Glen K Wells: HiNow I appreciate the laws of physics when it comes to quality lens construction but I thought the whole ethos of the A7 series was its diminutive dimensions. Quote from Sonys own website :-
Meet the full-frame, palm-sized α7: portability and capability in one. With a 24.3 MP 35 mm Full Frame sensor into a body half the weight of leading DSLRs, this is an exciting new landmark in the market.
I am sure it will have a good market but for me, I prefer small lenses on my A7 - 28mm, 35mm etc I will revert to my trusty Nikon FF camera when I want to use big fast glass.
The zeitgeist of a *system* though, is to provide tailored options. And this is certainly a nice option to have in any system. I myself have the mft version of this- a 14-35mm f/2, for years, and I've been laughing at the fact that mirrorless systems lacked comparable options. Finally there are options to consider!
Someone with a signal processing background has to re-write this. FF's advantage with respect to light capture has less to do with the cone of light, and more with size of photo-cell and pixel count. The reason that the real-life total light demonstration doesn't appear to display a linearly-related drop-off in noise performance is because it has little to do with the "total light capture" that this article (and so many well-meaning people) are blaming the lost performance on the light that falls outside the sensor. Unless the lenses are made of drastically different material capable of significantly different light refraction (which they aren't) , the light density is roughly equivalent. What's lost is the sensitivity of the photocells, and their ability to discern signal from noise. The smaller they are, the more difficult it is to discern. Drawing the light cone and showing that FF's light cone is larger than the APS-C light cone is a red herring.
RoyGBiv: 4th row of pics...1st pic on left. what is that??
Thanks! Ya, Sigma is definitely like the rogue pirate outfit of the photographic world, with their foveon goodness. You've given me lots to google as I get reacquainted with their current offering. I've been out of touch with things since funneling my money towards my own kit... I end to focus on my own system once I start down the path.
4th row of pics...1st pic on left. what is that??
Franka T.L.: Well, this is nothing new , really, Medium Format digital backs had been using sensor shift to facilitate capturing of all chromatic info through multiple exposure. And stitching of multiple exposure. whether those could be employed in a more dynamic manner ( How about someone needing such an option on a scene that require using 1/4000 shutter , would be a bit hard to shift the sensor in such short duration and not to mention shift it in controlled and very precise manner ) But since pentax had already demonstrate similar utilization of sensor shift ( on their psuedo AA filer mode for K-3 ) it seems viable enough.
That which did employed in Medium and Large format digital back used to demand the photo to be taken on stationary subject and require very solid tripod fixture ( the multiple exposure is triggered as a series of bracket, sort of , except its not bracket of exposure value or WB but bracket of sensor positions ). I would wager it can easily be done on these smaller formats
New to my camerabag would be plenty new to me. And really...any other kind of new is only good for internet arguments.
Wait...this Chaim Pikarski guy who they're quoting as the vp of c&a marketing...he ran those bait and switch online camera stores that hold your credit card hostage while they try high pressure upsell tactics on you? So, what, is he buying up legitimate distressed properties and turning out his sales tactics to new markets? I'm skeptical that this is anything but ongoing disaster.
I was kinda hoping *someone* in the m4/3 world would roll w/ a radio-based trigger, not optical
It's nice to see someone developp such a successful proof of concept. And it's nice that DPR is savvy enough about the market evolution to recognize it's importance.
andrew jansen: Mr Fartleberry, I agree. Would we only use a filter when the camera's own dynamic range capabilities are stretched by the scene? Or because the filter offers effects that the digital darkroom cannot replicate as well?I prefer to control my application of ND Grey filter once back in the digital darkroom thanks - at least there I can decide if a filter was called for, and in what position to place it, and how strongly to apply it.Not to mention the optical compromise of glass in front of glass, scratches, or dust settling, and the time taken to load the filter on. That is where Lightroom comes in. Shoot the scene when the moment is best, and do the rest back at home.
Now I am keen to hear from anyone who can help me understand why I should still cart most or all of my old filters around with me.
Emulate this. Credit to sixrevisions.com. http://images.sixrevisions.com/2010/04/02-01_forever_dreaming.jpg
If the link doesn't go through...all you have to do is google ocean long exposure.
Cameras are not just for snapshots.
RoyGBiv: wouldn't they be able to design lenses that mount to the K-mount ring, but with their lens elements recessed into the cavity a bit, or does the electronic contacts get in the way?
The body design absolutely doesn't warrant discussion. Even as an industrial design exercise, Newson mailed it in.
Unlike most other mount standards, 7 of the 9 pins are contained *IN* the lens mount ring itself. The other two obstruct a small portion of the lower right. m4/3 contains inwards of the mount ring, inside the cavity.
I think it's possible to have a substantial portion of the lens assembly recess inward towards the sensor from the flange. That would buy back the compactness that people are discounting here. It still needs to project out to an APS-C image circle without vignetting, so it'll still be larger than m4/3. But it will be smaller than what people imagine.
wouldn't they be able to design lenses that mount to the K-mount ring, but with their lens elements recessed into the cavity a bit, or does the electronic contacts get in the way?
Cool...they're putting together recall processes. Good move, Fuji!
It really should have been called something like the OM-5...as if anyone would seriously conclude that they're rolling out a film camera.
From the looks of it...I'm pretty impressed with it!
Are these bokeh balls, we're looking at? That's what they remind me of.
sarkozy: Fuji says on the phone:Professionals are satisfied with the X10. The Orbs are Result the sensor design and the high aperture of the lensMany professionals use the ORBS consciously as a stylistic device - guysthis is the way . . .
"Many professionals use the ORBS consciously as a stylistic device"
Are they referring to Bokeh balls? (feel free to do a google image search folks)
JohnHoppy: The acrimony that goes down in these columns beggars belief! Some respondents are in for the kill on Olympus like Cassius and Brutus on the Ides of March! Why? How has Olympus hurt YOU? If Olympus, one of the prime innovators, folds or is subsumed into another company and their technical expertise diluted, it would be a great pity. An industry needs competition to drive forward innovation, which then benefits us, the consumers. Yes, the crooks have been caught with fingers in the till, and one hopes will be punished, but they are a handful and many good people remain to design, engineer and manufacture products a lot of us want. What some idiots here fail to understand is that if all the competition disappears and you are left with, shall we say, just Canon and Nikon, development will stagnate and prices will remain higher. Is that what you want? Be positive, for heavens sake, and stop baying for Olympus’ blood, let’s hope Olympus recovers for the good of all photographers.
a bunch of luddites angry at Oly for killing off their precious OM lenses, & of course marginalizing 4/3 lenses if not outright killing them. "What has Olympus done to you? Some people have a lot to say about that. IMO, they don't deserve the stage they get, but that opinion matters little too
JAlbum...check it out.
BitFarmer: I like the shoot very much, but after inspecting the exif data, I have a question to the author:
lyrics51, why did you chose to boost ISO to 800 instead of opening aperture from f/6.3 down to f/4 or f/2.8?
opening the aperture would have rendered one of the eyes out of focus. It in fact could have used a wee bit more DoF. Boosting ISO in this case was a slick move.
Is my understanding correct? I am under the impression that this camera's subject isolating abilities has almost *nothing* to do with it's aperture/focal-length/sensor size ratios, since it is *computing* the blur and in-focus characteristics from its angle-of-light calculations. It's abilities to render OOF & in focus characteristics are therefore (almost) solely defined by the diameter of the two furthest datapoints that contain image information on a single subject. That would therefore make the key factor the diffracting capability of the microlenses vs. the distance to the sensor.
I believe, actually, its abilities to render OOF areas are going to surprise folks who think its sensor is too small to do much subject isolation. But I also think it's limited in how much blurring it can generate. You won't be recreating ginormous bokeh balls with this thing.
For a company that needs capital...this is gonna be tough to survive.