What is the scan time of the fully electronic rolling shutter?The "noise penalty" means readout with a reduced bitdepth?
lacikuss: My Sigma 15mm Fisheye lens focuses as close as 5 cm from the front element, and is f/2.8
My Nikkor 10.5 does 3cm in front of the lens. But it is nowhere near 1:1 magnification there. Certain Canon wideangles do get around 1:1 on extension tubes, so they could be sold as macro lenses with a different housing with a longer helicoid. But I guess the max magnification is set to maintain certain image quality standards or housing production issues.
aseancat: Question: how can you get to MFD 12cm distance of a live and awake snake?
If you don't know, better shoot snails ;)
Hugo808: Cometh the hour cometh the lens.
I was thinking the ohter day that I won't get rid of my Lumix compact because the wide angle macro feature gets such good results and SLRs don't have anything similar!
Btw, anybody knows a wideangle lens that reaches more than 1:1 on extension tubes, at a workable working distance? I hear certain Canon WA primes get there...
teddoman: Environmental macro?
You could call it this way because of the low relative blur (mind DoF is about the same as with other macro lenses at the same magnification). Mind you can get similar results with many compact cameras in their macro modes... maybe not so wide but one could use a front wide-converter.
Admin, 12 cm must be the MFD, not the working distance from the front element. The latter is probably hardly positive ;)
Well, you can put many wide-angle primes on a relatively thin extension tube. Most don't reach 1:1, but also not all compacts get comparable frame sizes.
CaMeRa QuEsT: Does "Anti-Distortion Shutter"=global shutter? Sony is so adept at giving funny names to common features.
I guess not ;) No word of ultrafast flash sync.
Scottelly: 960 fps at 1080p? That alone makes this camera worth buying. The 4K capability and weather sealing are the bonuses. I think I'm going to get one of these beasts.
The problems with the RX10 II are . . .
No GPSIt can't shoot as fast as Nikon's old 1" sensor cameras.The screen only tilts, but does not twist/articulate.It takes an FW50 battery instead of the bigger FM500H battery.The lens is not interchangeable.
How can it do 1/32,000 second shutter speed?!?
"Stacked sensor allow for faster readout, so they are doing it with electronic shutter" But this is not yet a global electronic shutter? What is its scan time in full res mode (flash sync speed)?
Does it have a mechanical shutter? Sync speed? Does it have a silent shooting mode with electronic shutter? What is its scan time?
The idea appears interesting. I'm often using a cheapo soft neoprene camera pouch, and a small case for two lenses. I hate this pouch for not offering any rain protection and for an ugly yellow stripe (any chance of getting this one without the light blue camouflage?), while bump protection is an obvious compromise involving acceptable neoprene thickness. But the upsides are that the pouched camera doesn't look much bigger and that the thing doesn't take much space and weight when removed and collapsed in the backpack. I guess this case must look quite a bit bigger with the camera inside and take more space in the backpack when removed? It'd be nice to see a size comparison with a few other cases when packing the same camera&lens... I mean, I liked some Crumpler designs but I never bought any because they were relatively huge for the same interior space, compared to Kata bags for instance, because of the thick padding.
walkaround: Thank you for finally mentioning D7100 noise and banding, two years later... but better late than never.
"properly ETTRs"... How do you intend to do this? Shoot, download, RawDigger, adjust EC? One issue with ETTR is that the right edge is sometimes not well defined (small specular highlights).
I'm not sure if calling this a test for raw dynamic range is sound. Technically, the DxO and others' DR figures for the D7100 look quite okay. The pattern-noise thing doesn't seem to screw them up much, eventhough it looks disturbing when lifting the shadows. One can get a better result using debanding software (Denoise, Dfine), though unfortunately this is not available in LR and such yet... and I haven't seen a proper evaluation of efficiency of this so far.
What kind of lithium batteries, Li-ion like Godox?
"In the GH4 menu system the built-in flash can be set to communicate with the Metz but not actually fire during the exposure"And does it actually work like this, or one can still see some contribution when shooting into a mirror or sometimes in macro, like it happens with Nikon?
RichRMA: Time for Nikon to release a REAL DX mirror-less. No 19fps with a mirror.
AFAIK even the mirror-less often don't reach the fps of their sensors, and despite the absence of the mirror there is the issue of object tracking because of what the shooter sees in the VF in burst mode. Nikon's attitude seems to be to stick with the mirrors until they're knocked out of the market. I think they could've been more successful even with N1 if they wanted to.
maksa: It seems that won’t work in photography. Nanolens reflects falling beam for a particular angle, while in traditional lens the reflection angle depends on falling angle in any point of surface. As far as I understand, nanolens can focus only parallel beams, thus its use is very restricted.
Well, the wording is very specific regarding three single wavelengths, and even the image for these three looks odd. I suspect they'd show the result with continuous-spectrum light if they were good. If they are not, this might be useful for projectors using these three wavelengths.
Beat Traveller: I like the idea behind the new real world test, but calling it 'real world DR' seems a bit of a stretch to me. In the Nikon D750 review a similar test under studio conditions was called 'exposure latitude', which I think is a fairer name for what you've done here.
I'd stop short of calling it real world DR because it's not exactly clear where the extra latitude after the exposure to the right comes from. The benchmark you use for evidence of increased DR is lower noise in the corrected exposure, but because this test involves software it's biased in favour of the camera with more pixels for the software to work with. At the very least there needs to be a comparison of what both cameras look like with a 'normal' exposure, to fully show the reasoning behind exposing to the right.
Keep up the good work!
"It would be interesting though to see what the a7s and a7r files look like though as you progressively let the highlights clip."I don't think there is much interesting to see. Current cameras don't do much about highlights clipping. Some recent raw converters do have practically useful "highlights recovery" methods which don't actually recover anything but rather use certain guesswork to transform hard digital blowing of channels into smoother saturation. For instance LR since version 4. This often makes blown images look much better (though fails sometimes; Raw Therapy offers several different methods). I think it would be great if the makers would find ways to overcome current processing limitations, which currently tend to be narrower than sensor DR, and to include "highlights recovery" stuff into JPG processing, for the benefit of masses shooting in harsh light ;)
_sem_: How about smaller lossless compressed raw files?
The canikon way, not the Sony way ;) Storage is indeed cheaper, but the computers are not shoveling shiploads of data that much faster than a few years ago.
How about smaller lossless compressed raw files?