ragmanjin: I'd be curious to see how it compares to the equivalent Samyang, they've been getting some good reviews as well.
That's too bad, though I understand. I have MF lenses now but no viewfinder. I'm hoping a viewfinder will make MF easier otherwise I'm done with it as well
Yes, Samyang has a 24 1.4 that covers the full frame image circle.
sportyaccordy: Sony should answer with a phone version of the RX1
I meant RX100.
Sony should answer with a phone version of the RX1
Looks like an MF body. Beefy
babart: Why did they not make an adapter to use all their other lenses with?
Not sure what the author meant when he said it was hard to find, it's in stock and available everywhere. Admittedly it doesn't work very well.
Hopefully the M4 will have a humped EVF and come to the states. Based on what the M3 costs I will probably still take my chances with a used A7
sportyaccordy: Looks good. Wish it had a viewfinder though. That's a deal breaker for me. Maybe they will make a follow up to the NX30?
Yea the more I dig into it the more of a conundrum there appears to be. NX1 appears to be an NX30 with the new BSI sensor for 3x the body price. They have the same 2.3MP viewfinder. Def curious to see what Samsung does next with this sensor.
Looks good. Wish it had a viewfinder though. That's a deal breaker for me. Maybe they will make a follow up to the NX30?
sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time
That's OK, it's a lot less serious to me than it is to you.
You could argue that, but it wouldn't be true. The non-linear relationship between sensor size and area is well known to anyone with a clue.
Multiple smaller sensors yielding the same total area would be cheaper than an equivalent larger sensor. Sensor area vs cost has a near exponential relationship.
And yes, several monochromatic sensors would have less chromatic abberations than a single sensor covering all colors. Again simple optics.
Pedantry.... when all else fails and you have nothing of substance to argue.
More logical fallacies. Smaller sensors are cheaper to make than larger ones. This is camera economics 101. A monochromatic sensor with a dedicated lens (i.e. no 3CCD stuff) yields more resolution and is less susceptible to optical issues like abberrations. Optical physics 101. Etc. etc. If you want to discuss why I'm wrong then break down exactly what you disagree with rather than trying to attack my language or wording because my ideas make you uncomfortable in ways you can't explain/argue against.
Sure I did. I'm not going to argue points I never made though, like the idea that I could "out invent" a camera manufacturer.
What a silly strawman.
Same reason DSLR makers have no selection of fast wide angle primes for APS-C or Canon/Nikon don't take mirrorless seriously. They can be very dumb/shortsighted.
The main advantage of such a setup would be as you mentioned- getting larger sensor area with a higher yield. It works for cell phones as they tend to have small sensors and cheap fixed lenses. A single color sheet over each lens will be cheaper to make and have higher transmission than a Bayer filter, and yield more accurate color data and higher resolution.
Another way to play it could be to have multiple regular cameras with Bayer filters combining to either create a physical shallow DoF effect, or real HDR, or whatever. Lot of options with sensor arrays that can approximate larger sensors without needing the bigger optics and more expensive higher yield larger sensors.
You would only need a beam splitter if you used one lens for all three sensors... a wrong assumption on your part. Little 1/2.3" sensors are small enough that for the field of view parallax issues would be essentially non-existent. And the K sensor would be a simple monochrome/luminance sensor. Not difficult at all. Arrays like this have been done already, just not with the colors split up.
Joe Ogiba: Sony 6.44" Xperia Z Ultra with QX1 APS-C E mount smartphone camera :https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8615/15947075285_4f58229370_b.jpg
20mp original image :https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7533/16112217541_5c7fcd7d4a_o.jpg
I hope you have a decent screen at home. A 6.44" screen is crap compared to a 2160p monitor. So the big phone screen point is moot.... in the grand scheme of things even tablets are crap for viewing photos.
And when you are out with your A7R, do you leave your phone at home? Can you not connect your A7R to your phone to view photos on it? Nothing you've said really validates the QX1.
sportyaccordy: APS-C sensors of today have pretty much surpassed the last generation of full frame sensors (i.e. D7100 > D700). Any measure- QE, read noise, DR, color depth, whatever. 30dB S/N ISO is kind of a useless measure as larger sensors need higher sensitivities to maintain exposure for a given depth of field and shutter speed.
Where larger sensors are superior is in glass. For all intents and purposes the practical limit for modern lens speed is F/1.4, and lenses that fast have high trade-offs. In the context of APS-C vs FF, an F/2.0 lens for FF will be the same size/weight/price as an APS-C F/1.4 lens. The sensitivity issue is a wash, and in low light situations the loss of DOF is generally not a big deal, especially at the wide FLs where FF has a lens availability advantage. If there were more fast wide APS-C lenses for mainstream mounts I think a lot of folks would be less apt to jump on the FF train. I realized this researching the jump from Sony E to FE.
I think Fuji may have pushed too far. Between the cost of their bodies and lenses, they don't offer much reason NOT to go FF. I think lenses in the vein of the Nikkor 35 1.8 AF-S are more what APS-C needs. Affordable consumer grade F/~2 primes all the way down to 16mm. They are trying to force consumers to go FF by all avenues.