they shouldn't do things by halves. Why restrict it to photographs? Even looking at those buildings could be seen as relevant for copyright. So either
- people should be enforced to wear google glasses and get registered. Whenever you look at a building under copyright you will be automatically charged,
- you can pay for a monthly flat rate since it can be assumed that no one is able to avoid looking at those buildings.
Wouldn't that be great?
(unknown member): klassisches VEB design ;-)
hm, I think the old Praktika SLRs from VEB Pentacon in Dresden looked a lot better than this rounded brick. Rather Russian origin: Rasped from a solid metal block ;-).
nathondetroit: Beautiful. There's obviously some serious X series glass if you want to go that route, but this available X100S kit offers a lot of capability for the enthusiast.
Everyday, there are plenty of budding photographers tearing it up doing 55mm 5.6 portraits with their kit lens. This 50mm 3.5 will definitely be capable of amazing work as well.
Thanks, thought it over now. You're perfectly right. But then why f3.5? f2 in ff equivalent would be about f3 (crop factor of 1.5).
Mattersburger: That's a lot of metal & glass to get to an f2 normal.
Sorry, Iwas too late with my last comment. I don't believe that. If the front lens would limit, it would be reproduced in the image resulting in a serious vignetting. The position of the aperture blades is the only one where any cutting cannot be seen in a sharp image (only in the blurred areas).
f3.5? How do calculate that? The lens is f2.0 23mm, which is roughly f3 35mm full frame equivalent. With converter it should shift to 50 mm full frame equivalent if I get it right. This would mean a factor of about 1,42, resulting in about f2.8 33mm APS-C or f4.4 50mm full frame, respectively.
I agree. The lens is f2.0 23mm, which is roughly f3 35mm full frame equivalent. With converter it should shift to 50 mm full frame equivalent if I get it right. This would mean a factor of about 1,42, resulting in about f2.8 33mm APS-C or f4.4 50mm full frame, respectively.
FinDERP: 3D images with a single lens? DAMN YO!
Good point. I simply consider photography as serious if the photographer takes it serious in terms of investing time for taking the pictures and presenting them. Therefore I have to correct myself: You can do "serious" 3D photography with one camera if your objects don't move. You may find those situations less frequently as you might think though (leaves in the wind, people running around …). Those artifacts draw your attention and you soon wish to have a "real" 3D camera. I can hardly wait to see the first 3D sample images from the Samsung.
For serious 3D photography you need to shoot both views at the same time. Your options are therefore very limited at the moment:
- Compact cameras from Fuji or Panasonic (limited iQ)- Panasonic 3D lens for mft (resolution and aperture very limited )- Using two cameras (not very convenient, what I am doing at the moment)
Implementing a shutter in a 3D lens is an interesting concept. A far as I have understood the single lens will be "split" into two smaller ones. The raise in maximum aperture should not be a big deal since you want a wider depth of focus anyway in 3D shots. It is more the small stereo basis together with the equivalent focal length of about 70 mm that makes me frown.
3dreal: As i said, samsung will show us a 3d-camera. if the lightpath will be cut into two parts. then the angle will be at least 90mm, leading to a 90 x1.5=135mm(rather a bit longer) tele-lens. together with this small base(around 30mm) 3d-depths is not ideal for long distances but for near/mdirange. Its a good start. I can only hope that samsung will offer us a twinning system using the shown box-like camera-design(ALA hasselblad). 60mm base and longer could be achieved.
I don't think so. Not much is known about the lens but I guess splitting of the lightpath is done at aperture level. So not the focal length is changed but the maximum aperture. I guess it is just like two smaller lenses if 3D is switched on. There have to be some additional optical elements (prisms) therefore for angular correction. With a tiny stereo basis, however and an equivalent focal length of about 70 mm the 3D effect will not be very pronounced.
juergen hofinger: "The X10 has several advantages over interchangeable lens cameras, though - its lens is much brighter than a kit zoom, offering better control over depth-of-field.…"
Sorry, I can't see how you come to that conclusion: With a crop factor of 4 the equivalent to full frame in terms of aperture is f8-11.2 (original f2-2.8). With a typical kit lens for mft you get f7-11.2 (original f3.5-5.6) which is pretty much the same but not better. It shows however, that with this nice little camera you gather the same amount of light on the sensor as with a typical mft standard kit combination, which is not bad.
@wetsleet: You are perfectly right, I have mistakenly brought in the focal length here. What I said is still valid though.
@Bilgy_no1: Yes, thanks. I understand.
Nice camera by the way. Like the design and small size.
I understand your point. f2 and the same focal length will always result in the same light intensity on a sensor regardless of its size. But when it comes to image quality it's the total amount of light on the sensor that counts (or the amount of light per pixel). Linear optics just means that you can compare different systems with different sensor sizes just by multiplication of some parameters with a constant factor (the crop factor). So a picture taken with a full frame camera with a 80mm lens, f8, and ISO400 will roughly result in the same image taken with a 2/3" camera (crop factor 4) with a 20mm lens, f2 and ISO100.
"The X10 has several advantages over interchangeable lens cameras, though - its lens is much brighter than a kit zoom, offering better control over depth-of-field.…"
MonkeyHouse: I went to Henrys with the intention buying one of these, and opted for the Canon T3i instead. Within 10-15 minutes, I knew a few things would be a pain for m, all preference-based and subjective:
1. The grip didn't feel comfortable in my hand. Thumb got crampy from the "pinchy" way I had to hold it.
2. I tried adjusting EVH with the dial but no matter what the edges were distorted. Overall, I found looking through an EVF distracting. I'm not AT ALL a DSLR "optical view" snob... like I said, I had every intention of buying the G3 knowing it had EVF.
3. It's smaller to the naked eye, but when a big attraction is "take it places I wouldn't bother to take a DSLR" it's still not small enough.
The auto-fucus was crazy fast, though, and full-time autofocus seemed to work like a charm. It was a plenty good camera, but left me no reason to not get the T3i instead.
sounds familiar to me, but just the other way round. Have been at my dealer to look at the Fuji X100 and came back with a G3. Think it comes down to just two points: 1) does size matter 2) is the G3 small enough. For people who would answer both questions with yes, the Panasonic G3 is an option with a very good overall performance.
juergen hofinger: It's been the first time that I had a closer look at the noise levels of RAW images in this test. My impression is that on one hand noise levels of the G3 are not only comparable to those of entry level DSLRs but also up to more expensive cameras like Canon's D60. On the other hand the same observation holds for older m4/3 cameras like the Olympus E-PL1. The quality difference to the G3 seems just to be the fact that Panasonic reaches this low noise levels at a higher resolution (16 compared to 12 MP).
As a conclusion, when it comes to hardware (sensors) it seems to me that all the discussion about superior image quality is more academic for a wide variety of cameras. Differences seem to be mainly due to different noise reduction algorithms and a question of taste in the consideration of noise reduction vs. image details.
I should confine my statement to ISO values up to 800. At higher ISOs differences between E-PL1, G3 and most of the DSLR league seem to be more apparent (in perfect accordance of what the authors say).
It's been the first time that I had a closer look at the noise levels of RAW images in this test. My impression is that on one hand noise levels of the G3 are not only comparable to those of entry level DSLRs but also up to more expensive cameras like Canon's D60. On the other hand the same observation holds for older m4/3 cameras like the Olympus E-PL1. The quality difference to the G3 seems just to be the fact that Panasonic reaches this low noise levels at a higher resolution (16 compared to 12 MP).