s_grins: What about AF?
You can't do phase detection AF properly with an apodized lens; AF would pretty much be contrast-only. The Sony 135 is also manual focus only.
Matsu: Nice update, brings them in line with the other systems, will be interesting to see if they incorporate a hypersonic style function or stick to traditional high speed sync. Range seems a bit limited.
Well, okay, glad you think so. It means you've got an especially slow speedlight (like, say, a Godox 180/360).
"Hypersync" loses more power than HSS; it basically means opening the shutter after the flash has fired and relying on the tail of the light, so you miss the most powerful part of the flash's output, and you still lose most of the light to the shutter curtains. (With variable-charge studio lights - the sort where you need to dump power when you turn the flash down - it gets more efficient as you turn down the flash power.) It's a lose-lose technology.
Dan DeLion: So what ever happened to using a cheap filter and some Vaseline to get the same effect? For most of us, that’s a zero cost option.
It's not the same thing at all. Nor is it the same thing as a diffusion filter, star filter or net. If you want it as a screw-on, you're looking for something in the Softar family.
huyzer: Wow. Her eye color. Is that gold?
As an eye colour, it's usually called "hazel".
ProfHankD: I'm a big believer in smooth apodization (as opposed to the sink-strainer things Fuji is historically known for). It actually works to give good bokeh, as opposed to all the other tricks (like undercorrected SA). It also slightly enhances sharpness in focus (by reducing contribution from outer rays that generally suffer more aberrations and avoiding diffraction artifacts from blade edges).
However, I think the Minolta/Sony 135mm STF is still king. The annoying thing is that the 135mm STF is a manual-focus A-mount lens because A-mount does not do CDAF. I don't know why Sony hasn't made a CDAF E-mount version, but I'd think it would be worthwhile for the bragging rights alone...?
Anyway, you can make your own apodization filter for most lenses (although it is a bit trickier than one would guess) and you also can synthesize STF by varying the aperture in a multiple exposure (as Minolta did in the Maxxum 7).
Wasn't the sink strainer more of a Rodagon (soft focus) thing? I'm with you on the STF, but apart from being manual focus, it was/is an intimidating piece of kit as well, what with the dual irises and all. Even putting the wide-open T-stop in the model name threw some people for a loop, since they'd never had to deal with T-stops in all of their TTL-metering experience. Thanks to cine, that's probably not a problem anymore, but a redesign with a single iris and CDAF wouldn't hurt at all.
helltormentor: @Richard Butler
I never had a chance to check the idea of "equivalence" myself so I'd appreciate it if you could give me some information on that. I know that DOF of a 56mm lens on an APS-C camera is similar to that of a 85mm lens on a full frame. The point is, some photographers believe that although DOF is similar, the out of focus rendition (profile) is quite different. They believe that the transition between in focus and out of focus is more abrupt when a longer lens is used. In other words, it is impossible to get the same result by using a short lens on a cropped sensor. Is this true or it's just a myth?
The biggest single difference is the magnification. On an 8x10 camera, for instance, a tight head shot is essentially a macro (half life size or better). The "macroness" (for want of a better term) for the "same" shot (same field of view, same camera-to-subject distance, etc.) decreases with the size of the image sensor (film or digital sensor), and it's that bellows factor (old-school term; it means how far the lens needs to be moved away from the sensor compared to infinity focus, or how much the focal length of the lens needs to be reduced in an internal focus lens) that determines the distribution of the sizes of the circles of confusion. At 1:1, things in front of and behind the plane of focus get blurry at the same rate. As the magnification goes down, you get closer to the classic "1/3 in front, 2/3 behind" depth of field. The closer your subject, the more difference you'll see between larger and smaller formats.
Timbukto: Let me guess...patent pending? If the output is standard jpeg...and it works in all standard jpeg browsers and devices...it IS standard jpeg. JpegMini is a *brand* and is a jpeg *encoder* but not a unique *format*. This is no different from various flavors of Mp3 encoders with LAME being the best and open source. There used to be other variant mp3 encoders that costed money and well isn't that weird...they don't exist any more and I can't even remember their name.
In addition it is highly doubtful that there is truly any unique patentable technique applied in this standard format that any other unbranded run of the mill jpeg encoder cannot also apply.
It may be very well that JpegMini is a good encoder but that will require more thorough analysis than this marketing bit.
Also the bits about it using 'perceptual' encoding as unique is hogwash as the jpeg standard is all about perceptual encoding just like MP3 is all about perceptual encoding. Silly to claim this is the only one.
The only difference is the chunking and variable compression - something the JPEG standard has always allowed, but which isn't effectively implemented in many places (and isn't implemented at all natively in any of the popular image editors/raw processors). It is computationally expensive to make the local compression-level decisions (comparatively speaking), which is why it hasn't been the default method since the beginning; you certainly wouldn't want to be doing this on a 486SX-25 with 16MB of RAM. "Patentable" depends on the current state of patent law; it's only the decision algorithm that's unique and not described in the JPEG standard. In Photoshop terms, you get a file that's the size of a "6" or a "7" that looks like a "10" or an "11" that is readable by everything. Where bandwidth and/or storage space count, that makes a huge difference. Your complaint should be "why isn't everybody doing this?".
Xeexon: I'm with all those who say it's a new format altogether-why else would they go on and on about all the firsts of this company and then use 'brand new format' (all errors notwithstanding)? As improbable as it seems, I think it's even more improbable that whoever wrote this press release has the capacity to be ironic.
Ricoh/Pentax isn't afraid to innovate, beyond even what was already mentioned. There's the Theta, Q series, (nearly) disruptively inexpensive medium format, pro level features in a reasonably priced consumer camera, all the games they play with IBIS, etc... Not all these are great, but you cannot accuse Pentax of being afraid to try something new.
A new sensor format niche would also seem logical vis a vis competing in a nearly saturated full frame market.
Call me what you will, but here's hoping that this is more than just a stall tactic. At least for this bleeding heart Pentaxian, something new (and good) would be a very welcome concession after years of waiting.
I'm sure the 645 medium format people appreciate being told they're running just shy of a "pro" aspect ratio ;-)
@RedFox88: Not necessarily. A 26mm x 34.5mm 3:4 format sensor will fit in the same image circle as a 24mm x 36mm 2:3 sensor with a modest boost in "gross" pixel numbers at the same pixel pitch and a slightly less modest boost in linear resolution along the short dimension, with only a slight change in the requirements for mirror and shutter sizes. (K will *just* accommodate the mirror height increase. *Just*. Going square with the K and filling the image circle would mean a loss unless they also choose to go mirrorless.) I'm not suggesting that's what's planned or anything, since that would mean commissioning a specialty fab, just that a new format (something other than 135) doesn't necessarily mean a new lens mount.
stratplaya: Serious question for the pro and semi-pro Nikon shooters. What would you like to see in the D5? What do you feel is lacking with the D4s?
@RPJG - It's a Yiddishism, and it's proper. It implies that you *could* care less, but that caring less would require a degree of effort or caring *about* the caring that isn't warranted. It's actually a stronger statement than "I couldn't care less", but with a bit of biting humour thrown in as well. (The phrase isn't just American either. Just as importantly, English isn't a system of formal logic. Why, for example, would "head over heels" mean anything other than "largely unaffected by the circumstances and going about business as usual"? Your head is normally over your heels.)
Just one little niggle: when it's done right, internal focus is the cure for focus breathing, not its cause. With a unit-focus (old school) lens, bellows draw when focusing closer increases image size (a 210mm lens can be both a wide-angle landscape lens and a normal studio lens on an 8x10; it even approaches an 85mm 135-format-equivalent for tight head shots, which are almost 1:1 macro). Reducing the focal length when you focus closer keeps the subject size and field of view constant -- provided that the lens design permits the focal length reduction to compensate exactly for the closer focusing. That's not easy to do with real-world multi-component lens; granted. But traditional (unit focus) designs are worse in this regard, and all of the high-falutin' cine lenses (the big Sonys and Angenieux) that have essentially eliminated focus breathing are all internal focus.
Aaron801: I think that it's less of a real problem than just a new paridgm created by new technology. The type of folks that used cheap cameras before are now using cell phones and the type of folks who were more serious photographers are still using more expensive, more complex cameras as they were before. There's less overall cameras being sold becasue the largest segment of users only need something very simple and that's going to be cell phones. There's no compelling reason for that crowd to buy a seperate device... even if it's cheap and easy to operate..
For folks that want to experiment with gear that's a little more capable, they can do so pretty easily. Almost any camera on the market these days has a full automatic more... so you can buy the thing, start with that and only later, if you want to experiment with more direct controls.
I don't really see a problem with the choices available, for the expert or for the beginner.
Frankly, Aaron801, most of the people who would have been buying point-n-shoots never wanted cameras at all, they just wanted a thing that takes pictures. That may have been a 120 or 620 box camera at one time, or an Instamatic type (whether 126 or 110) or even a disk. They bought digital P&S cameras because the pictures were "right now" instead of next week, next month or next year, not because they wanted a new camera and thought digital was the way to go. Now they own a thing that takes decent-enough pictures and is always with them anyway; they no longer need to buy the camera they never really wanted to buy in the first place, and the Rebel or D3xxx or high-end P&S sits on the closet shelf beside Dad's old Brownie Hawkeye Flash and a half-used box of #25 Blue Dots. Lugging a specialized device around is only fun if you suffer from the same abnormality that we suffer from, no matter what the color scheme of the body or menu graphics look like.
Ad B: Hi,here's written, the sensor allows ISO ratings above ISO 6400.Even ISO 12,500.But on the spec sheet as we can find at the Leica site it says, the S is going towards ISO 1600... Maybe in auto ISO?What is the truth?
...and for what it's worth, ISO 1600 on the old CCD was pretty bad (CCD "cross stitch" noise, which comes from bucket-brigading the data across sensels, doesn't clean up well at all). At low ISOs, though, it had great tonality.
Roland Karlsson: A very beautiful camera. I wonder who buy them? Studios tends to have the digital back kind of cameras AFAIK. This one seems more aimed at hand held work. Who carries around an S camera? The huge Nikon and Canon with long fast teles for sport I understand. But this one?
Basically, if you can think of a good reason to use a leaf shutter (high sync speed without relying on HSS-capable lighting, all of which is power-limited at the moment, or tail sync, which is a half-assed solution at best) and a good reason NOT to use a detachable-back MF camera (form factor, bulk & weight when hand-holding), you can think of a good use for this camera. So anything daylight with supplemental lighting - location fashion, feature editorial, and the like - where an SLR-format body makes sense and losing 3/4 or more of your flash power to an ND filter or shutter curtains doesn't. (That assumes that you can charge enough to make it pay for itself. Or that money's not a worry.) And it's not a bad camera even with just ambient light using the focal plane shutter. Or if you're an optical viewfinder fetishist like me, you can just look at that all day and forget about everything else - it's gorgeous.
Steve Bingham: After 60 minutes and 3 phone calls I still can't install ParticleShop! Windows 10. I have PS CS6. Now I have to deal with PayPal. Yuck! It downloads the exe file but about half way threw the install it hangs. Restarted the computer, deleted the old exe file, and tried to install version 2. Same after deleting version 2 and version 3.
What a piece of junk.
@aut0maticdan - ABR doesn't support anything like what this does; it's a long way from merely "installing brushes".
Photoman: Pentax 645Z offers far better value than Blad. You should have stuck to a simple design instead of bling for small markets or rich toffs. Sad to see another camera brand about to go broke.
Well, except that the 645Z doesn't have anything in the way of leaf shutter lenses to offer (there are some virtually-antique lenses on the used market, but they leave a lot to be desired - they were barely "good enough" for ISO 400 colour film, and certainly not up to 50MP) and the back cannot be detached and used on a view camera. Flash synchronization at high shutter speeds (above 1/125, certainly) with real lights (not speedlights) and camera/lens movements are not optional for wide swaths of the professional market. It's a great camera, but among the people most likely to have bought it, the general tone of the conversation has been "what were they thinking?" The detachable back is probably never going to happen (it severely complicates connections), but they need LS lenses to compete with Hasselblad or PhaseOne/Mamiya.
igor_s: I was always sure that the PDAF with third-party lenses was just a matter or marketing. Bravo to Sony for doing this as it will impact the sales of own Sony and Zeiss cameras.
The only global thing I can think of in this area is Z-shift sensor AF that would allow for AF with with fully manual lenses.
And 5mm is a lot, and won't cover much range with many lenses. I get the idea; it's just not practical outside of a *very* limited range, which would approximate what you'd need for focus holding in a focus-and-recompose situation. (In those cases, since the shift you'd need is governed by the field of view of the lens, and the field of view of the lens becomes more restricted as the focal length, and thus the required sensor shift, increases, it would likely be practical at least to a degree.) The camera would need to be thicker by the amount of movement required, and by the basic mechanical overhead of the jacking system, so there's only so far you can go with it before it becomes unacceptable to the vast, vast majority of people who would use the camera.
That might be a little difficult; the required shift can easily get into the centimetres range in a hurry. A helicoid adapter would at least take the jacking mechanism out of the body, but since you'd need to move the entire lens (or the entire camera if the lens itself is tripod-mounted) I'd imagine it would either be terminally slow or require a ginormous battery (once you allow for damping and so forth). A "manual focus maintenance" arrangement - something adequate to keep the focus fine-tuned once you've established it manually on a relatively static subject - might be more practical. (I'm picturing something that works sort of like Hasselblad's True Focus feature, but without having to know the lens characteristics intimately.) It still sounds power-hungry and expensive, though, no matter how I think about it; I'm not sure Sony could go there with an a7. Perhaps an a9?
Class A: Good to see some balanced discussion in the article. DSLRs are by no means the "dinosaur technology" that they are often characterised as.
One point that rarely gets made is that image quality is largely determined by the lens and that lenses that provide high-quality images even in bad conditions tend to be large (that's just physics that no engineering can get around). A tiny mirrorless body more often than not then just provides an inadequate grip for such lenses, yielding a combo that is imbalanced and not well-matched, with the overall size of a quality kit negating the small body size and weight advantage a mirrorless camera offers.
Surely mirrorless cameras have their perfectly matched application areas, but so do DSLRs. This sustained hailing of mirrorless cameras as the future technology that is still misunderstood by customers got old quite a while ago already.
Curved sensors won't do anything for apochromaticity; you'll still need multiple elements with appropriate dispersion characteristics. And then instead of designing to a flat field, you'd need to design to a particular non-flat field curvature, or stick to a fixed (non-interchangeable) lens. Our eyes are lousy cameras; we've just got excellent built-in raw processing (featuring content-aware fill!).