Erick L: Total light on sensor affecting noise doesn't make sense to me. Don't smaller sensors appear more noisy simply because the image needs to be enlarged more, noise included?
Seems to me that saying a FF sensor has less noise because it gathers more light is akin to saying a telephoto lens "compresses perspective".
Further to the previous post where I give Thom Hogan a hard time: The fact that stops beyond an equivalent of f/22 are useless for increasing DOF is of course the reason why small sensor cameras like the Nikon 1 V3 only go up to f/5.6 and lenses built for 8x10 cameras have f/64.
rfsIII, I'd disagree with Thom Hogan "there are looks you can't get with small formats that you can with large formats, and vice versa". His contention is that there are fstops that give larger DOF on small format that are not available to larger formats. The example fstops he gives, f/22 equivalent and beyond are subject to so much diffraction that the depth of acceptable focus is actually zero. There are no shots you can get on your camera phone that you can't get on your FF.
Scorpius1: Leica S glass in extremely good,better than anything you can stick in front of your D800E and try syncing with strobes at 1/1000th sec with a D800... the IQ from the Leica S is superb,if you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it then buy something else but it wont change the fact that it produces super images...
there are physical reasons why small format can't compete with medium format. Once they both have high quality glass, MF just gives better images. The same physical limits operate in proportion to the wavelength and that's why you see radio telescopes getting bigger and bigger. They're not doing it to be the biggest kid on the block, they do it to get better images. Same with optical telescopes. Bigger really is better and size does matter.
I'd like to see a 4x5 digital. Wilth a bellows or telescoping lens so that when not in use it folds up into a small case. Even the folded light path idea of the old Polaroid cameras would be good. It should fold up into a box just a bit more than 4x5 then unfold into something amazing. Failing that, simply a 5x4 back that fits on ordinary large format cameras. I wouldn't like to see huge MP. 36 MP would be plenty. Big photosites for clean images.
What I'd like to see is a 4"x5" sensor with about 50 MP. With a folding bellows lens it wouldn't be much bigger than a thick paperback book. The IQ would put DSLRs back in the toy camera corner they came from. With a good screen such as you get on a small tablet the focus would be easy to set manually. Much better than autofocus.
I'd like to see this come from the other end. When I travel I want my Canon 5D2 with me to take amazing pictures, but I hate having to lug a laptop and 2 or three external drives for backup. My Canon has a display, sensor, lens, speaker, microphone and a computer. I should be able to skype home, edit photos, upload to offline storage or my home server all from one amazing imaging/computing device. When I walk into my house, my 5d2 should contact my laptop on my desk with bluetooth and upload any recent photos while I get dinner or get some sleep. None of these things are buck rogers stuff. They all exist, just not on great cameras.
inevitable crafts studio: i dont know any article or any review were everyone agreed like how ugly the lunar is.
so many comments telling others how well they discribed the ugliness of this camera ihehe
and suddently it doesnt matter if you should nikon or canon, everything seems good compared to that hb, probably THAT is the mission of this camera.from now on people will call it the photokina miracle, and we all where part of it :)
maybe they will make a family guy episode about this one day, that would be great haha
I've read hundreds of these comments and this is the best one. It really has brought us all together. Amazing.
If this is what 'blad thinks is the best way to stay in business... It would have been more honourable to pay off their staff and close the doors.
'blad's doing a mirrorless! Yay, a MF camera that's inconspicuous, light and affordable with great optics. Oh wait, no... It's a tiny sensor in a huge showy heavy package that takes very ordinary optics. It's like they read my mind and figured out *exactly* what I wanted and then did the *exact* opposite.
gedoxey: Another reason I enjoy a camera that does not have a moving mirror is a quiet shutter mechanism like is present with the Sony a57 and a77. I assume this will be true for the a99 as well. I was at a wedding the other night and the photographer was shooting away during the ceremony with his Nikon and his shutter noise was annoying even 75' away. When I shoot at a wedding or a formal indoor concert I can take pictures any time I want without disturbing the ceremony or performance. Before using a camera with a traditional moving mirror I had to wait until the music or singing was loud enough to not disturb the performance. I won't use a camera with that noisy mirror slap in these situations. My next purchase will be Nex 6. And maybe I'll make the jump to the FF SLT. Perhaps it won't be too long before even the Sony SLT cameras will be mirrorless too.
Shooting Canon in liveview has the same effect.
increments: Given the quality of some of the existing AF wide angle zooms, this is either going to have to be stellar in terms of IQ, or be very affordable...
Is it greedy to want both? ;)
Increments, you compared the price of the Samyang 14mm with the Canon zoom. Why not compare apples with apples and compare it to the Canon 14mm prime? With a list price of 2809.99 pounds. It makes 330 for the Samyang look pretty damn good.
leoda: Reading a review of the Samyang 14mm, the comments were that the manual focusing (1) had a very short angle of rotation from closest to infinity and (2) the friction damping was virtually non existent so the manual focusing "feel" was not comfortable.
Does anyone have hands on manual focusing experience of the Samyang lenses? Would you comment on this ?
I've got a Samyang 24mm 1.4. The focus seemed a little overdamped at first but now is perfect. It never moves by itself, but can be adjusted with one finger. Lovely feel, huge focus ring. The aperture ring is a little small but ok. There's no hard stop at infinity but the markings are perfect and I just need to line up the infinity mark to get perfect stars. (unlike the Canon L lenses that are really hard to use at night) Overall it's got a better feel and ergos than my Canon L glass. Now I just need to swap the hopeless foucus screen on the 5d2
This is great. The HDR knockers seem to forget that the alternative is lighting to fill the shadows while keeping the highlights. That's the "traditional" method that they seem to love. Go watch the output from a photolab machine as it spits out millions of flat "on camera flash" photos. Yuck. You'll even find most cameras will automatically pop up the flash when the centre of the image (the subject in most poor shots) is a lot darker than the edges. Blah. Horrible photos result. HDR and good tonemapping give a much more natural result than the "traditional" look that we're all so used to. People just seem to think it's more natural because they're used to it. They're mixing up "natural" with "familiar".
obeythebeagle: Don't take my Kodachrome, or HDR, or B&W, away. It's all fun. HDR is Ansel Adam's brain on LSD.
My Kodachrome is gone too. I have 3 rolls shot but not developed and now it's too late.
CaseyComo: Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the look of a single exposure. If the sky is too bright, expose for the shadows and use a grad ND filter.
Funny, I feel about grad filters the way most people seem to feel about HDR. I instantly think "Urrrgh Yuck, Lazy photographer, horrible photo, unrealistic image". I've *never* seen a grad filter photo that I've liked. Most HDR photos I don't like either, but I've at least seen *some* I like.
mytake: The last Powershot I had (actually still have) was a Powershot 85, it has a 38-85 zoom, no LCD, a very small viewfinder, oh yea, and it shoots film. I think I paid about $80.00 for it (the silver edition...silver plastic). I bought it for my wife and she took alot of nice family snaps with it. At the time, alot of people, maybe even most, were buying disposable cardboard boxes with 24-36 shots and you sent the whole thing to get the pics developed. I know what this sounds like (and we walked for three days...one way!) but, this doesn't seem like all that bad a deal to me.
You get a camera, a 28-448 zoom, some flash capability, a shutter down to 1/1600, and a zillion other things for $200. Alot of people will buy these cameras (or something close) and put alot of DSLR and mirrorless buyers to shame (meaning, they will actually use them, you know, to take pictures with). As a package it seems like alot for not very much, to me...just saying
My experience with the compact camera owners is that they take maybe 100 shots a year at best. There's a reason why they had rolls of film in 24... Because they'd expire in the camera if they were any longer. Me, I shot film SLR and put up with getting 100 rolls of Kodachrome through the airports that had "film safe X-Ray" for years. Stand up fights for a hand search every time. Now I shoot an average of 20 000 images a year. The idea that people with little cameras use them more is a myth.
A few days ago I, a hobbist, wrote in response to Canon Australia's facebook question, "what makes a successful portrait". Had this poor sad award winning professional only read my advice he could have saved himself from this ire and made a successful portrait. Though several posters have pointed to "how it should have been done" galleries that obviously followed my receipe, they lacked specific advice. In order that no-one else suffer the same fate, I'll reproduce my advice here:
Tonnes of makeup that they never wear normally, hairstyling done with superglue and rollers. Clothing they've never seen before. Hair light, fill light main light, snoot, maybe a ringflash. Background of marbled paper from a roll. Un-natural pose, fixed blank expression or badly faked smile. Shot with a soft focus filter. Sadly, that's what sells and what keeps many "pro"s in bread and butter. Isn't that one measure of "success"
Jogger: the resolving power will be limited by the lens methinks, even in the samples provided, the 100% are useless except for surveillance
no they've thought of it alright. Google "Light Field" and see how much work is being done on it. (it's not "my" idea). It just seems much more relevant to "photography" than this idea does.
If instead of putting it all through one lens you had a flat board coated with lenses in an array you would have a much higher resolving power. If you had a board about the size of an iPad then the resolving power should be the angle in radians equal to the ratio of a wavelength of light to the width of the board. So the resolving power should be about 0.0003 degrees or about 1 arc second. To give you some idea of how fine that resolution is, Neptune is more than 2 arcseconds wide viewed from Earth. Another way of putting it: If your eyes were that good you could read the 8th row of the eye chart from 1200 feet.
I've been suggesting something like this for a while, but without the central lens. If you had something like an iPad but with the whole back coated with close spaced cameras. You could fit about 2400 cameras in that space. Then with some processing you could do things in post like 3d with variable intraocular distances, variable effective aperture, refocus after shot, variable depth of field,variable point of view, pixel drizzel hyper resolution with stacking for increased effective iso and reduced noise. All these artistic decisions could be made *after* the capture.