falconeyes: When I saw the LX100 with its A setting on both speed and aperture rings, I immediately thought "sweet" and "Leica S". The best way to do that IMHO.
Now with Leica branding the LX100, it is clear that Leica-Panasonic cooperation went beyond lenses. It includes the UI too. This Panasonic has Leica ergonomics inherited and I guess, it started before the LX100.
Btw, I know, it all is repeated history from 10 years ago, Pana LC1 or Leica Digilux 2, but the argument still holds true.
When I saw the LX100 with its A setting on both speed and aperture rings, I immediately thought "sweet" and "Leica S". The best way to do that IMHO.
The above links to Zeiss Flickr Album for this lens too
incl. this 24MP one:
falconeyes: @DPReview team:
I believe it is a bit unfair to post every news for ZEISS high end DSLR lenses (like Otus 85/1.4) and skip the Photokina news about similiarly priced and performing lenses from another German optics specialist:
- Schneider Makro-Symmar 85/2.4 for Canon and Nikon- Schneider Xenon 35/1.6 for Canon and Nikon- Schneider Xenon 50/1.4 for Canon and Nikon
Never mind, I just found that Schneider-Kreuznach already announced the same 3 lenses at Photokina 2012. Now again. Strange.
You are right. I just picked the closest Photokina report to make my comment. Which happened to be Zeiss and M mount. It is hard to post in the comment section of an article which doesn't exist ;)
Panasonic must have missed the PureView idea: the option for a digital 3x zoom w/o loosing too much of image quality. This requires a sharp lens in the center, a bright aperture, and diffraction-limited performance in the center (e.g., enough pixels like 5x3x3 or 45MP). And a decent sensor size, correct. But that alone isn't enough.
rwbaron: Looks like a great camera in so many ways but it's a shame though about the sensor. I'll wait for the reviews and tests but this will probably not replace my 7D.
Canon is the only company now with off-chip ADC but maybe they pulled a rabbit out of their hat but I doubt it.
@Karl Gnter Wnsch:
Correct, smaller structures do not automatically mean better image quality. And as shown by their 40 mega sensel APSC sensor, doesn't limit pixel count too much. After all, sensels are still 2000 x 4000 nm wide.
But with a limit at a 500 nm process, unlike Sony's 180 nm used in the D800 2 years ago, Canon is unable to embedd complex circuitry like 3700 ADCs onto the die. (Note: Sony uses 90 nm (pixels) and 65 nm (logic) in their newest processes.)
And this does mean no access to better image quality: the result is extra read noise at low iso. This has nothing to do with approach or tonality. It is just a limit of the fab Canon owns.
Sooner or later, Canon will be able to use a more recent process and this limitation will be a thing of the past for Canon too.
The 7DmkII certainly is a nice camera.
But it also shows how slow the progress in the photographic industry has become. Most advance is in the camera control logic (AF, metering).
Actually, we're now back in the days of analog film, with a nice pace of evolution and cameras not deprecating too fast. Not a bad thing in my book where photography matters more than gear.
Canon would have to renew their cmos fab infrastructure, going to a smaller structure process than their current fab can handle.
A new fab is a very expensive thing. Sony and Samsung have the required size. But Nikon, e.g., has the same problem with their own fab and buys Sony etc. for many cameras.
It won't change until Canon builds a new fab or outsources sensor production.
mpgxsvcd: “but you need to remember that ISO100 on a small sensor won't be the same quality as ISO 100 on a larger sensor.”
It almost sounds like you are saying “If I take a full frame sensor and cut it down to micro four thirds size the noise for ISO 100 will magically change”. If you crop a sensor noise does not change.
I won't have the time to follow your nice conversation beyond this point. But maybe, this is at the heart of the problem: Resampling vs. light gathering. You think it is two separate things while it isn't.
Maybe, start to think that every pixel holds a count of #photons which had hit that pixel (not true yet, but close enough for any thought experiment). Now, resampling 4 pixels into 1 becomes identical to 1 pixel receiving 4x #photons, 4x the light. And for your own thought experiment, you need to resample in order to compare images with equal #pixels which is a prerequisite when talking about pixel noise comparisons.
I stop here. Probably, you have committed too deeply to your way of thinking to be able to draw back now. However, if you still can and apologize, it would show how great a person you really are. We all make errors from time to time. I wish you a good time with your photography, bye now.
@dtmateojrI will reply to your "2 noisy sensors don't make one clean one" argument. However, first let me say, you should really focus on trying to understand better. Maybe, you don't have a clear understanding of what noise is. E.g., did you take into account that noise depends on the (spatial) frequency, like it does in audio? Or that noise is a genuine property of light, not pixels? Here now goes my reply to your argument:
If you add 4 sensors to form a bigger sensor of four times the surface, you end up with four times the #pixels each with the exact same pixel noise as before. I am sure you agree.
However, in order to get the same image as before, you have to combine 4 pixels into 1, in order to have the same #pixels in both images. Because you cannot compare noise in a say 8 MP and 32 MP image in the naive way you assume you can. And adding 4 pixels into 1 makes the signal 4x as big, but the noise only twice as big (taught in math). Leaving you with half the noise per signal.
falconeyes: Does the DPR article contain an error?
All iPhone 5-s and 6-s have 1.5 um pixels, 8 million of them. Their sensor sizes should be identical. BTW, this explains why the camera module has the exact same depth for all models and why it protudes with the thinner 6 models ...
> I cannot imagine how things could be significantly improved without making the camera module bigger.
That's pretty clear within the industry. Lens array camera modules will be just as thin and approach DSLR camera image quality and DoF capabilities. And limited support for adjusting focus in post.
You are right about the 5. Also, the 5 was f/2.4 while the newer ones are all f/2.2. Seems like they all share the same camera module with just an update to the sensor silicon.
Which makes me wonder what new camera module needing 2 years development time they may have up their sleeves ...
magneto shot: they should hire me for the camera part. Faster autofocus would not make any sense unless it can track the subject for video. As of now, its already fast for normal photos shoot, doubling the AF means nothing.
Some suggestions on Iphone 7 - Swipe-able lens, eg 21 mm -> 35 -> 85 Just swipe the lens behind and u get a diff focal length. 21 would do well not just on landscape but on selfie/group. It has natural slimming distortion.
- Infrared photography - nothing is more mind boggling than providing a simple feature to expand the user's creativity. Infrared is easy to implement on cameras and should be built in
Apple, call me ok - firstname.lastname@example.org ;-)
@magneto shot ... God bless they don't.BTW, the iPhone 6 does track in video (did you actualky watch the keynote?) and your recommendations are all nonsense.
Does the DPR article contain an error?
John McCormack: Bigger iPhones? But, didn't Tim Cook two years ago tell us that the 4" iPhone was the "perfect size for one handed use?" Still, the camera looks a bit better, but the deals on the 5s will make it very attractive to first-time users.
> "perfect size for one handed use?"
I think this does still hold true. Analysts say that two handed use is becoming increasingly important though, with people spending less time actually phoning acording to stats.
Ron A 19: Cool! First S-system f2.0? I'm guessing a new Otus 85mm will blow this away though (for less $).
@HowaboutRAW, I believe Matt Granger recently said something about the Leica (in his 85 Otus youtube video?) and he seemed to like the Otus better.
Rod McD: I know this is principally a gear driven site, but I think products like these very exclusive and expensive lenses must lead us to ask whether the gear is more important than who's behind it and what's in front of it. Adams, HCB, Capa - none of them had lenses as good as we have today. Did it matter? An image is more about moment and content than technology.
The best gallery quality portraits I know of are shot with medium or large formats. 35mm in Germany is called 'Kleinbild' (small image) for a reason. The Otus brings the historically high quality of large print portrait photography to 35mm and this is good news.
Who says the Leica M 50/2 beats the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4?
That would be a stupid comment as the Zeiss real strong point is it is tac-sharp at f/1.4 already, something the Leica obviously cannot claim. Moreover at f/2 and f/2.8 and with D800E, the Zeiss is pretty much sharper than anything measured to date. Nice bokeh too.
So again, what are you referring to?
I am wondering which Chinese companies will emerge copying Japan camera corp. now. I guess copying esp. MILCs would be easy.
Looking at examples like http://www.kinefinity.com/?lang=en I guess the happy days for Canon & Co. are to end sooner than later.