Dvlee: It says Konost is an American startup but exactly where is it going to be made? China? Does anyoneat all make cameras in the US?
I'm not sure how much of a market there is for such a basic camera. It seems like it might appeal to senior citizens who are overwhelmed by complicated features and functions of modern cameras and feel nostalgic for their old rangefinders.
Still I admire their gumption to attempt to start up a camera company in the environment in which the only new camera companies are started by giant corporations that can pour tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars into the project. I'm afraid however , that in order to make it in today's market they would have to come up with something that is more innovative and advanced.
Yes the problem is deeper and more widespread but it really does;t have to be that way.
Take the guitar industry as an example. Brands like Gibson and Fender are hybrid companies. Theyhave outsourced the production of their budget models to Mexico, Korea, China, etc while still manufacturing their premium lines in the US. Discriminating guitarists insist upon US made guitars and are willing to pay a premium price for them. There are still many companies like Rickenbacker, that refuse to compromise their products by outsourcing or making budget lines and there are literately thousands of boutique guitar makers who produce handmade products of ultra premium quality and price.
And just as there are American made guitar amplifiers and electronic devices, so too are there American made flash systems and accessories...so why not cameras? Not cheap consumer products, but premium quality, premium price should be possible.
Yes Aptina makes sensors, I think in the US. Aptina was a division of Micron, and was acquired by On Semiconductor in 2014 for a cool $400 million. So we'e talking some seriously big money behind Aptina. Aptina does not make cameras.
The Konost is reportedly using a sensor from Belgium.
It says Konost is an American startup but exactly where is it going to be made? China? Does anyoneat all make cameras in the US?
Hugo808: How about 40mp HDR?
Ah! I understand.
But HDR tone mapping is not only a very subjective process, it’s also one that requires a lot of finesse to get the desired effect without introducing artifacts or looking overcooked. I don’t even trust the camera to make a decent JPEG or B&W, much less tone map an HDR image!
For example, for an artistic cityscape of decaying buildings I would push the limits for a gritty edgy feel, but for an architectural interior I just want to give it that “well lit” look to bring the dark interior shadows and bright widow views of the exterior into balance, without having that “HDR look.” There is no one size fits all HDR process.
As for the editing time sink, I know all too well how that goes! With digital it’s easy to over shoot things and then end up with a lot of editing to do. In post that’s just a workflow issue, but in shooting I just had to slow down, be a little bit more deliberate; shoot slower but shoot better. And when shooting multi shot techniques, keep notes
Stefan...that all depends upon what you're using to do your HDR merge...what software, what hardware? I use Oloneo HDR and even on my old XP machine its pretty quick. It as quick and as easy as opening and processing a single image in Camera Raw.
brycesteiner: I think they might be able to do this by also using 4 shots instead of 8 and still get the desired resolution. This will probably end up in all camera within 5 years just like liveview and sensor cleaning.
There are two ways to create super-resolution. One way is to precisely reposition the sensor exactly halfway between the normal sensor positions on both axis. Easy to do with a large sensor at slow speed. With a small sensor alignment is much more critical and using the in camera stabilization, its happening much quicker. But super-resolution software that is used to create high resolution stills from video does so by taking 16 or more frames that have been subject to minute vibrations between frames. Super-resolution software actually depends upon random differences between the frames to ensure that the data in each is different. It then “averages” the data andt condenses 16 pixel sets down to 4. It actually works better with a light small format camera that is more prone to vibration than with a large format camera that is rock steadyThe Olympus system is a hybrid. It uses both sensor movement and super-resolution processing. Less precision is required if more pixel sets are made
HDR would require even more exposures. That might be possible in the future when the sensor is capable of capturing thousands of frames per second. It's also take a lot of processing power. Olympus is probably pushing the limit on how fast all the operations can take place, and one still has to consider that all the exposure have to take place within an exposure time short enough to freeze any movement between exposures.
One step at a time.
However, you could still do HDR by making three separate exposures in the high MPX mode. I've not been satisfied with in camera HDR processing in autio HDR modes. I get better results by post processing HDR. So you might be better of sticking t the standard way of doing HDR.
Tilted Plane: The question does linger--is a $900 camera, without a lens, entry level? The Rebel line seems to beg for a true entry level--in terms of price--without having to buy a 2 or 3 year old model. No?
Peter62...the 2009 sensor in the T5 is just fine for an entry level shooter.
mpgxsvcd: I read the review so far and I simply couldn’t help thinking that I would never buy a Canon 7D MKII over this camera. There simply wasn’t anything I saw in that review that would convince me otherwise.
Sure each camera has its own benefits and drawbacks. However, the NX1's benefits far outweigh its drawbacks and the 7D MKII’s benefits.
However, I simply can't convince anyone else that this is the camera to get. When I mention the Samsung camera they say “I would be more comfortable getting something everyone else has like a Canon”.
The average photographer cares more about not getting the “wrong” camera than the “right” camera. They don’t want to take a chance buying a camera that is inferior and no one else uses because they are afraid people will say "I told you so".
With the Canon camera they can simply say “Everyone else has it so it can’t be that bad”. Convincing people that the majority of camera buyers are wrong is a next to impossible task even though I think that is true.
@ The Philips...if Canon or Nikon APS-C shooters want to use premium primes then full frame lenses are the only way to go...not because they are better but because are necessarily better than APS lens but simply because they are the only primes available. Canon and Nikon offer only a few primes for cropped sensors.
Mssimo: Very good deal since no one really wants autofocus for really high mag macro work anyway.
pulsar...I'm a bit confused about what you're saying.
If you're saying that by mounting the lenses face to face , it's only possible with an AF lens? As I stated above, I did this with old Olympus lenses, which are manual focus, so it simply isn't true that one has to be an AF for that to work.
If on the other hand you're saying that in order to use the Magic Lantern the lens has to be AF, then that's a completely different matter. Of course if you are using a remote program to operate the camera and do the focusing, then its obvious that it has to be an AF lens.
As I said before, unless you are using a touch screen , or a remote system with a touch sensitive focusing system, AF isn't going to work very well, but if you are using a touch screen, the touch system will only work by using AF.
But I'm not using Magic Lantern or any other kind of remote system. Not everyone can use Magic Lantern, in which case you'll have to shut auto focus off and do it manually.
Clint009; when this report first appeared I tried but could not access the sample images. Now that I've been able to se them , all I can say is this whole conversation is moot because those images are not sharp, not by a long shot.
I'm getting much better results with a 1:1 macro and extension tubes.
pulsar; I used that method long ago on an Olympus OM-1. I glued two step up riings together to reverse mount a 28mm to the front of a 100mm. I also had an adapter to reverse mount a lens to the body. But the best by far was an enlarger lens reverse mounted onto extension bellows.
Whenever I shoot a series for focus stacking I also shoot a few images stopped way down as a contingency. When comparing the focus stacked images to the stopped down images, I'm not really seeing that big a difference. The stopped down image may require a little bit more sharpening but not so much that is degrades the image.
I think the diffraction problem is being overstated.
Henrik Herranen: A macro announcement without any mention of the working distance? That's highly suspicious. My guess would be something between 0 and 2 centimeters at 2X magnification. I'd happy to be wrong, though.
EDIT: Went to the Venus Optics website which claims minimum working distance is 6 cm. Still not much, but better than expected. Fair enough, though I still think working distance is essential to any macro announcement.
While there may be differences in the working distance of different lenses, does it really matter if there is a couple of centimeters difference from one lens and another?
I think the differences between long lenses and short lenses is a more important factor.
A 60 mm meter lens is going to be close no matter what. whether the lens is optically 2:1 or is being used with extension tubes, it's going to be close.
As I stated before, working close provides the "bugs eye" perspective on the subject while working from a stand off distance yields a flatter perspective. Get far enough from the subject with a really long macro and the image looks more like an image that has been enlarged and cropped.
When photographing flat objects working distance has no effect on perspective , but when shooting 3D objects, working close yields a more dramatic perspective.
Working close is more difficult but I don't think a few centimeters matter that much. At 2:1, it'll be close no matter what.
While its intriguing that this lens goes to 2X, I’m already getting that with a 1:1 with extension tubes.
So the question is if the Venus lens is sharper than a 1:1 macro prime with extension tubes. If it is then I wonder how well it would perform with extension tubes at 4X. That would make it a very affordable alternative to the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5X macro.
I also wonder how it is achieving 2X. Does it have internal optical focusing or is it just moving the lens further from the focal plane? If it’s the former them maybe it could be sharper than a macro with tubes. But if it’s only extending the focusing movement, then it’s really nothing more than a conventional macro with built in extension. In that case, save your money and buy some extension tubes.
I would reserve judgment on this until we see some test results. If it’s sharper than using tubes, then it’s a buy. If no,t there are other ways to achieve better than 1:1 without breaking the bank for a Canon MP-E 65mm macro.
Oh I agree with you completely that once you get beyond 1:1, manual focus is the way to go. But I wouldn't say you are the typical photographer. I think the typical photographer would be chasing bees and butterflies in the garden with their macro lens. Only the less typical photographer is going to bother with a tripod, much less focusing rails.
What exactly do you mean by the minimum working distance is "not enough"
Do you mean that the working distance should be longer at maximum magnification so you don't have to get right on top of the subject? Or do you mean the working distance should be closer so you can get that true "bugs eye" perspective.
Many people prefer the "stand off" position of a 100mm that won't disturb small creatures, is a safe distance away from things that could bite or sting like bees and spiders, and will enable you to get macro shots of things that you cannot get physically close to.
Other want to get as close as possible so they can get the bugs eye view that makes tiny creatures look like huge monsters!
I like to get as close as possible. I've had a few bugs and spiders jump onto me and was bitten by a none-poisonous snake...anything to get the shot!
But there are certain creatures from which I keep my distance. That's when the long working distance of a tele-macro comes in handy.
Mssimo, while MF is preferable for maximum magnification work, you won’t always be using the lens at max. mag. When tracking bees and bugs in the garden, you’ll be surprised how quickly a foraging bee or a flower swaying in the breeze can move in and out of focus. AF can adjust much faster than you can manually focus the lens. AF isn’t foolproof, but in certain circumstances, you’ll get more in focus shots with AF than with MF. I’ve found that when shooting handheld in the wild, I will be switching AF on and off to see which way works best.
I’ve also found AF useful when positioning the camera in awkward positions, like when you’re using one hand to grab onto something while stretching out over water for a one handed shot.
While much of the macro work I do is precise manual focus work, AF and image stabilization have done more than come in handy, they’ve allowed me to get shots that would have been impossible without them.
pulsar123, unless you are using touch screen focusing control, which most people aren’t, I don’t see how AF can be used for focus stacking.
Assuming the camera is properly locked in place, which it should be for focus stacking, isn’t AF just going to lock onto the same point every time? How is AF going to know which points to focus on?
When working at max magnification, I find that AF can be balky and rarely focuses on the right point. While shooting a centipede on my wall (Canon EFS-60mm +20mm ext, handheld w/flash) I wanted the eyes to be the sharpest point and AF wasn’t working well. I switched it off, racked the lens to min focus and focused by adjusting the camera distance. I shot a few dozen images, all razor sharp.
When doing macro focus stacking, I rarely use internal lens focusing. I use a focusing rail which allows finer focus control. Focusing with the lens seems to cause greater shifts in magnification than with a rail.
So how do you shoot focus stacking with AF?
Dvlee: In 2001, Imacon used the sensor shift to produce a then astounding 22 MP. It was very slow and required the subject to remain perfectly still through all the shots.
So the question is how fast could this rumored camera capture four images? In real world conditions it would have to be very fast to avoid movement between exposures, which is not inconceivable given that IBIS works very fast. But the exposures would have to be at a very fast shutter speed and frame rate, necessitating bright light, wide open apertures and hi ISO.
I’ve been thinking that if the sensors could be shifted for image stabilization, then why not shift (vert and horiz) for perspective control and multishot panoramas and maybe even swing and tilts for focus control, like a view camera?
@pko. You’re forgetting that this discussion is just hypothetical, based upon a rumor. You can’t say “you can’t do that.” Maybe Oly has figured out a way that it can be done.
There was once a time when you couldn’t grab a good still from a video, until someone figured out how to do it and digital photography was born. At first digital cameras couldn’t do video, now they can. They said you couldn’t do video with CMOS, only CCD, but now you can. Now still cameras are using CMOS chips to capture 4K video, with electronic shutters and from that video you can pull a decent still shot. All this is being done on the very same chip used for high resolution still photography.
Then there are high speed videos camera like the 17,000 fps Edgertronic that will sell for less than $5k. Yes hi speed res is low but that’s just a technological limitation that is improving as we speak. Perhaps Oly has already overcome that limitation.
Don’t say it can’t be done, someone do it anyway.
I get what you’re saying. Capture rate could be no faster than the cameras FPS capability, and it’s obvious the shutter would have to electronic. When thinking in terms of still camera fps limitations, it does not seem feasible that the frame rate could be fast enough.But there are high speed digital video cameras capable of tens and even hundreds of thousands of frames per second, so by using high speed video technology, it’s entirely feasible to capture dozens of frames within 1/1000 sec or less.
Typically, the highest speed videos are captured at a lower resolution, but the data is recorded as a sequence of images. If instead of assembling the images into a motion picture sequences, the low resolution files could be composited into a single high resolution image.
Therefore, the limiting factor would not be FPS capability, the limiting factors would be the speed at which the sensor can shift and ISO high enough for the fast exposures that would be required.