This certainly isn't a big issue for an event's camera like the D5.
However, the curious part of me still would like to inquire if this is due to:- No on-chip column-parallel ADCs (i.e., no Sony chip)?- Too fast (read imprecise) ADC to support 12fps readout?- Other reason?
Extremely high iso cameras (D5, A7s) don't yet seem to be iso-invariant. Still, I'd like to know why.
Snapper2013: Besides photography, it sure would be fun to go hunting game with one of these!Will the laws ever allow hunting game with a drone?
I see no difference between sniper or drone. Both are lazy man vs. wild animal.
falconeyes: The problem of shutter-induced blur in VR systems has a long history.
Interesting, vendors (Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Pentax) don't more seriously test their products against it.
Here you find an in-depth study of the same problem for the Pentax K-7 camera which actually got translated to Japansese to be discussed in the engineering dep.-> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html
Pentax eventually solved the issue for their K-5 update.
@helltormentor, pls refer to my blog (LumoLabs). The answer is too complex to fit here.
There are three notable innovations:
1. Column-parallel ADC (made by Sony, now maybe Canon; sold by Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, now maybe Canon).
2. Dual pixel AF (made by Canon, Sony; sold by Canon, Samsung)
3. New generation Multi-pixel AF algorithms (for dual and quad pixel AF sensors)made by nobody, but would outperform anything possible with a phase AF module.
It is time the various sensor technologies are brought together.
Does anybody know if Canon on-sensor ADC actually is column-parallel ADC technology?
The real innovation with potentially isoless sensors is column-parallel ADC which allows for the ultra-precise "Digital Ramp ADC" type at acceptable read-out speeds. On-sensor ADC alone doesn't do the trick. IIRC the Samsung sensor in the K-7 featured an on-sensor ADC and it had bad read-out noise ...
RyanBoston: Does it have a selfie feature? Can Siri search within the measly 2gb?
That seems to be the road all these companies are trying to go after. Useless features for lifeless people.
> Useless features for lifeless people
Copied to cookie database :)
falconeyes: I must say I am disappointed by the optical performance at the long end.I am not sure that cropped images (aka digital zoom) from e.g., LX100 or RX100 (or DL or GX) would be visibly worse (at same FoV).
I know that I can heavily crop my RX100m3 images at 70mm and still obtain very usable images. Somebody should make the comparison, that would be a useful task when comparing all those recent 1" cameras ...
@cainn24, thanks for the interesting. work. I may do similiar tests as soon as I find the time. DPR's samples look worse to my eye though.
That 1.6MP upscaled may indeed look about the same. That was my point exactly. Did YOU do the test?
> what exactly did you expect from a 10X zoom?
That's a good question. Frankly, I naively thought that the performance must beat that of digital zoom, as otherwise, a shorter zoom with better sharpness may simply fit the bill better.
falconeyes: That's F/36 (equivalent) at the long end. The Raleigh-limit for max. possible resolution (i.e., at vanishing contrast with a perfect lens) at F/36 is 6 MP.
Sony advertizing a 6 MP camera as 18 MP should be reported to market watch agencies.
Otherwise, this is a tiny camera which certainly can provide a lot of fun and usable images up to HD quality.
I may add to my comment that I often fall into the trap of incorrectly computing the diffraction limit myself. It is a factor 4^2 off from what one may think considering the Airy disk diameter. That's why I normally do such back-of-the-envelope calculations in 35mm-equivalent terms where I have a good feeling which results are about right ;)
E.g., the D810 resolves 4.9µm pixels or 9.8µm lp corresponding to its Rayleigh limit reached at F/14. Between about F/5.6 and F/13, there are measurable, then visible losses of micro contrast. Beyond, there is a loss of detail no sharpening can recover. I try to avoid stopping down a D810 beyond F/11.
The camera has a 4.55mm high sensor. The Rayleigh limit at F/6.4 is 4.3µm for a line pair. Which makes 1060 lp/PH or 6 MP (the camera has 1.25µm pixels).
I know from my day-to-day shooting that stopping down up to the Rayleigh limit (for my camera's pixel pitch) does make sense, but not beyond (if I need the resolution). The Rayleigh limit for this camera is reached at F/3.7.
I must say I am disappointed by the optical performance at the long end.I am not sure that cropped images (aka digital zoom) from e.g., LX100 or RX100 (or DL or GX) would be visibly worse (at same FoV).
villagranvicent: With a sensor this small at least they could make the lens faster.
The lens already is 2.1x faster than same-sized RX100 series.(by absolute aperture diameter, there is physics involved, you know ...)
Look up Rayleigh limit, you are off by a factor 2^2, diffraction isn't as bad as many people think. I.e., at the wide end, the #pixels of this camera do almost make sense.I nowhere said this is a bad camera. But really, they should have used a 12MP sensor like many smartphones do or did too.
That's F/36 (equivalent) at the long end. The Raleigh-limit for max. possible resolution (i.e., at vanishing contrast with a perfect lens) at F/36 is 6 MP.
falconeyes: As I see it, there will soon be a lot of demand for technically sound AF performance measurements.
Rishi, how far are your and DPR staff's plans to deploy a proper AF testing suite?
@Rishi, I sent you a PM
zakaria: I like the conceive and valued report except the conclusion!!! K1 is not at league with d610 or 6d .both last camera are entry level cameras and outdated. You even didn't put it in d750 league. The fair compare is D810 at least both are handling 36 mps sensor Both are 1/ 8000 shutter speed both are well made bodies not a combination of plastic and ss. Don't forget the Pentax unique features that you already have mentioned.
D810 has a different sensor more expensive to manufacture and not found in any other camera.
D800/D800E/A7r/K-1 all seem to share the same sensor.
As I see it, there will soon be a lot of demand for technically sound AF performance measurements.
This is not deserving to be on DPR title page.
Except it is about yet another software company which believes photographers are unable to do addition, to add up several monthly payments into the overall payment for five years (which is 99$ here or 600$ for LR CC).
falconeyes: Thats a great day I'll mark in my calendar.
It proves what I always said, that Canon Dual Pixel AF is a trivial patent which cannot be defended at court (Canon filed their patent the next Monday Fuji filed their orginal phase sensel invention patent in 2010 (the Friday before) -- a bold sign how obvious the idea really is).
I am so glad Samsng engineers were not stopped by those kindergaden games.
Now, we all will see good quad pixel AF (the correct execution of the dual pixel idea) from all vendors. Like everybody has already copied the much deeper original idea by Fuji.
BTWI've read and studied Canon's original dual pixel AF patent in detail. They've filed more on it since. But there is no way around Canon's original patent. They basically say that they invented any sensor with multiple sensels below a single microlens. Which OTOH is a ridiculous claim ...