trungthu

""" Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame."""
When we use the same shooting frame in both sensor sizes (APS-C and Full Frame).
""" What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image."""
As I know, in normal condition, the gather of light at each aperture is different with others. The lower number, the more of light. But when we have a quantity of light is "a" to be right exposured, that means the light come to the sensor is "equal" in any aperture (in relate to shutter speed), or any sensor size, not only at f/1.8 (in APS-C) # f/2.8 (in Full Frame)
I don't know why the author say that...

Yes, I see.
Bayer filter use four capture pixels to record color informations.
""" .. This means it has only one photosite per output pixel, so won't offer the same color resolution as Canon's EOS C300...""" what does i mean?
Only one photosite per output pixel""" ???
Thanks Brian Lund for your respond.

"... This means it has only one photosite per output pixel, so won't offer the same color resolution as Canon's EOS C300 professional video camera, which has four capture pixels (a Red, Green, Blue, Green quartet) per output pixel... "

I don't know how it can record color information in only one photosite. While almost all others use three color filter in four pixels (RGBG).
Please help me. Thanks.

I understood. Thank Revenant very much

Because the F-number is the entrance pupil divided by focal length, reducing the focal length without changing the entrance pupil increases the F-number.
I think, it's wrong here.
When reduce the focal length without changing the entrance pupil will DECREASE the F-number. So it's from 50mm f/1.4 will be 35mm f/1.0.

It's an interesting news.

With the sensor's dimension = 6.06 x 4.56 mm, and the resolution 4000 x 3000.
I see that 6,06 mm / 4000 pixels = 0.0015 mm/pixel.
And the most importance thing is how can the "Leica lens" SEE THAT PIXEL, with the very low price lens, even with the big brand LEICA?
I want to say about the resolution of the lens, not only the resolution of the sensor.
How and what it can achieve? I don't know, please let me see. Thanks.

Why all the lenses at 50mm f/1.8 for full frame from other branches have the prices around 100USD, while Pentax has 50mm f/1.8 for APS-C, with a smaller covering power, and a higher price?
Why?

Thanks.
I have known Sigma Foveon X3 from SD9, and I knew about it with the more "sharpness of the details" than other 6Mp camera, but, with the less of green in it.
By unused AA filter, SD1 can deliver more detaisl than other camera at 15Mp, that noone have any critique.
Foveon has really "three colors in one position", and other has to interpolate "three color in one position", and Foveon has to "interpolate" to have the size of 15x3Mp, other has really 45Mp in size. The only better one from Foveon is the unused AA filter.
And please wait to see some comparisons between SD1 and D800e (Nikon) in sometime later.
Thanks for your reply.

It's only 15 M positions to receive light to record image, not 15X3=45Mp as Sigma said. But when they don't use AA filter, the detail is better (than other 15Mp camera).
When other camera use two green pizels for one blog to equal to human eyes, Sigma can't do that, so the color is not good.
If Sigma says SD1 with 15Mp, and add one more position to detect green, I hope, it is better. The price stagery is so bad, it's unreal!

I think, the differences is very little in quality between the "normal lenses" and these Zeiss lenses.
Because, the resolution of motion picture is only 2K (about 2Mp), and all the lenses of the camera's maker can adapte this clearity, even the kit lens.
But, the problem maybe only is in the conviniences, and the posibility of making money of the film maker, so the price is "no problem".

Excelent composition. I love it.
Thanks for sharing.

Very good.
Thanks.

I'm using 5D II, and I don't see 5D III as the replacent of the II.
So I think, maybe this is something wrong in strategy from Canon?

Thanks HowaboutRAW.
I think I know less than you, but please explain the phenomenon that I have seen in the photo in the link I have talk to?
""" http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lytro/3
When I click to the glass, the leg behind it also be in-focus, and when I click to the guitarist, the leg behind the glass turn out-of focus.
I think, this is only a software game, by separating each plan by software to put it to in or out of focus with some faults. It's only a game, not technology, as they say."""

I think, maybe this is a wrong strategy of Canon as Nikon.
- The resolution has "no change", while "double" in D800.
- Full HD is like the older version (Mark II), like in D800.
Why don't they choose Nikon D800?
Not "new version" from 5DII.

In October, 2002, I have used Fuji FinePix S2Pro (6,1Mp - $2450), it's not a toy.

Thank. But if you see in the photo?
Because they use a very small sensor, so all of the field be in focus, after that, they use a software to separate each plan (by use the interpolation), but with something with "opacity", the software can not distinguish it.
I hope they can do more than that.
Thanks.

As I see in the second photo in
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lytro/3
When I click to the glass, the leg behind it also be in-focus, and when I click to the guitarist, the leg behind the glass turn out-of focus.
I think, this is only a software game, by separating each plan by software to put it to in or out of focus with some faults. It's only a game, not technology, as they say.
I think so. I hope I'm wrong.

Very impressive.
If we can do it in larger format camera.
Thanks.