dash2k8: Of course full-frame is the end-point we should all aspire to, otherwise we're not much for aspirations, are we? It's like saying we should only aspire for a cheap sedan because it has a lower maintenance cost than a luxury vehicle. Such a defeatist mentality is selling ourselves short. Had NASA thought this way, we would never have gotten on the moon. The higher we aim, the higher we will go.
Anyone who only ever aspires to an APS-C body is not going to go far in photo (which is fine, since for some ppl, photography is just for fun). However, it's one thing to not be able to afford an FF system, it's another to be complacent and say "this is good ENOUGH." When that word appears, you know corners are cut and goals reduced. We should all aspire to FF bodies and beyond.
To clarify, I have nothing against ppl who shoot for fun. But I do have a problem with the words "good enough."
Perhaps Sony understands the market too well, people do believe that FF is a goal to achieve and so they pander to them. But if I can take a film comparison, Rolleiflex's and Hasselblads produced far better quality than 35mm film cameras, so why did the vast majority stay with 35mm? Surely we should all have used roll film cameras?
Third Eye Focused: My APS-C sensor easily produces high quality prints at A4 size even with some cropping. I do not want or need larger prints so I don't need FF. what matters is the end product ie the photograph and what you are going to do with it.
This is the very point that many ignore. Select the format based on the intended final use. Although one can't ignore the fact that even in your example, a FF sensor should still produce a noticeably superior image quality in less than ideal lighting conditions.
But where the subject matter and lighting don't stretch either format, either will do just as good a job.
A little tip for those who may be concerned about dropping the tiny screws inside the camera.
Before undoing the screws, place some black plastic electrician's tape, the sort that won't leave any sticky residue when removed, across the throat of the mount. Remove the screws, and then the tape so you can insert a flat headed screw driver to prise loose the mount as shown in the video. Place tape over the Fotodiox mount in the same aforementioned manner, position the mount and replace the screws. Remove tape. That's it, done.
40daystogo: Once the LX series ceases to be a true pocketable camera, then it is up against cameras that are fairly small but not quite pocketable, such as the Sony A6000 which has an APS-C sensor. If you use the stuido-compare function of the above review, you'll see the A600 blows the LX100 out of the water.
Maybe Sony doesn't, yet, have a low profile lens, but what gets overlooked, very often IMO, is the little Sigma f2.8/30mm. This is an incredibly sharp lens, at least in the first iteration, and in a Lens Rentals test on a Nex 7 outperformed the Leica f1.4/50 Summilux.
True, it doesn't have a very fast aperture, but at its 50mm equivalent focal length probably compares very favourably in aperture terms to the LX100 at the same focal length. I use the lens on my Nex 5N and can vouch for its optical performance.
Just compare the Sony Nex 6 at 1600 ISO to see how poor the Leica is. Compare the face images and see the noise in the Leica shot.
OK, so not everyone shoots at 1600 ISO all the time, but this is an indication of how far behind the competition the Leica is.
GRUBERND: The headshot of Sam Spencer is nice and has really amazing image quality. ;)
attomole: It seems to me Leica are not getting the best of the deal with Panasonic if they can't source a descent EVF, I don't mind them enveloping the lens performance WRT maximum apature settings but that should be clear in their marketing also
They make beautiful Camears and this is one. that also stand out as great desingn against any manufactured product what ever it is . Leica is benchmark for industrial design. but they need a better technology exchange from theier marketing agreement with Pana, and get Sony sensors for Petes sake!
As far as I can determine, the Visoflex has a staggering 3.7 million dots, by far the highest on the market at present. This beats Sony and Olympus by a large margin.
@ Citibox. There are sub-categories. This image was posted in the Natural Design category.
Glad to learn you were reasonably OK following your accident.
I was in Vianden for a few days last mid-December and have an image shot from almost the same point as your #3. The difference is the hills were covered in mist from about the level of the roof of the white building (the Cafe du Pont) in the centre of your shot, and the castle can only just be made out.
guyfawkes: Reading many comments about "equivalence" both here and posted elsewhere, there does seem to me to be one question I'd like to ask: what practical applications are there that one would need to know this?
For example, if one owns a FF sensor dslr, does one really need to know what the so-called equivalence is for DoF for another format? Or turn this around. Would anyone moving from an APS-C system to FF need to know? How on earth would this impact on images they proposed taking?
In my days with film, using anything from sub-min up to 5x4, equivalence never even entered the equation. Photographers simply worked within and knew how to use the tools they used. So why has it assumed a proportion totally out of kilter with its importance now we use digital cameras?
It very much smacks of pseudo science to me.
@ Great Bustard.
But this is the nub of the counter views expressed here of those such as I who find it all a bit of a nonsensical argument, however accurate the math may be. My response is so what? I use many format digital cameras, from the small sensor FZ200. LX7, APS-C to my FF A7, and my blissful ignorance of equivalence hasn't had any negative impact on my image taking one iota.
If it wouldn't help me to know what the equivalent DoF would be on my different film formats, why would it matter in digital terms?
The point is I can't see digital photographers using different format cameras and basing their images on achieving the same DoF.
"More specifically, Equivalence teaches us, among other things, that the reason FF has lower noise than smaller formats is because it *necessarily* must use a more narrow DOF for a given shutter speed in lower light."
First time I've read that DoF impacts on a sensor's noise floor. I thought it was pixel pitch. The bigger the better.
Mike FL: As far as I can see from all the posts that WHO wrote this article created LOT of confusing.
@Mike FL. in response to cm71td.
You've hit the nail on the head. How on earth did digital photographers manage prior to this subject suddenly making an appearance in dpreview a couple of years ago, I believe?
The subject itself seems to be of interest to those who seem more interested in the theory than any true practical application.
But its supporters are themselves guilty of the single biggest obfuscation and it arises here, using the FZ200 as the example.
f2.8/4.5-108mm (equivalent to 600mm at f15.5 (or f16))
If one is talking about equivalence, for the uninitiated won't know, it needs to be pointed out it refers to "DoF equivalent" for a true 600mm lens stopped down to f15.5, or whatever, so as to provide similar DoF as a true 108mm at f2.8. Many will assume it refers to a true reduction in the aperture TO f15.5 at its equivalent 600mm focal length, and thus severely affecting exposure. But this is not so. For DoF no, but for exposure it is still the same as f2.8/600mm.
No, it is not like asking what is the equivalent focal length. Equivalent focal length has a very practical application in digital imaging.
Depending upon how many types of digital camera you've owned, and indeed if you have ever used a 35mm camera, you'd understand. If you have never used 35mm then, understandably, this won't apply to you.
Digital cameras, from small compacts to FF, use a variety of sensors all with physically different sizes. If you check out the actual focal lengths of the lenses on a range of cameras you will likely see see a myriad of quite meaningless figures. On APS-C, for example, you will often see 18-55mm, on 4/3 it will be 14-42, and on small compacts you may come across really short focal lengths such as 4.5-13.5mm, 5.7-17.1mm. What do these numbers mean in FoV terms? How do the lenses "view" FoV. Is the wide end (in equivalent 35mm terms) 24mm, 28mm or 35mm? Without the very useful equivalence you have no idea of knowing.
@ Great Bustard. Thanks for replying.
I fully understand what you say. It is obvious to any intelligent photographer that DoF will be different with sensors (or film) of different formats in achieving the same FoV as the focal length of the lenses needed decreases as the format gets smaller. But what amuses me is that the subject of equivalence when related to aperture occupies so many column inches in articles. This was never so before digital cameras, and it has only in the past few years that its ugly head was raised, right here I believe in dpReview. How does knowing the equivalence aperture rating actually help me as a photographer?
When I used my 5x4 camera with, say, a 150mm Symmar at f8, at distance x, how on earth would it help me to know what aperture I'd need to achieve the same DoF on a 6x6 or 35mm camera with shorter focal length lenses? I'd stop the lens down or use camera movements, for 5x4, to get the DoF I needed on any format camera.
Reading many comments about "equivalence" both here and posted elsewhere, there does seem to me to be one question I'd like to ask: what practical applications are there that one would need to know this?
spencerda: Assuming that the monkey REALLY took it's own photo, I would agree Mr Slater has copyrights.
One he owns the camera and the memory card and process the pictures.Two We as humans do not give animals the right of ownership.Three We as humans have ownership over animals and pets, we are held responsible for anything they might do, so there for Mr Slater has ownership of the copyright, laughing...
But your first point itself isn't necessarily true. A photographer may be commissioned to take a photo where copyright lies with the commissioner. And, of course, if we lend our camera to someone else, they assume copyright over what they take, not the person who lent them the camera.
But whatever, this is a fun story with some very amusing selfies. I wonder if the monkey could be expressing narcissistic tendencies so beloved of the selfie brigade?
In the UK there is a saying that the Law is an Ass. For the most part, people know this refers to the exception rather than the rule. Laws are necessary so society is better able to deal with conflict. This case is an odd exception.
Laws are, or become, deficient with the passage of time or the advance in new technologies that the lawmakers haven't yet caught up with. I don't suppose copyright law ever envisaged a scenario such as this but in my opinion the law as it stands has been interpreted correctly by wikimedia, although the vast majority of us would ever wonder how copyright could be assigned to the monkey in the first case.
The law is there to protect the creative processes and ensure those creating art, or whatever, are protected from pirates who would wish to steal and benefit from others' works. You don't have to look far for evidence of this.
But did the monkey have a sentient knowledge of what he was "creating" and that he could copyright it? I very much doubt it.
HeyItsJoel: He tried to use a typewriter to pay his taxes online. The IRS is looking for him.
I seem to remember that story. (:p(
But wasn't it the English living in Boston who did the actual revolting as they objected, quite rightly, to "no taxation without representation"?
No surprises here!! They ditched their video editing program too a few years back - just when all the Apple users thought it was the best thing!
Adobe is going to love this!! I personally use Silkypix and LR. Very nice program.
It certainly can be counter-intuitive, I agree. I found this when I bought my first Lumix camera, the LX1, and which shipped with a Panasonic only version of Silkypix. Oddball programme? I certainly thought so, and never used it.
But if your Silkypix experience began and ended with the earlier free versions that came with Panasonic cameras, then you could be in for a surprise with the latest edition.
Have a dekko at Pro 6, it you can, and it may surprise you how its interface and GUI have changed a lot. It looks more like Lightroom now on the screen, and only some of the toolbar icons look different.
What I will repeat, though, is for those are serious about Panasonic cameras, this is the software for them.
I gave up Lightroom to move to Zoner for general use, but for Panasonic camera images, especially RAW, it has to be Silkypix. It is no longer as problematic to use as you think.
guyfawkes: It has been known for years that a simple lens images in a plane which is hemispherical. The optical trick in lens design has been to correct for this so-called distortion so that the image looks natural on a planar surface.
Some film cameras tried to overcome this problem with curved film gates, the bakelite Kodak Brownie 127 at the cheap end of the market and the Minox sub-miniatures at the other, being two examples that I know of.
So there is nothing magical in the effect Sony is describing, but its implementation will be. And if it does free lens designers to come up with superior imaging optics, then Sony should be applauded, not attacked.
Whilst I accept that in pure geometry, a plane is flat, and thus my comment may at first seem to be a non-sequitur, I was using it in the world of imaging and where there is often reference to a "flexible and curved focal plane".
Also I couldn't bring to mind a single word to describe what I wished to portray as a projection drawn on the inside of a section of a hemisphere, and which is, of course, more than a simple curve in one axis only.
Yes, you did read my mind as to what I wished to portray, and which I've expanded upon in my reply to JackM above.
JPdeJ: "Frame" - history. Half? Double? Full?(by heart)35mm film originally a cine/movie film format, its frame size was 18x24mm.Leitz introduced the Leitz camera (Leitz + camera = Leica) using that film and doubled the frame size. Look up old pre-WWII National Geographic and you'll see Leica adverts calling the Leica "double frame".After WWII, when Leica was joined by a large population of Kodak, Agfa, Exakta, Zeiss Ikon, Nikon, etc. the "double frame" was forgotten. When Olympus brought the Pen camera, with its 18x24mm recording size, it was called "half frame." Typically a "35mm" thing.Peter
Whilst reference to "double frame" may have been dropped as the use of the 36x24 format had become the de facto standard for 35mm cameras, the use of the label "Leica Film" was used in the 1950's to my knowledge. But this may have been more to do with the fact that Leica's needed to be loaded with film with a pre-cut leader of at least 4".
With the opening back flap introduced with the M3 which made film loading somewhat easier, it can still be a little awkward with the short leader found today. And try loading any earlier Leica without the long leader. But this is the fun, or anguish, depending upon the user, of using Leica film cameras.