tesilab: But does the shutter still make a loud "clack"?
Did you test it or are you making things up?
ProfHankD: THE QUESTION is: does this 5-axis sensor movement work with UNCHIPPED manual lenses? For their A-mount bodies, the answer is very foolishly no. I hope that Sony has not forgotten to put menu options in that allow users to specify the focal length of the lens so the IBIS can do its job without requiring a chipped adapter. This is absolutely critical!
Here's an answer to that:http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1466/1462/original.jpg?w=600&h
D200_4me: Assuming the new IS works well just like Oly's E-M1 with any lens attached, kudos to Sony. It's looking like a better and better system every day. I may have to break down and try one some day...even though I seem to have settled on the Fuji X-T1 and its system/lenses. I'd love to see an even better sensor in the new X-T1 version and with in-body 5 axis IS. Then I'd be in heaven. :-) Oh and even faster AF would be nice too, but not totally necessary for my particular shooting.
You can manually set FL for IBIS, which implies that it should work with non native glass too.http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1466/1462/original.jpg?w=600&h
Light Pilgrim: In my opinion, the problem of Sony is the lack of lenses. Personally I find nothing to be excited about so many new camera bodies from Sony is there is no portrait lens to compete with 35 mm, 50mm or 85 mm in the F/1.2-F/1.4 range.
Professionals will have the same issues with A9.
What Sony will do good is landscape photography, but not portraits.
With the adapter, you now have a stabilized 135mm f/1.8 CZ, stabilized 85mm f/1.4 CZ and stabilized 50mm f/1.4 CZ. And as for the comment about macular degeneration, there's focus confirmation, peaking and enlargement for MF.
Thorgrem: This probably means no new stabilized lenses from Sony (if also the other E-mount body's get IBIS). Looks like all the current E-mount body owners are screwed.
There already are OS lenses, there are OS lenses on the roadmap and without knowing the cost, no one knows if cheaper cameras will get IBIS too. Seems like a clear case if FUD to me.
noirdesir: Doesn't the iPhone 6 camera sensor offer the same: on-sensor PD AF & one-shot HDR?
"because stacked like BSI isn't tied to any clear sensor performance improvement"
In principle it does, see Ziptronix technology used by Sony though a license agreement, which allows for electrical connections with the bond without the need for TSV's, thus higher efficiencies (less wasted light gathering space) with higher pixel densities. Ceteris paribus (including total pixel count per given area) of course.
I agree that it would have been nice to mention current PDAF implementations in smartphones.
The headline literally says:"the Industry's First*1 Stacked CMOS Image Sensor with an Image Plane Phase Detection Signal Processing Function for High-Speed AF"
Notice the word "stacked". Key difference.And it's not the second implementation. The first practical implementation on a phone camera was on the Galaxy S5, using a Samsung isocell BSI sensor with PDAF. After that came the Note 4 and iPhone 6(plus) using 2 different Sony BSI sensors with on sensor PDAF. This is the first time it's combined with the technology that followed up on the BSI designs back in 2012: stacked (BSI) CMOS sensors. Once implemented, that would make it the third time we see PDAF on a smartphone.
No, it's a "regular" BSI (Exmor R) sensor in the iPhone and not a stacked (Exmor RS) sensor as seen here. With much lower resolution for stills, no 4K mode, slower read out and no on chip HDR processing (rather trough the phone software after 2 quick exposures instead).
PhotoKhan: Discriminating between "pros" and amateurs is one big, huge blunder.Now you'll have high-end enthusiasts mad at you.
If you HAD to start this way on account of limited resources, just let customers know that, something in the lines of "a wider scope of users will reached in the next step of this service...".
All you had to was look at how CPS does. It's all based on equipment owned, not business cards.
It's not just about alianating or not, it's about what can be afforded. More than likely, the Canon type of program cannot be afforded right now. Could have a thing or two to do with the depth of Sony's pockets currently...
Nikon, who's been in this business quite some time, requires you to be a full time pro in order to qualify too.https://www.nikonpro.com/aboutnps.aspx
Calvin Chann: US only
As of now, no European country but it will start in Germany april 2015 and then roll out to other countries. Asian countries are mentioned too.
No, Europe too:http://presscentre.sony.eu/pressreleases/sony-imaging-pro-support-comes-to-european-photographers-1054502
You can use Wikipedia and work through the math. The point about infinities isn't real hard to see,
I'll look for the exact equation about an electron.
But division works this way, divide a constant by some number smaller than the constant and you'll get a bigger and bigger result. Drop that divisor to smaller and smaller fractions (or decimal numbers) and the result blows up to infinity. That's a localized (point) electron, with known momentum and position, ostensibly demonstrating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
I DID NOT raise the perturbation point.
The A7S isn't a particularly good high ISO camera.
My point remains that with a better understanding of "random" noise (something quantum mechanics invokes in place of understanding) there remains the real possibility of counting that other 35 percent of the photons.
And careful: the exclusive particle nature of the photon is more theory/belief (Feynmann's again) than established fact.
Another claim proven wrong by many controlled low light tests, where it shows less purple/cyan in shadows and less banding than both the DF and D4s. But I'm sure your magic RAW files that no one but you has ever seen, disagree. ;-)
semorg: 1/3 inch sensor at 1.27 megapixels = 63.5 megapixel Full Frame sensor!
The flaws still apply to stills too, as does the major loss of vertical resolution (and color information) and the fact it requires a hack.
The "mono ISO" uncompressed RAW tricks only have to do with shifting the saturation curve a bit towards the right. Gaining between 0.3 and 0.5 EV isn't exactly the game changer you make it out to be.
And again, you said 12MP wasn't enough for a DSLR, yet here you're advocating downsizing to hide noise?
Your whole point about ARRI systems has nothing to do with your initial Canon claims to begin with. Others, such as RED, use different exposure times, which is quite hard (ahem) to do for photos from cameras that still have to rely on physical shutters due to their sensor designs.
Either you have trouble reading or just like to resort to straw man arguments. The video hides the flaws for being lower resolution and possibly temporal NR. Full resolution stills (without cutting vertical resolution, crawling moiré and aliasing or extra blurring) with 14 EV of DR is not possible with Canon cameras.
"I specifically said what CAN BE DONE with video (lo-res) CAN ALSO BE DONE with STILLS "
Read again, I said the principle in the video example is the same as "multi-ISO", just with flaws less visible due to the low res sampling and possible temporal NR from which video benefits. Hence why you can't have it work for full resolution stills, without cutting half the vertical resolution and the other downsides mentioned. Hence why you're not showing us (nor is ML without the points mentioned) any full resolution stills with 14 EV of DR. Despite "being in the know", as you claim it. It helps your credibility to stop making claims about Canon cameras that cannot be backed up by reality. Downsizing? You claimed that's basically cheating and that 12MP isn't even enough, let alone less.
We're not discussing other cameras here, you made claims about existing Canon cameras and have yet to back up your claims with a single full resolution still 14 EV shot. Quod non erat demonstrandum indeed.
Sdaniella: Powershot G-series dcams initially had larger pixels (larger than 3um), albeit with lower res fewer pixels, and over time, progressively got smaller pixels, sub-3um pixels, and then finally, sub-2um pixels, as the pursuit of more mp for higher res was achieved, and incremental improvements for IQ in lo-light at hi-ISOs
now, that the mp 'war' has cooled off for dcams, and interest has waned as smartphones have included its mp war (encroaching on smaller sensor dcam territory)
offering larger sensor in small dcam bodies (and smartphones, too) is much welcome, and long overdue:
it's nice to see Powershot G-series also returning to larger pixels, larger than 3um pixels for G1X-series, and larger than 2um pixels for G-series (G7X, even though this is more an S-series form factor model, like the S120)
sub-2um pixel dcams can remain reserved for super-zooms, sub-3um for medium zooms, which could mean many more short-zoom or prime lens models with sub-4um pixel sensors for fixed lens dcams
It's not a handicap, it's a feature!
Fake blacks, real blacks, so much gibberish, subjective claims and contradictions, it's worth bundling as a comedy book.
"you're ignoring mono-ISO uncompressed RAW (again)its merely unhid (uncooked) DR 14 EV"
No, it's not "unhid". You need those ADC's and signals processed to make the full resolution usable for a single shot. There is no such thing as a "mono ISO" 14 EV shot from a Canon, because it's not possible. Even ML can't help you there, hence the lack of examples.And for "multi-ISO" shots, bypassing some of the read noise where it hurts the most (shadows), the downsides are as listed above and cannot be solved with existing Canon cameras.
"don't ignore the fact what can be done with video (example) is same for hi-res stills."
No, it's not the same for stills, since the video is a low resolution sampling of the sensor, hiding most of the flaws that come with "multi ISO" reading of the sensor. Temporal differences also affect read noise. The ADC's will still give you the same (high read noise) DR results for full resolution stills as before and your only option is the one mentioned earlier,with all its flaws (half the vertical resolution, crawling moiré and aliasing or even extra blurring to hide those artifacts and a firmware hack).
Giving your RAW files a flat gamma curve, isn't magically going to improve your DR either, for ADC reasons mentioned above. It's the converter software makers that define the output curve,* regardless* of input (such a flat curve), so that reasoning ("catering to the consumer wish") doesn't hold.
Still waiting for that full resolution 14 EV Canon still example.
Baloney. The video works similar to the "multi-ISO" RAW, with the same limitations. Only because you're already sampling a much smaller resolution for video, the flaws are less visible. There are no full resolution still samples, because it's not possible. That's why you're not able to show them and keep falling back on dreams based on false assumptions.