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.
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.
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
@Joe Ogiba what do a big screen and phone/data connectivity have to do with taking pictures? If we are talking serious photography I'd rather have something responsive with good controls that is easy to use... 3 things the QX series is not.
Plus not everyone likes a massive phone... I refuse to buy anything bigger than ~4.3". I don't need those inches to impress people. And when it's all said and done that combination is probably bigger than a NEX setup. QX is silly.
@teddoman, the QX1 is basically the size of a NEX camera. @darngooddesign what QX1/lens combo are you fitting in your pocket? One of the bad E pancakes?
How is this any better than a regular smartphone and a Sony NEX camera?
Menneisyys: No point in trying to emulate shallow DoF. The results will be sometimes dreadful, as has been shown by the M8.
So in other words, because you don't understand it you don't feel it will work in the way it's advertised lol. Maybe you should look up how it works before you deem it to be impossible (despite the existence of the product and demonstrations of how it works in abundance)
So it doesnt work because you cant understand it Demosthenes? Lol
I'm confused. Why did you get the QX instead of a NEX camera? They have NEX cameras with WiFi
It's doable with arrays. 4 1/2.3" sensors (25mm2) ~ 1 1" sensor (116mm2). 9 1/2.3" sensors ~ 1 MFT sensor. Etc etc. And with arrays you wouldn't need Bayer filters... you could just capture one color or straight luminance etc. So youd get more resolution and signal too. It's just a matter of cost and form factor.