iudex: From the dawn of mirrorless cameras we have been told their advantage over big heavy DSLRs is the smaller size and weight: smaller bodies that do not need mirror and mirror box and smaller lenses that have smaller flange distance. So let´s take two examples:Fujinon 50-140/2,8: 995 g, 72mm filter threadPentax DA 50-135/2,8: same speed, similar FL, but 685 g and 67mm filter thread (just adding that it is a DA* lens, i.e. Pentax´s top and optically perfect, plus iit´s weather sealed).So where is now the advantage of CSC/CSC lenses?The point is: if CSC manufacturers want to build a fast lens, especially zoom with longer FL, the laws of physics are the same as for DSLR lenses and mirrorless lenses will be the same size and weight as DSLR lenses. The only difference is that the combo CSC + telezoom will handle worse than DSLR (with big comfortable grip) + telezoom. ;-) P.S. I like Fuji lenses and I could imagine having some (e.g. 56mm/1,2). But on a DSLR. ;-)
Telephoto size has more to do with the size of the sensor than being mirrorless. Wide angle lenses may be smaller/lighter on a mirrorless because the flange focal length is shorter, which allows for a simpler optical formula.
MikeF4Black: "Am I missing something here?"
I think it's Nikon that missing something. "Let's put a slow lens on a small sensor camera and sell it for $1200..."
I'm surprised these images don't show a lot more CA -- most super-zooms are terrible in that respect.
The replies in this thread really highlight the fact that "photography" and "collectors of photographic equipment" are two separate hobbies, and the overlap is apparently not that large.
If you gave a 70D to one person, and a T5 to a second, and put them in competition with one another, the person with the *slightest* edge in skill would win.
It's odd that the MX-1 has better high-ISO image quality.
Edwaste: In other photos I've seen of the A58, the lens mount is black. I hope that's not made of plastic.
My interest just went from about 90% to down to 0. The plastic lens mount may be fine, but I think I'll wait and let someone else try it first and see how it holds up.
peevee1: The weight in your spec sheet is incorrect - it should be 492g (with battery), not 429.
Also, the specification table is titled "Sony Alpha NEX-3N specifications". Copy and paste error, I guess.
joepix: Hmm.. how many stops could be gained if they made one of these to convert medium format lenses to Micro 4/3s or even to use medium format on full frame? I'd love to use my old Hassy lenses again.
> the 0.71 number in this case comes from the size of the format they are starting with, nothign else.
.71 is not arbitrary, it's one divided by the square root of two.
Nerdlinger: K-30...best bang for the buck.....
Same here, K-30. Cheapest 100% pentaprism on the market, and lots of prime lenses.
Why do all the product pictures have huge amounts of chroma noise?
z9z9z9z9: Looking at the mode dial, it looks like this camera does NOT have AP or SP, just program, manual, and a bunch of scene modes.
> Well what do you want with a 1/2,33" Sensor?
I didn't say I wanted AP, I said it doesn't seem to have it as indicated in the specifications. I hope jumping to conclusions isn't the only exercise you get.
Looking at the mode dial, it looks like this camera does NOT have AP or SP, just program, manual, and a bunch of scene modes.
> This is a new golden age of photography
Yes, it sure is! Even the *worse* camera on the market is far beyond what we had 10 years ago. Lenses not so much, but still nothing to complain about.
The most important thing I got from this article, and my only real reason for reading it: the image quality on the K-30 is going to be excellent!
MiLei: I did not see its crop factor.
Sensor is APS but 1.2 or 1.5 or what. I know it now, but it should have in the preview, shouldn't it?
It's actually closer to 1.55 for the D3200, since the sensor is somewhat smaller than the nominal dimensions of 24x16mm from which the 1.5 figure is derived.
z9z9z9z9: I think anyone who has looked at the comparative dimensions of the Nikon and Sony sensors (23.2x15.4mm vs. 23.5x15.6mm) realises that this is not the same sensor. You can't "tweek" photosite pitch -- it's a static design parameter.
If you re-read my post you will notice that I'm not making any claims about who is (or is not) manufacturing the sensor used in the D3200. I am simply stating that it is *not* the same sensor used in the Sony A77 or NEX-7.
I think anyone who has looked at the comparative dimensions of the Nikon and Sony sensors (23.2x15.4mm vs. 23.5x15.6mm) realises that this is not the same sensor. You can't "tweek" photosite pitch -- it's a static design parameter.
Impressive results at high ISO raw. The Nikon sensor has less chroma noise than the Sony sensor in both the A77 and the NEX-7. Nikon's mystery sensor is definitely in the game.
keekimaru: Link : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B007VGGFZU/tipfla-20
Don’t let the D3200’s compact size and price fool you—packed inside this easy to use HD-SLR is serious Nikon power: a 24.2 MP DX-format CMOS sensor that excels in any light, EXPEED 3 image-processing for fast operation and creative in-camera effects, Full HD (1080p) movie recording, in-camera tutorials and much more. What does this mean for you? Simply stunning photos and videos in any setting. And now, with Nikon’s optional Wireless Mobile Adapter, you can share those masterpieces instantly with your Smartphone or tablet easily!
More Detail : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=16
Both the Sony sensor the the Nikon sensor have identical vertical resolution, but the Nikon sensor is slightly smaller (23.2x15.4mm, vs. 23.5x15.6mm for the Sony), so the photosite pitch is by necessity smaller as well. So this is probably *not* the same sensor used in the A77.
I can't help but noticing: 1920 x 3 = 5760. I doubt this is a coincidence.