DotCom Editor: Call me a skeptic, but I don't believe this for a second.
The parcel's camera always seems to have a perfectly unobstructed view. The camera is never facing down. The box is never in the middle of a stack of other boxes. The lighting is always perfect. The parcel is never in the dark. The white balance is always perfect regardless of whether the parcel is in a warehouse, in a truck (lorry), or outside in the sunshine. The direction of motion is always in the direction toward which the lens is pointing -- moving forward. And on and on...
"The timer circuit was set to make a 3 second video every minute and make longer videos while the box was moving"
Plenty of video is edited out. There're a few instances where you can see that, and there would be no point in showing "nothing".
yabokkie: I have a problem with the word "super-fast". it isn't. this lens is an equivalent of 24.6-53.7mm f/2.8 on Nikon and Sony APS-Cs. it's just as fast as an f/2.8 zoom on 35mm format.
p.s., it's a 25.8-56.4mm f/2.9 on Canon APS-Cs. the real range and f-number may be different that we will likely have a slightly narrower range and less fast zoom.
yabokkie's last straw is that he/she wants to ignore ISO as affecting exposure.
> we are talking about shutter speed when taking photographs
You "were", until your ideas turned out to be mere assumptions.
> so you get that fast speed at lower image quality?
At least now you're getting over "exposure" issues to IQ issues. But, APS-C and FF aren't that far apart in those terms, especially when you're willing to compromise IQ on FF just so that you can match the exposure with APS-C.
>I would like to comfirm that since same ISO doesn't get same image quality on different format
You're making the same excuse that another person did below. By assuming you can bump up the ISO on FF, what you're really acknowledging a flaw in your assumptions. You're bumping exposure and then claiming that as long as we ignore the ISO used, we've established "equivalence".
yabokkie, what exactly is exposure based on? Let us start there.
>it's physically impossible.
An APS-C camera at 18mm f/1.8 will be about a stop faster than a FF at 28mm f/2.8 at same ISO. The DOF and FOV will match, however.
Also consider a FF with 200mm f/2.8. Assume ISO 100, spot metering and a shutter speed of 1/1000s. Next, if the camera allows an APS-C crop mode, do you think the shutter speed will drop? After all, in crop mode, the FOV and DOF will match that of 300mm f/4 on FF.
Fast for exposure.
Lift Off: While it is true that, if you stop to think, this is comparable to making a constant f/2.7 lens for FF, one has to applaud Sigma's effort and will to push the envelope.
I think Sigma deserves credit for delivering something the big guns have either not thought about or have been counting beans.
That being said, I'm not sure if its cost and 2x zoom will be at play. Now, if it does offer excellent performance at f/2, if not f/1.8, some of it may be overcome.
mpgxsvcd: The dpreview comments make it sound like this lens will act like an F2.8 lens for light gathering. It will act just like an F1.8 lens for light gathering.
We're not talking IQ, but exposure. If you've to increase the ISO on FF, you're trying to match the exposure rather than not having to do so (the idea behind equivalence... as in DOF).
Which means nothing when it comes to exposure. It is an f/1.8 lens for exposure, an f/2.8 lens for DOF.
falconeyes: There is so much more to an EVF which can rival an OVF, e.g., closer to 3 MP (iPad) rather than 1.2 MP, closer to 70 Hz rather than 40 Hz refresh rate, a true contrast ratio of closer to 15 stops with dimmed, still readable GUI. A lack of lag (i.e., less than 20 ms). And not to forget, combined to an AF which can actually track fast action.
So, does DPR need to report every and any minuscule progress in the field?
Because it matters.
Sdaniella: mimicking fake analog optical lens flare?lol.
ridiculous. as bad as seeing it replicated in non-photographic paintings or graphic illustrations [ditto: fake 'patterned' bokeh of OOF images]
i see it in many modern movies which use CGI animation, even if it is a 'full animation (like the recent: The Croods - 3D, which otherwise all else was visually exquisite to watch), it's just as absurd. why highlight a flaw of analog optics [the bane to any photographer] in a 'digital virtual world' makes absolutely no sense except for it's sentimental 'hey look, we can fake pretending we have a real optical lens involved!' rather than a virtual (mathematically calculated image of a light source (sun, spot-lights, what have you) shining into a 'virtual camera')
next, they'll have 'fake bad sky polarization' effect on wide angle shots, or 'fake digital rainbows', which were so often misapplied INCORRECTLY via optical filters in the film days.
Faking lens flare isn't starting with this app. You can find a boat load of brushes on Photoshop for the effect.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: It scares me to think people are actually buying these apps. While I can see some fun in using Motion Shot, the Light Shaft app is completely absurd. People should learn to photograph instead of relying on these thingies to make their pictures more (superficially) striking.
@ManuelVilardeMacedo> The question is - will people buy these Sony apps for making surrealistic art? Or any kind of art? I have some doubts...
Why does it matter to you?
Paul_B Midlands UK: So glad I only have the incompatible 5N!
But buying an app would be?
Have you heard of post processing?
I'm glad that I don't own a Ferrari Enzo. I don't have to worry about cost of oil changes.
Scott Greiff: At $4.99 a piece to add "functionality" to your camera, "Shaft" is indeed appropriate.
If you look for freebies, or simply sit in frustration that you can't, then you have no choice. You'd rather be shafted.
Its good to have a choice. To be able to expand. I guess most people that would complain have no idea about apps, much less have purchased any.
Emacs23: So, I can make a conclusion now.I shoot with NEX-5n from the November 2011 exclusively and I cannot say anything bad about IQ (with the little exception the DR could be better for about 1-1.5 stops, after Pentax K-5), I have many shots I like, but the shooting experience is UGLY, this thing is anti-ergonomic and not because of its size but rather poor design, because with RX100 I have much quicker access to the essentials — that's why very many photographers love this little guy . It looks like Sony intentionally makes NEX very hard to control. It managed to spoil very basic controls, make it inconvenient to use. This thing is the typical example of what how not to make camera.I expected they will significantly improve experience with 5R and 6, but they didn't, it still sucks hard.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review