Mike_V: Zeiss 135mm Master Prime is T1.3.
Not sure of the f-stop, but faster than f1.4.
So this lens isn't the fastest 135mm available.
Theoretically, a cine lens has no focus breathing while a stills lens has.
Still looks tiny besides a D4shttp://camerasize.com/compare/#639,543
Whatever negativity I read about this SL, it seems to be the first mirrorless which doesn't look and feel like a toy.
brumd: So funny to read all the comments how this mirrorless camera is 'horrendously big' to handle after reading so many threads about mirrorless cameras that are 'rididulously small' to handle.
It would be nice to see them side by side to see how many centimeters is the range between 'ridiculously small' and 'horrendously big'.Somewhere around 3cm? :)
Sigma 20/1.4A 900$ 950g vs.Nikon 20/1.8G 800$ 350g.May the battle begin :)
falconeyes: @Brittany Hillen:> Sans an adapter
I read "Sans" is archaic and used by foreign speakers more than native speakers. It is French for without. Also in this thread, I see this word causes quite some confusion.
My question: Did you use this word for a reason, came it natural for you, or thinking about it now, would you use 'without' instead?
Are you a native speaker, US or UK?
I ask because I am curious to learn about the language. My native language is German.
@everybody ...Brittany may not have responded here. But silently, she changed the original article to now use "without an adapter".
The apology sheds some light onto Adobe.In this post perpetual license era, they seem to have withdrawn the more capable developers from the project (*) and turned it into a money press. Sad thing.__(*) Shipping an interims version known to introduce new bugs is a clear sign of remaining developpers struggling to maintain the code.
falconeyes: This is a better video: https://vimeo.com/141273968It shows there are three groups of cameras and some use a mirror to reflect light to horizontally oriented lenses. Appearently, the mirrors are programmed to control the parallax effect.
I am relatively excited about their approach. The result should beat an RX10m2 at about the same price in a smaller form factor. Beat in terms of IQ and AF capabilities. IQ both wrt noise and bokeh. AF both wrt speed and versatility.
And Shiranai, no, an array of small lenses CAN replace a single big one. Its just physics. However, physics dictates limits to this approach which Lytro choose to ignore because their investors don't know about.
> BTW, the lenses use fixed focus. There is an older interview at Imaging-Resource that contains some technical details. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/04/27/light-interview-no-more-full-frame-dslrs-by-2025
Regarding this interview. The information contained within is erraneous.
I am now in private communication with Rajiv Laroia to clarify a few things. As I initially assumed (based on my calculation), the lenses are variable focus prime lenses indeed.
@shigzeo ... another theory uncalled for.BTW, this much I learned by now: your usage of "sans" in the above sentence is rather bad language. However, "sans adapter" seems to be appropriate if used like an idiom.
Thanks everybody. Now, I learned something. Thanks.
@citrontokyo, thanks, only valid answer so far.
@SeeRoy: I know how "sans" can be used in English language. Thanks. I asked what seems NATURAL for a native speaker, answering for himself only, not the rest of us.
BTW, reading intl. fora can be a good way to ruin your English. That's why I asked this question. And why only a subset of participants should feel qualified to answer.
BTW, sans adjacent to a noun seems to be more natural, as in Sans Adapter, Sans Serif, travelling sans baggage etc.
Therefore "Sans Adapter" could be kind of slang expression to express a solution not requiring an adapter. If so, would like to know.cf. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/29325087 too
Let me repeat my question nobody actually answered:
Does it come natural to a native speaker to use "sans" in above sentence?
In above sentence, not as in Sans Serif. Native speakers only, please. Please, say if from US or UK too.
And don't share your theories. Thanks. I know myself I don't hunt porc and don't eat swine ;)
@Brittany Hillen:> Sans an adapter
@Class A, thanks for the IR link.Lokk at the end, "Editorial Musings, Depth of Field": IR expresses concerns which I share.
In the interview and the diagram, 3 claims are made:1. 100cm to infinity FIXED focus lenses with 150mm equiv. FL2. Sensors have a standard size for cell phones3. Lenses are F2.4 and resolution is 13MP
If I combine 1.-3., I get a contradiction. Somewhere down the road, Light must exaggerate their capabilities.
alfpang: Looking forward to real world test samples of this, and to buying Mark III.
I wonder, if it works out esp for consumer / prosumer level imaging, whether we'll see a new race in number of compound eyes/cameras rather than megapixels.
Is there a physical limit to how many lenses can be used for this? Can it scale up?
Well, it moved away from the compound eye as soon as it could. Insects are too small to have wider aperture eyes so the construction was ok for them.
Mixed focal lenghts don't change the argument. Just consider each group of lenses for a given focal length as an array. Each group takes a different image.
@Class A,Refocussability and resolution are not mutually exclusive but they counteract each other. Strictly speaking, they are a pair of complementary variables per definition of the Heisenberg principle. So, no technology can work around this.
However, also per Heisenberg principle, one can strive for an optimum balance between both variables. Partial refocussability at still decent resolution numbers.
In practice, you'd prefocus such a camera (a classic AF operation) and finetune the focus in post processing.
The 150mm F2.4 lenses say 100cm to infinity. Used as a hyperfocal phone lens (7.6 crop), it would only be 2000cm to infinity. Therefore, I assume its lenses are auto-focussed and only partially refocussed in post. On the other side, resolution can still exceed 20MP.
OTOH, Raytrix (a German machine engineering and vision company) holds patents on partially refocussable light field cameras. My become an interesting aspect some day. Raytrix actually sells a 42MP camera ...
falconeyes: From the video linked in my below comment:
They use:5x 35mm F2.45x 70mm F2.46x 150mm F2.4with up to 10 cameras contributing per image. No word on crop factor but I would assume a 7.6x smart phone crop factor.
Because lenses are up to 50mm apart, the bokeh will roughly correspond to150mm F2.8 full frame, more with computed bokeh from the capturable depth map.
The combined noise (iso capability) will roughly be that of anF7.4 lens full frame, a bit better than an APSC kit lens would yield.
However, the real competitor of this thing won't be dedicated cameras but smartphones which soon will sport camera arrays too.
Moreover, I do hope this thing isn't too thick (it is thicker than a smartphone would be allowed to be) and that they can compute 24mm (or less) wide angle from their 5 35mm lenses.
@MeganV Unpolished software would render images with blurred background but somehow unpleaseant / busy bokeh. This is because the disk of confusion does contain a large shaded area.
The shaded areas must be filled from a depth map which is computationally complex. Only then will the bokeh quality compete with larger glass.
I assume they choose to ignore this entire area of complexity for the time being in order to get the thing out at all.
There is such a limit. Personally, I consider 5x5 arrays, maybe 6x6 to be a good balance. Beyond, loss of resolution due to diffraction wrt a single lens takes a too big toll. Ask Lytro or anybody who worked on plenoptics some 100 years ago.
BTW, that's a reason why evolution eventually moved away from the compound eye. And settled for between 2 and 8 eyes.
From the video linked in my below comment:
This is a better video: https://vimeo.com/141273968It shows there are three groups of cameras and some use a mirror to reflect light to horizontally oriented lenses. Appearently, the mirrors are programmed to control the parallax effect.