From the image, the lens would be no more than a 1.8mm aperture. Which is only half the 3.3mm of the Nokia 808's lens, the current smartphone class leader. Therefore, this new device can only capture 1/4 the light of the class leader and won't be that interesting.
misha marinsky4: I read diglloyd's review.
Here's my request: DPR has a double blind print test, Zeiss vs Sigma. 11x14, four apertures: 1.4, 5.6, 8, 16.
Would the Zeiss do better than 50/50, which is random?
I*ve test shot the Zeiss lens at Photokina. In the corners at F/1.4, the difference is shockingly large. The problem actually is to focus at F/1.4 exactly enough to deploy all this sharpness.
I look at this lens as a tool turning a D800E into an MF camera equivalent. OTOH, MF cameras are AF typically ...
InTheMist: Watch the video. Much better images than those overprocessed (hiding faults?) examples here.
It's worth noting that the video shows thousands of dollars of studio lighting equipment used. No wonder they're good.
Very good quality can be produced with the 808 and fairly affordable studio equipment. I wonder why they didn't share high rez samples like I did (cf. my post below). I hear the 808 has better IQ than the 1020 and it might have shown ...
This is the comment I left on Nokia's blog:
Thanks for the article. But note that I already reported about PureView studio photography about a year ago:
It includes a technique to properly sync the PureView with studio flashes. And it includes a full size sample image. Where are the full size samples from THIS article btw?
Nice article otherwise.Kind regards Falk
P.S.If you wonder if they knew about the article... it is the seventh hit if you search for: pureview studio
Mathematically, deconvolution is an unstable operator. Therefore, expect no wonders.
It is most useful with a "perfect" convoluted input signal, i.e., without any noise.
Therefore, DPR's assumption that it may be most useful with smartphones lacks a certain degree of understanding.
falconeyes: 0.01 lux is -8 EV.
I heavily doubt it was this dark, as it would correspond be about a moonless starry night. But the fireflies then would illuminate the scenery (or their direct surrounding at least) as main light source and I didn't notice the effect in the video.
Anyway, while dark, -8 EV corresponds to (F/1.4, 1/24s) ISO 1,200,000. I saw extreme noise at 640px web resolution. Scaling web resolution to full 24 MP resolution, the would be the screen pixel noise (24MP) at ISO 14,000. I'd say a normal full frame 24MP dSLR doesn't have this much pixel noise at ISO 14,000.
Therefore, I conclude that the demo shown by Canon is technically lame, more of a marketing gig than anything else.
I was only wondering if it really was pitch black dark as they claimed. Because fire flies then actually illuminate a scene, I have seen it with my own eyes. But in my actual argument, this plays no role, I assumed 0.01lx to be a true assertion.
It is lame because any full frame dSLR can do this already, in still mode at the same shutter speed. The news is that Canon works around a bug how they produce video. And this IS lame.
Roland Karlsson: Few and large pixels is a very good choice for ultra high ISO work, like this one. But, when there is more light, more pixels gives better IQ. So, if you want few and large pixels or more and smaller pixels is a choice. Do you want to maximise high ISO performance or do you want to maximize low ISO performance.
As I said below, the fact that the pixels are large has nothing to do in this. It is that Canon doesn't throw away any pixels for video in this case as they do in their consumer dSLRs.
Look up sensorgen.info to see that larger pixels gain no extra sensitivity for SLRs.
falconeyes: This is one possible approach to decent low light capablity in video.
The other approach is to stop the nonsense to subsample sensors in video mode, reading out maybe 1 out of 6 pixels. This is what creates noise and aliasing artefacts in video. Unneccessarily so, as a few cameras (Panasonic, Nokia) show which don't subsample but create a video signal from all pixels. I.e., it is quite feasible.
Therefore, Thumbs Down for Canon to work around a problem they rather should solve.
I mean that the typical SLR from Canon or Nikon only reads out a small subset of pixels (aka subsampling) used to create the video signal from.
This is contrasted by supersampling where all pixels are read and the video is a full downsampling from the frame.
P.S.Some call it line skipping (esp. for Canon) but line skipping really is a special case of subsampling.
0.01 lux is -8 EV.
This is one possible approach to decent low light capablity in video.
I am sorry, but I cannot read the most important bit from the Adobe release, i.e., that the rental fee is fixed for a lifetime. The Adobe FAQ says:> Customers who sign up by December 31, 2013 will be able to continue their membership. This price is not a special introductory price for your first year only; it is the standard price for this level of membership. But if you cancel your membership in the future, you will not be able to re-join at this special price.
So, Adobe says that $9.99 is the "standard" price. It does NOT say it will never increase. Where did DPR read this most important bit from?
Without, this newest offer is no different from previous ones for PS CC alone.
I would have been keen to learn about AF consistency using the new 70D's dual pixel live view AF.
There is further evidence not mentioned in the DPR article:
Both designs (the patent according to Egami and Olympus according to their website) use a 10 elements in 9 Groups - 3 ED lenses, 2 HR lenses design.
Where the usage of same ED and HR cannot be pure coincidence (even if similiar software optimizations are applied) and Olympus would then break Sigma's patent anyway.
So yes, this is a Sigma patented design licensed to Olympus.
InTheMist: Hm, the Bigma tested better than I expected.
That's not a criticism of DXOMark, I think it's good testing.
Thats's true.I always go to the profile tabs to see actual measurements. Both the Score and the PMpix value are to be ignored totally. With this in mind, their tests are a goid resource.
Go to the profiles tab for Sigma and Nikkor and compare directly 500/8 vs. 400/8. The difference is whopping. Another example that DxO lens tests are useful, their scores are not.
wisep01: Would anyone here at DPReview care to address a perceived contradiction in the test results of this lens--on the D800, it receives both a lower overall and a lower sharpness score than on the D600.
DxO scores are blind for very high resolutions because of their weighting. Go to the profile tabs to really read their results. And keep in mind that D800 pixels are smaller, so similiar acutance means much higher sharpness.
How many more times needs this be said?
It makes no sense to compare 35mm-equivalent focals and not compare 35mm-equivalent apertures. Sensor size is not even mentioned in the table, so it is impossible to draw own conclusions. Even if all cameras share one size, this should have been said.
The article would have been of value if it contained a hint about the cost to OEM of sensors of varying sizes (smart phone to FF). In its current form, the article contains zero bits of information.
After all, a driving force for "larger" would be the falling cost of large sensors.
> though he acknowledges the industry needs a better way of describing sensor size than the current obscure 'inch-type' naming system.
There ALREADY is a better way! Industry simply has to stop the nonsense of mixing equivalent (normalized) focal length with unnormalized aperture and iso ratings. The latter have no meaning whatsoever without taking the sensor size into account. The normalized, equivalent ratings however shine with increasing sensor sizes and bring their benefit to the customers awareness without even talking about the sensor size which, in itself is an impementation detail. It's not meaning anything without taking the aperture into acoount etc.
E.g., describe the Sony RX100II as 28-100mm F/4.9-13.4 ISO1200+and everbody will understand immediately what camera it is. No need to mention a cryptic 1" size ...