.
Are we certain that this doesn't just take a JPG from the camera's API and save it as a TIFF? I'm not saying this is the case here but I'm curious because I though Apple locked down the camera API's and doesn't allow access to anything beyond a prepared JPG file.
Does it keep the tripod thread centered on either mount? I'm trying to visualize how it would work, but if I'm picturing it right it would be off center when mounted on a Manfrotto. Am I wrong?
Miguel J Princz: I would offer the invention to Pentax, for once and all, it would solve the diverse focusing issues we had and still have...
Yes. But it will give you a low resolution issue. Let's take your 16MP K-5 and make it 0.09MP so that you can refocus it. Or better yet let's take the 40MP $10,000 645 and turn it into a 0.25MP camera.
edgar83: Another interesting use of lytro technology could be to expand the DoF of a normal photograph, maybe loosing some resolution, just like some fuji cameras that expands dynamic range in change of resolution.
that wouldn't be just a toy...
Problem is the way light-field photography works, it causes a drastic reduction in resolution... a 16MP camera produces a 0.09MP image. For expanding DOF, light-field isn't the best option. It's a technology looking for an application, and Apple's good identifying problems and adapting solutions. I think apple would be interested just so they have it in their pocket incase they come across a problem that it would fix.
Klaus H: You have to wonder how long these guys will survive... Phase and Hasselblad too. If Sony/Nikon/Canon release 35mm bodies at 32-36MP it will hurt them even harder too.
What are the mythical advantages of sensor size (or the often related larger pixels)? Less noise, better dynamic range, shallower depth of field. I work with an H4D every day, and have a feeling that both csdotam and AkinaC haven't ever, because they don't know what they're talking about. I can tell you this, at anything over 50 ISO it has worse noise than any 35mm "full-frame" digital I've seen. It has only slightly better dynamic range (and again, that's only at 50 ISO). Yes with the 120mm f/4 lens it will have a shallower depth of field than an 85mm lens on a full-frame at f/4, but you can get f/1.2 lenses for full-frame. Most MF lenses are f/2.8 or slower, there's a couple f/2.2 lenses... so there goes the DOF advantage. I use medium format every day and there are reasons for it: multi-shot uninterpolated images, no AA filter, and high megapixels. That's about it.
fuego6: Meh.. 2.8-5.8... 4x lens... ok with 4x - its an ok range.. but 5.8?!?
@JackM, then don't use it at the 112mm equivalent , as you get more telephoto the lens stops down more, so if you want you can only use it to the 70mm equivalent.
joe galluzzi: Was hoping for 2.0 or faster lens, 24mm wide angle and a bit more zoom.
All 3 of those equate to either a MUCH heavier and bigger lens, or VERY VERY bad image quality. Would you rather have an f/2 24-80, and f/4 28-210, or an f/2 24-180 that weighs 4 lbs and won't collapse enough to fit in even the biggest of jacket pockets?
Ibida Bab: Canon could be on the top of the game with one simple move: use AAs in cameras like this one.
So that it is heavier, bigger, and only takes 40 shots per charge?
Mtsuoka: I AM BORED
this is mainly upgrade for video features
The video is one area where the D3s was lagging behind canon, so they're putting a lot of focus on that. But the jump from 12 to 16MP is significant... I've always said I want a FF camera in the 16-18MP range as I feel that's the sweet-spot. If they can keep similar high ISO characteristics from the D3s, it will be killer. Add in the improved metering sensor (which is also supposed to help tracking for AF... maybe even do face detection on that so it knows what AF point to use)... it looks pretty damn sweet (and I mostly shoot Hasselblad and Canon).
Sanook777: Unbelievable, USB 2.0 Transfer! = Slooooow
No fire-wire, USB3.0 or Thunderbolt.
I prefer ethernet. For tethered shooting, ethernet has not only a speed advantage but also a length advantage. You can have a 100' long ethernet cord if you need. Finally the RJ-45 connector has a locking clip can't count how many times a USB or Firewire cord has poped out on me while shooting tethered. Also only a percentage of computers have USB 3 (and if they don't then you're back to USB 2 anyway), a smaller percentage have Firewire, and an even smaller percentage have Thunderbolt. Ethernet connections can be found on the vast majority of computers... that's the way to go.
jmmgarza: The latest pro journalist camera from Nikon. If you're working for AP, the Times, etc., get yours now. The rest of us don't need this brick. Then there are those (of us) who believe in conspicuous consumption. The Nikon D4 is a fabulous piece of technology with even better lenses. Sweet!
"If you're working for AP... The rest of us don't need this brick." ??? I actually see this marketed as much towards higher end wedding photogs as reporters (wedding photographers are a much larger market)... here's who I see buying it (or the Canon 1DX):
1) Lawyers, Doctors, and Stock Brokers who are getting into photography and want "the best."
2) Higher end wedding photogs
3) News and sports journalists
4) Amateur to semi-pro cinematographers who can't afford Arris or Red cameras
5) Local photographers who specialize in youth athletics.
6) Other people with the money (or credit) that just "want" it.
SamTruax: So the question remains... after what Adobe pulled this week how do we know that there is anything in this technology at all? What if it is just a fixed focus lens on a cheap digital camera and the images are just being 'played with' in the software. Maybe the image being captured is completely in focus front to back and then the software is just 'highlighting' an area that you want to have focused on.
Maybe they are just really good at making a gimmick like "background defocus" look good. Just my opinion.
Your opinion appears to be based on a lack of knowledge. Please look up "Plenoptic Imaging" or "Light Field Camera" this technology has been talked about for for the past 6 or 7 years, and the earliest research in this field goes back to 1992.
At what resolution? 0.09 MP?
ZAnton: $1400 is it not too much?
Even canon's 100mm IS macro L costs less than that.
I wonder how much will it cost in Europe. If it will be ~1400 Euro (same number but in Euros, like it often is), then Sigma has lost the connection with reality.
Canon's 100mm f/2.8L IS lens costs (street) $1,000. The MSRP of the Sigma lens is $1,400. Sigma tends to put the MSRP much higher than the actual street price. I'm guessing it will likely cost closer to $1,000-1,100 which is too high but not as completely insane as $1,400.