Looks like Fuji is stuck in year 2003.That resolution EVFs were old junk already in 2004.
Tom Caldwell: I played the little video over and over again and failed to see why it might be quicker or more effective when used to manual focus than contrast detect focus peaking. Maybe auto-focus phase detect might be lightning fast but any manual focus relies on humans twiddling a lens to focus it. Furthermore I am supposing it only works on the centre of the screen - you have to point the camera directly at he object you wish to focus. Contrast detect focus peaking shows points in focus over the entire screen area and also can show the dof actually in focus if the photographer pays attention.
CarVac, that video makes clear it definitely isn't fast and twiddling free method for even semi accurate guessing of how much you have to move focus. (at least unless target is extremely simple)
Color noise reduction when sensor doesn't know anything about color and only records luminance...Yeah, right.Maybe they'll next claim they've got Santa and elves working in their factory.
Sonylover1: I dont get it?Is Canon joking with us?How can the new 35/2 cost three times the old one - is it sooo good?
And I hope they send for free the new lenscaps!
Might be that it's hard to built stabilization into fast lens and retain good image quality.Correction of lens aberrations (which retrofocus design has plenty) at fast aperture needs very precise optical design and then you put this "wobbly" element in there which keeps changing path light rays go through lens.
JWest: Those new lens caps are so clever! Why has no other manufacturer come up with this idea before? We're lucky that an innovator like Canon is around to lead the way.
You better drop those Canon coloured filters from your eyes and go to optician for getting real eyeglasses.
Canon is anything than innovative.Centre pinch lens caps have been around for long time!I haven't even had other type of lens caps in cameras/system lenses from Minolta, KonicaMinolta, Olympus and Panasonic.
In fact quick googling shows also Nikon, Pentax and Sony having center pinch lens caps making Canon last one to introduce them!
JesperMP: I am in the camp of "dont care about beautiful or ugly as long as it takes pictures".
Now after thinking about it, I think that Nikon missed out on one opportunity.The big viewfinder hump (which seems to be what people dislike so much) is big enough that it could have been tiltable ! And since it would be integrated into the body it would be much more rugged than the add-on VFs some other mirrorless offers as options.Now THAT would have been a distinct advantage no other current camera has.
Roland, that utilitarian size LCD was the reason why A2 had such good menu free controls in smaller size than lot worser controls entry level DSLRs.Today's cameras look like their main use is watching movies instead of taking photos.
marike6: Don't know why everyone is carrying on about the V2. It actually looks like a decent shooter with an ergonomic body. And it has super fast processing, a large buffer, great build quality, etc. It's not as pretty as a Fuji XE1 or X100, but few cameras are. Certainly a Pany G5 or GF5 aren't going to win any design awards either. To me the V2 looks all business. Besides I rarely take photos OF my camera but WITH them.
Fotokeena, form follows functionality.Only things to look at in camera for photography (instead of some darn fashion decoration) is how ergonomical grip you can get from it, and if controls are positioned properly.Modern higher end DLRs all have similar grip and control layout of front and rear dial precisely because that's most ergonomical for human hand.Unlike those gripless piece of two by four retro designs made to comply with limitations of analog mechanical tech.
whyamihere: The functional bits are already out there to combine for an awesome camera: Fuji's X-Trans sensor that removes the need for filters, well-engineered lenses from several manufacturers, mirrorless designs, EVFs that match OVFs.
What nobody seems to be thinking about these days is ergonomics. If anyone handed me the camera above and asked me to shoot with it, I'd probably chuck it after 10 minutes merely out of frustration. There are 12 frickin' dials on the thing, mostly single purpose.
For example: The dial under the mode dial on this concept - why doesn't that adjust aperture in A mode or shutter speed in S mode? Why does it only adjust one value? What's with all the switches on the front? I'm sure there's a more sensible way.
I'm not trying to pick on the person who designed this. This is more of a general rant on camera design in general. I've used several cameras by many manufacturers, and there was always one plain-as-your-face silly ergonomic decision. I think that comes first.
Yep, if cars were designed like cameras demanded by these retroists they would be and work like horse wagons!Most of people's camera design cravings feel exactly like this joke about standards and horse's a**http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp
Those fixed function dials/knobs were needed only because of there being no way to show settings in viewfinder in photography's horse wagon era.With electronic displays everything can be shown flexibly in viewfinder so flexible use front and rear dial system of high end DSLRs is the most space effective control method for accessing lots of controls easily.
X-Trans only changes antialiasing filter to very complex demosaicing (with blue&red channel resolution decrease) because of its irregular colour filter array.It's this kind design which should be the goal:http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2011-08-19
Dvir Rosenfeld: Seeing the above picture reminds me of the old saying: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".
Bullseye.Most want what marketroids and fashion tells them to want...Some others haven't even gotten to later film era but are still stuck in World War II era's two by four analog mechanical...
t3hh: From technical POV we already have some very good digital cameras on market but the main challenge is the interface that not only make the experience to be pain in the ass but also actively getting on the way of taking good pictures. cameras are overloaded of design features that used to help us but now are obsolete.
Best example for me is the Fuji X100 which is one of the best digital cameras ever made with decent manual control and nice sturdy overall handling. surely a camera made for people who love taking pictures. but even if you go with full manual settings you still have the EV-wheel that overrides all your manual effort. why the hell do you need EV wheel on manual camera??????
My point? We don't need technical revolution in our camera market. but we sure need a design revolution. My ideal camera is presented in ricoh forum: http://ricohforum.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=8477&start=70#p51944
> why the hell do you need EV wheel on manual camera?Because retro people haven't gotten over analog mechanical World War II era and insist wasting limited real estate on camera's surface to fixed function dials.
JohnFredC: The problem with larger sensors is the size of the lenses. As long as manufacturers persist with camera form factors where the lens protrudes from the front of the camera, the sensor size will determine pocketability. This continuing reliance on historical camera design impedes progress in the areas debated so enthusiastically in this thread.
The first mfg who combines a larger sensor (1" would be swell) with a folded optics design (similar to the Sony T-series, for instance) and a decent zoom range (6x-10x), smart camera interface via large touch screen, and SLR-style mechanical controls ergonomically placed, will change the camera paradigm forever, and get my money almost immediately.
Problem of folded optics design is that it severely limits the size of optics. Even with small sensors you don't see much of zoom range and good f-ratios in folded optics compacts.
And further bigger sensor needs bigger optics.First because of longer focal lengths and hence aperture size. (or there's no light gathering advantage)Secondly most lens aberrations start increasing about exponentially when distance to image circle's center grows, which leads to optical design with more/bigger lens elements to keep them under control.
gasdive: What I'd like to see is a 4"x5" sensor with about 50 MP. With a folding bellows lens it wouldn't be much bigger than a thick paperback book. The IQ would put DSLRs back in the toy camera corner they came from. With a good screen such as you get on a small tablet the focus would be easy to set manually. Much better than autofocus.
You sure don't have the slightest idea how much that size sensor would cost...
Manufacturing of single silicon wafer can easily cost up to thousands and there's problem of manufacturing being imperfect so unless you had perfectly working manufacturing process it might need quite a few wafers to get a single sensor without too many and big flaws.
And most kind lenses would be simply huge for that size image circle and required focal lengths.Also while your single track brain doesn't understand it bigger format's shallower DOF and consequent need to stop it down negates light gathering advantage.
Alvar: Yeah, I never understood why did they lock compacts with 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" sensors. They are simply unacceptable upwards 400 ISO. If they want to keep the size they should at least give a good 1600 ISO and fast lenses. Compacts are mostly good in the day and in the night only with flash wich is a pain.
Precisely.Diffraction and lens aberrations along with strong noise removing has blurred pixels of compacts so badly there hasn't been real improvement in image details in many years.You could easily decrease amount of pixels in small sensors by at least 1/3 without any decrease in real information of image... More likely amount of real information in images would just increase because of better dynamic range and less excessive NR.
Humboldt Jim: Can we assume that a 1" sensor system can be stopped down to ƒ16, or even 22 without diffraction problems?
Humboldt, with their current excessive MarketingPee numbers compacts are basically always limited by diffraction.
Here's calculator for Airy disk size at different f-ratios and pixel sizes for some cameras.http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
forpetessake: In many posts people have difficulty understanding how crop factor works, somebody suggested that small sensors have inherent advantage when it comes to system size. That's a false belief. Here is an example, take a small FF lens, e.g. 35-70 F/3.5: http://www.camera2hand.net/images/topic_images/pd123774_2.JPGuse 6x digital zoom on the long end to get an equivalent reach of superzoom on 6x crop P&S (e.g. Canon S5) of 35-420mm. Provided you have a sensor manufactured at the same technology node, you get the same image quality at the long end as the P&S camera but many times better quality on the short end. The FF camera system can be the same size as P&S.
There is no such thing as "digital" zoom, only BS zoom of cropping!Whole point of optically zooming in (increasing focal length) is getting smaller details and that's something cropping won't ever do.
And there's no such thing as full frame format, only 35mm or 135... Which was the smallest reasonably performing format with analog film tech.For cropping from larger format image to give similar image details to ultrazoom compact its sensor would have to have pixel size similar to that compact. Making them equally insensitive/noisy and crappy in dynamic range.
maxnimo: What's with all this smartphone stuff? How about being able to stream the images to a laptop or a tablet, or is that too much to ask for?
This forced hyping campaign in everywhere just doesn't look like it...But more like typical consumeristic FUD marketing to lift products/brands which otherwise couldn't compete to above competition by touting some single (not even new) feature as mandatory for everything.
h2k: Remote triggering and remote live view thrill me. Put the camera anywhere and be somewhere else - see what the sensor sees and snap it. You could hold the cam far over your head on a tripod.
I love the different angles i can use with an articulating screen, but a remote screen offers whole new opportunities for image composition.
Would like to know if any of this technology is or will be available on Nokia phones (non-Android, non-IOS, still with nice aspects).
And like in any FUD marketing advertised things aren't really new.Remote control and tethered shooting are about as old as digicameras.For example earlier probably every Olympus compact had ability to be controlled by computer. Also in 2004 Minolta had their own remote control applications for prosumer digicams.
Shamael: I know why all that cameras and phones get smarter. The reason is the one that humanity stays for ever stupid as before. Now, you need to know if you need all that. If the photo blog says it, the priest in the church preaches that, and your doctor tells it to you at the next visit, then there is no doubt anymore. You are infected.
The essence of marketing FUD, like that mastered by Apple.
Cerdo: Just a simple question before the North Americans wake up: do you really believe these devices are smart or intelligent, or is it rather that the humans who believe so are stupid? (ups, maybe stupid is one of those four-letter words in North America)
Maybe they're called smart because modern corporation driven consumeristic world has trained Joe average consumer to have less logical thinking ability than what these devices are capable...
Samsung's system failed to get bigger portion of system camera markets so they had to invent new ploy for why you can't take photos without their product.
Photato: The Popular Sony IMX078CQK (12MP Type 1/2.3) was capable of 1920x1080 at 60fps but no camera using that sensor implemented it afaik.Also capable of 12MP @ 42 fps but that one neither showed up in any product.I guess the limits are in the supporting electronics rather than the sensor itself in dealing with such high data bandwidths.
I'd rather see though a 8mp sensor optimized for video like in the Canon C100 capable of reaching ISO20,000 almost noise free.
12MP is no sense for handheld cameras.
Yep, question is about required data bandwidth, processing power and storage.Data bandwidth and memory needs which increase linearly with resolution and fps while processing power requirements for compression no doubt rise lot more deeply.
And already 12MP in this 1/1.7" sensor size is basically outside laws of physics when looking image quality.You would need roughly aperture of f/1.4 to keep Airy disk the size of pixel and even allowing inaccuracy of bayer sensor we're around f/2 for not being diffraction limited in resolution.And it's doubtfull that lenses made for cheap to compacts have well enough corrected aberrations to have maximal diffraction limited resolution at such big apertures.Add software image stretching and twisting to cover up uncorrected geometric distortion and blurry mess is ready.