0MitchAG: What pocket watch is this?
Well, I don't know what exactly it is, but it's an IWC. On the left edge of the photo towards the bottom you can see half of their "Probus Scafusia" stamp.
AngryCorgi: "...focusing is possible between 8 and 20 inches for close-up shooting with a maximum image magnification of 0.72X (35mm camera equivalent)..."
The author of this news piece ought to know that image magnification is independent of crop factor.
What you're citing is a press release, written by Olympus. While these do serve a purpose, they're not exactly shining examples of unbiased journalism...
Maxim Ge: I think that the claim "Sensor size does not alter magnification" is arguable. To be more exact magnification definition itself does not quite fit the "real world".
You define maginifcation as "simply the relationship between of the size of the (in-focus) subject's projection on the imaging sensor and the subject's size in reality". I think it has to be coupled with crop factor.
Consider an example. You have a frame 24x36 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm, projected size is 36 mm, so maginification is 2:1, that's correct, but remember - we see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.
Now we take a tiny camera with crop = 18 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm and projected size is 2 mm. Magnification = 1:9 ? But we continue to see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.
So 2:1 and 1:9 give same result - strange, isn't it?
I think that crop factor should be added to magnification definition, in this case both considered pictures would have same magnification.
"I think that the claim "Sensor size does not alter magnification" is arguable. To be more exact magnification definition itself does not quite fit the 'real world'."
Indeed. I've long argued that it really makes more sense to talk about what I call the "print-to-life" ratio: the ratio of the size of the subject in the print (or computer screen) to the real-life subject. The print-to-life ratio is the product of what we may similarly call the life-to-sensor ratio (the traditional "magnification") and the print-to-sensor ratio (the traditional "englargement").
As to how to define macro photography, I think the best definition is simply photos of small subjects in the same size range as a coin.
wkay: What's the point of this whole article? Seems to be some sort of vague engineering discussion. If my subject fills the frame, focuses, and gives me a pleasant compostion, what the h do I care what the magnification is? Am I supposed to be taking critical measurements off the image for scientific purposes? I'm sure there are better tools for that. And who on earth needs to Tweet or Facebook this? My life is going fast enough, I dont need to waste any more of it on frivolties that I already am. Sorry to carry on, but these DP 'tutorials' are just proving a general waste of time as they are just superficial overviews that dont provide sufficient info to really improve my skills.
"If my subject fills the frame, focuses, and gives me a pleasant compostion, what the h do I care what the magnification is?"
So if your subject won't fill the frame in sharp focus, how do you suggest we approach the matter?
roblarosa: So it's basically an E-P3 with a 16 MP sensor then? *yawn*
No, it's basically a GF1 with a 16MP sensor with much better low-light performance...
MP Burke: I find the response to this camera amusing. Owners of the GF1 have been complaining about the GF2 and GF3 being dumbed down and not the type of camera they want.Then when Panasonic produces this, which has a better sensor and a host of other improvements over the GF1, there seems to be many now saying they really wanted a camera like the NEX-7. It is highly implausible that Panasonic could come up with a design like the NEX-7 in only a few months, even if they wanted to.I would imagine Panasonic has a good idea about how many people are buying the GF type cameras and how many were buying the add-on viewfinder. This information will have influenced the decision to build an improved camera without built in EVF. They will also be aware how many people bought NEX cameras when no EVF was available.It will be interesting to see how quickly they can get this camera into the shops.The compact lens could be a useful selling point compared to the bigger standard lenses on its rivals.
I think you're mixing up two sets of people here: the eager GF1 fans and the more reluctant users. The latter folks are the "built-in EVF, dammit" crowd.
MichaelKJ: IMO this represents Nikon's initial move into the mirrorless future. It currently doesn't make sense to bring out a competitor to its DSLRs because they continue to be very profitable. However, I think it is likely that much of the technology developed for these cameras can be ported into a DSLR replacement when Nikon feels that it makes sense financially.
"It currently doesn't make sense to bring out a competitor to its DSLRs because they continue to be very profitable."
That's an example of grossly misguided common wisdom. They should release the best possible product. If it cannibalizes the sales of your other product, well, be happy that it wasn't a competitor who did it!
As an example of a company who knows not to think this way, Apple has repeatedly released products that cannibalize the sales of older ones: iPhone took a chunk of iPod sales; iPad and Macbook Air also cannibalize Macbook sales.
Guidenet: The truth is nobody knows much of anything about it yet. This Nikon sensor might be a winner and be as capable as most APS-C or M4/3 offering. It might be more capable. Deciding that the size cripples it prior to ever seeing and image or review, much less trying it, is a bit silly.
Personally, I've never understood M4/3 or APS-C mirrorless cameras, though I know they sell. Once you stick a lens on them, they're not really much smaller than an entry level DSLR. You can't stick them easily into a shirt pocket. I bought the Canon S95 as my shirt pocket camera for when I don't have the real thing. It takes excellent images. I might swap it for one of these after checking it's ability to fit in pockets and glove boxes.
It's got a lot of nice modular system type features. I'm sure that down the road, they will come out with a P1 or something with PSAM and other more enthusiast controls. None of these will replace my D700. It's a different animal and for what it is, looks pretty nice.
"Personally, I've never understood M4/3 or APS-C mirrorless cameras, though I know they sell. Once you stick a lens on them, they're not really much smaller than an entry level DSLR. You can't stick them easily into a shirt pocket."
You can't stick them into a shirt pocket, but once you have to pack the camera and 3 lenses into a bag (e.g., 7-14mm, 14-140mm, 20mm), oh boy there sure is a big difference.
With Panasonic's new collapsible motorized zoom lens, also, the future isn't looking too great for cameras like the G12 or the LX5. (Cameras like your S95, on the other hand, are still well positioned against it.)
Calvo: Why? This camera is heavier and bigger than latest m4/3rds or Samsungs NX and has *probably* worse iq... with known firmware problems
Lets wait for the first tests
Bacteria, have you not seen the size of Panasonic's new X 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom? There's little doubt in my mind that m4/3 and similar systems are going to kill cameras like this Fuji, the Canon G12, Panasonic LX-5 and Olympus XZ-1. The only advanced compacts that will probably survive are going to be smaller ones like the Canon S95.
John Cal: The look grows on you, Leica..ish. If it had Leica on the tag everyone would be marveling at the miniature brilliance and style of this new system. Let's wait and see the image quality before we burn Pentax at stake. This may be a winner lets wait and see.
It's not a 2/3" sensor, it's a 1/2.3" sensor. A 2/3" sensor would be a lot better...