Dmitri Alexander: “Light field" technology seems like a needlessly complex way to achieve the goal of selective focus after taking a shot. As the review correctly states, “in a small-sensor conventional camera, you tend to get depth-of-field that stretches from near the camera, out to infinity.” Given that, a camera maker should simply develop user-friendly, in-camera firmware that allows you to selectively defocus everything in the image except what you want to be sharp. In other words, synthetic bokeh. Could that be so hard to invent?
To do that, you need to store the depth information with the image. Otherwise you're not actually selectively defocusing, you're just selecting a region of the image and blurring it. That's just standard Photoshop. So what you're suggesting seems to be a small sensor image with the depth information stored with the image. That's exactly what the Lytro is.
inorogNL: can someone explain - how is it posible to put this much pixels in a (phone) sensor this of size? and why are digital camera makers not doing it also ?
The computer chip manufacturing industry has been advancing faster than the camera industry (and faster than almost everything else as well). There are going to be a lot of possibilities opening up with new sensor chips; better light sensitivity, smaller sensor sites, more randomized sub-sensors for R, G and B, and probably more companies embedding phase detection into CMOS chips.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokiaofficial/6788333052/sizes/o/in/photostream/This looks like it really is a 41MP camera to me. The pixel binning may just be a marketing decision based on file size and what consumers generally use a camera for.
tom60634: DxO at its inception made no claim to support anything but "Professional" camera and lens combinations i.e Canon,Nikon etc,etc.. In the case of Panasonic I believe their camera/lens corrections are built into the product. Some of the other cameras are nowhere near to be considered a "professional" rig.
The real problem can be addressed by the camera manufacturers themselves. They only need to subscribe to standard DNG format as their RAW format and most of the delays encountered while formats are being updated in various image processing programs would disappear. Pentax should be congratulated for offering both PEF and standard DNG as raw formats.
Slightly off topic, but I've often wondered why high end cameras that offer the option of in-camera correction don't offer TIFF as an alternative to JPEG. Alternatively, if they are going to use a new custom RAW, why not offer the in-camera corrections as settings data attached to the RAW. Some of these cameras understand their own sensors better than the manufactures software does but that's all lost when passing through DNG or watered down with JPEG.
Stephen123: I resent paying for a moving mirror I don't want or need in a digital system. I also resent paying for image stabilization in each lens. I resent paying for a touch screen which is basically useless. I care a lot about size and weight, but when the camera is smaller than the lens and too small for a hot shoe, that's too small. I don't need a better sensor than the one in the NEX 7. So I guess I'm done with FF. But right now there isn't a camera that I would choose if I had my druthers.
Jmmg: I am talking about the current crop of Mirrorless cameras in relationship to DSLRs and why I don't want a DSLR but am not yet satisfied with the available Mirrorless cameras.
I resent paying for a moving mirror I don't want or need in a digital system. I also resent paying for image stabilization in each lens. I resent paying for a touch screen which is basically useless. I care a lot about size and weight, but when the camera is smaller than the lens and too small for a hot shoe, that's too small. I don't need a better sensor than the one in the NEX 7. So I guess I'm done with FF. But right now there isn't a camera that I would choose if I had my druthers.
People keep talking about a 2 year time table. But that's not what the chart shows. It shows 4 new lenses any day now, and 4 more in about a year.
Does anyone know what the difference is supposed to be between the green lines and the grey lines in this graphic?
NEX cameras accept more available lenses than most (any?) other cameras. It seems like their mistake was putting the image stabilization in the lens instead of the camera; reducing the value of other lenses and increasing the cost of their own.
With the lens diameter greater than the height of the camera, and the camera too small for a hot shoe, they could afford the space in the camera, and then all the lenses would be smaller, cheaper, easier to design and build, plus no one would worry about a shortage of lenses.
But maybe this strategy is making them more money?
Stephen123: These things are more like specialized tools than point-and-shoots. Extraordinary senosors, exceptional glass, but non-interchangable prime lenses. If you want to change focal length, you change cameras!
The things that I wonder about are: the lack of an automatic lens cover; attachment point on right is not positioned well for a wrist strap; doesn't look like a good grip; and 45mm equivalent instead of a true standard lens.
Hmm... Average human field of view is 53 degrees. Focal length equals diagonal gets a field of view of 60 degrees. So depending how you look at it a Normal lens for APS-C is wither 28.3 or 31.7. 30mm is right in the middle and close enough either way. But I'd still pick 32mm over 30mm for an APS-C Prime lens if I was given the choice.
I was thinking of it as 35mm Full Frame has a diagonal about 43mm, but a focal length of about 51mm best matches average human vision. So a 34mm or 35mm lens on an APS-C would be a better tool than a 30mm, given that the lens can't be changed.
These things are more like specialized tools than point-and-shoots. Extraordinary senosors, exceptional glass, but non-interchangable prime lenses. If you want to change focal length, you change cameras!