The green auto mode is there, use it, if thats what you long for. Choice is a good thing. Contrary to phones we can choose another mode if we want.
Wifi should be standard and 3G/4G optional. The Wifi should be able to connect to a phone and offer advanced features through apps. Remote shooting, settings, live view and backup options via phone 3G/4G or Wifi to your local network or Wifi connected NAS.
The camera should store both raw, image adjustments and final image in open file formats easily available via the Internet if the camera owner wants to. The raw image and adjustment file should follow each other or be combined to one file.
What cameras support these cards? :p
Lassoni: As long as it has lifespan longer than 3 months
It's 6,4 TB little brother has an endurance of 5 complete overwrites per day for 5 years (=58,4 PB). I'm sure this have something similar.
At the widest focal lengths it probably will barely cover APS-C, but i wonder if it covers more at other focal lengths? Does it cover a 35mm full frame at some focal lenghts? If it covers and performs decent at 35-200 at FF it could be usefull for FF users as well.
The Nikon 24/1,8 is just 250 $ short of the excellent Sigma 24-35/2,0. I guess Nikon will need to adjust the price to increase the sale of these.
Vlad S: I don't think it would completely replicate the filter. The filter treats differently polarized and non-polarized light components; a pixel records both indiscriminately.
I don't see how knowing after the fact that a pixel had a polarized component would allow to subtract only that part but not the non-polarized light. If a pixel is blown due to reflection – the information is lost, you can't re-create it even knowing the polarization.
fmain: That is actually a great idea. Having a camera with an internal motorized CPL filter that is rotating during a burst of shots.
It should be able to flip out of the light path though.
While we are at it, it could be a set of several internal filters. IR-blocking, a couple of ND-filters only affecting the visible spectrum (not IR). All able to flip out of the light path. Combining these can make lots of interesting effects.
After all, many mirrorless cameras have unused space in between the mount and the shutter.
Not having to think about rotating front lenses and buying filters in all filter mount sizes should also add value to the camera buyer.
Edit: It could even be an improvement to monochrome sensor cameras. A large color filter wheel rotating in front of the sensor can combine a 3 shot burst to a color still photo. Flipping the filter away it will be a pure B/W camera again.
SimenO1: I don't understand how this work.
1. If the top layer catches the color, what photons are left for the layer underneath?
2. If there is some light passing through the top layer, it has to not capture that light. Meaning light loss in the color pixels.
3. If the bottom layer pixels only capture one polarization direction, where does the 90 degree different polarization go? Is it lost in the filter, reflected outwards increasing flare problems or somehow directed to other oriented pixels?
4. How can the CPL-layer know what exact polarization direction i want to block? Just finding the orientation is not enough to actually block a specific direction.
5. A normal sensor captures blue light close to the surface, green a little deeper and red still a bit deeper due to different penetration depth of different wavelengths in silicon. Meaning that if the top layer catches much of the light, the bottom layer will catch almost only red. Making the filter useless for deepening of blue skies.
6. Even if it does work, will raw converters support the extra layer of information? Will the polarization layer have the same resolution as the top layer?
I don't understand how this can not loose light somehow. Can it be a misinterpretation of the patent?
I don't understand how this work.
falconeyes: Ok, the RWB Bayer CFA is real, I researched it a bit.
If anybody wonders how it can work, well, the green channel can be easily computed from white when already knowing the red and blue channels. However, there is a problem with increased color noise (because the color matrix now contains large negative factors -- the difference of two noisy signals is an even noisier one) and early saturation of the white pixels. At least, conventional demosaicsm applies with just a modified color matrix table. Converters should have no problem to support it.
I found a 2006 research paper where Samsung discusses their ideas related to the RWB Bayer CFA:
I think the "unsyncronized" saturation of W versus B and R are a good thing. It increases the total DR in a single (gray) scene. At burnt out edges its easy to extrapolate the colors a bit closer to the burned out area.
I actually would like a 3 by 3 or 4 by 4 pattern rather then a 2 by 2. The 9 or 16 pixels should in my opinion be a mosaic of RWB with chess patterned small and big micro lenses. The small micro lenses will gather less light and increase DR in bright areas, possibly with about 1 stop. There is no ND filter that simply wastes light to achieve this. The rest of the light is gathered by bigger micro lenses that increases signal at the rest of the pixels, making dark tones better by about 1 stop.
Is it april 1. or is DxO killing all objectiveness in sensor testing?
I'm also chocked that they choose to manipulate the score on their own product by image stacking.
DxO, you wont work as a neutral source to sensor tests anymore to me.
qwertyasdf: Well....the last time I heard Pentax delaying some stuff (Mysterious voice: FF camera), it was delayed a decade +....
The Pentax MZ-D didn't get delayed, it was totally canceled and never woken to life again. A FF camera didn't make sense at the time (y 2000) due to both cost, financing and competition. But that of course isn't a written in stone for ever. Things chance. Now it makes sense and Pentax started a new FF project in about 2010, not based on the MZ-D. Thats what was announced in February and is bearing fruits probably in October or November.
JustDavid: ...and this new 70-200mm F2.8 example was due to be the first full frame lens to be graced with the Star designation...Not exactly correct, there were Pentax FF* (FA*) lenses back in the film era, some of them are still available to buy. This would be the first digital optimised Pentax FF* lens (D FA*)
Maby the article Writer, Damien Demolder, forgot about the long history of the Pentax star series and just forgot to write "first D FA* ..". A minor glitch. Lets hope he rediscovers Pentax soon. It's a lot to like and love.
Cameron R Hood: Pentax is doomed...DOOMED!
Sell your Pentax stocks to me for nothing :dribble:
Pentax will grow a lot on FF.
Mika Y.: Personally I've been happy for many years with a plain basic no-name GPS module that I just keep in my camera bag and geotag the images later based on the logs on my computer with a free application. The Canon's unit has a few nice additional features such as adjusting the camera clock and also providing direction information in addition to basic location data, but they're just not worth the price difference for me personally.
With todays prices and sizes of GPS chips we all should be freed from the extra unit, extra cost and extra steps of fusing the information.
People take for granted that a 200$ phone has GPS. Why shouldn't we take for granted that 1000$ cameras have it?
arhmatic: I vote to boycott these products. Is there a good reason for GPS not to be included in any camera? - other than greedy camera makers hoping to charge for them separately?
GPS is now part of almost every little tiny mobile phone. The chip is tiny and inexpensive... It could be just included with a minimal effort... Additionally, I personally refuse to have a dongle attached to my already bulky and bully SLR, AND it take up a camera port, that could be used for something else.
Look at what Pentax did to their GPS attachment O-GPS1 when they upgraded the K-3 to K-3II. The GPS unit got integrated, not just free of charge but the newer camera got a 200$ lower price tag then the K-3 without GPS.
Who doesn't love what they did there and the signals it sends to the competition?
Earth Art: I saw this article and thought the light was much smaller than it actually is after doing a look on their website. This would be cool for light painting objects in landscapes for a much softer lighting compared to a small headlamp.
It might help to mention these produce over 1100 lumens which is really damn bright! My biking headlamp is 800 lumens and is capable of burning retinas. :)
A really neat product for sure.
Edit: I think the lumen output I mentioned was for the old model. If the new one is 50% brighter, then wow. Very impressive. Portable tanning salon.
There is a difference between lumen and lux. Lumen is the amount of light the light puts out. Lux is how concentrated this light hits an object at a choosable distance. Having a 800 lm flashlight right against your eyes at short distance is certainly going to hurt your eyes. Having a 1100 lumen light source light up a wall at a few meters distance is much lower in lux and doesn't hurt your eyes.
geo444: .how about a Massive 5600 mm F/5 for..... $800 ?- a sample with M1 Crab Nebula : 6 x 4 arc minute apparent dimension :www.dpreview.com/galleries/7467909648/photos/3128975
what you need for the challenge : - Pentax Q or Q10 ($200) - Pentax K for Q Adapter ($250) - SkyWatcher 200/1000 Newton ($350)
Thats not 5600mm f/5. Its 1000mm f/5.
Or 35mm equivalent 5600mm f/28 if 35 mm is your flavor of equivalency.
Scottelly: Fankly, I'm surprised it's less than $100,000 dollars. You'd think something made by NASA or for NASA would be really expensive, just because of what it represents. Imagine having one of Henry Ford's cars or a suit, horse, or hat belonging to George Washington? How about a pen used by Thomas Jefferson or better yet, how about a quill and ink well used by Shakespeare? One day this stuff will be legendary, and people in the future will pay big money to get anything from Earth, let alone something like a telescopic lens, which represents our curiosity about space and other planets and stars, solar systems, and galaxies, where most humans will live one day, in maybe as little as 100 years. Give something like this to a child, who is 5 or 6 now, but will be 20 or 30 when given something like this, and that child may get a large fortune for it in 100 years, when people are living an average of 150 years or more and space travel is as normal as air travel is today.
NASA throw a way lots of junk every day. Most of it is less interesting and never reaches ebay. NASA is not Shakespeare.
There is many untold stories about investment items that just turned uninteresting and valueless over the years. Only time will tell if the seller here gets better out of it then the buyer.
spikey27: Minimum focusing distance?
My 1325 mm f/13 Maksutov-Cassegrain has a minimum focusing distance at about 10 meters. Thats more then close enough. A sparrow will fit in the image frame, not a seagull at this distance.
I guess the 2450 mm has a minimum focusing distance at 20-30 meters.
Besides, it will be impractical for macro photography and i can't imagine who really needs long distance macro.
Hugo808: What's the EQV focal length on micro 4/3s?
Focal length is a physical length. Its 2450 mm regardless of what sensor sits at the focal plane.
Focal lenght equivalency is about field of view. This 2450 mm will get you the same 2450 mm focal length on a mFT as you do with any other 2450 mm lens on mFT. About the same FoV as a 4900 mm on 35mm or a 9800 mm on a 6x6 cm sensor/film, or a 440 mm lens on Pentax Q.
But this will most likely be used with a 0,79x CMOS medium format camera like Pentax 645Z. Meaning you will get the same FoV by using a 1930mm on FF or 1300mm on APS-C. That FoV happens to be just marginally larger then a super full moon.