peevee1: Great photographs!
Tiny sensors are the best for macro. People buying FF or even APS-C for macro are just clueless. m43 unfortunately is the smallest ILC format with native macro lenses, but sometimes manual focus etc is just fine, and then cameras with even smaller sensors should be used. Or simply P&S if the built-in lens is OK for macro.
If Pentax ever gets around to making a dedicated supersharp macro lens for Q, something like Q10 will suddenly start to make a lot of sense.
"Why are tiny sensors best for macro?"
Because the lenses they come with have relatively very short focal length, which is a real boost to your already critically shallow depth of field at short distances.
(An A650 zoom, for instance, has a "normal" angle of view at 11 mm; what matters here are the "real" mm, the ones marked on the lens barrel, not the "equivalent" FL.)
IOW, the relationship between sensor size and DoF is a case of correlation, not causation.
Tony Ellis: I love these photos! - I have no idea how it is done? I get that it is a compact with a lens 'reversed' but not sure how it all gets put together... What is under all that tape? If anyone can post a link to a good site where it is explained I would be very grateful
Does it work with lenses that are not around the 50mm area?
The author himself cared to explain his well thought out optical contraption:http://chaoticmind75.blogspot.ru/2013/08/my-technique-for-snowflakes-shooting.html
--and, not to be overlooked, the whole noise averaging process:http://chaoticmind75.blogspot.ru/2013/08/about-averaging-identical-shots.html
If you are feeling "very grateful" now, then thank him... :)
A 1"-type sensor is NOT, as mentioned, "slightly larger in size than that of an advanced point-and-shoot camera."It has TWICE the area of a 2/3" sensor (fuji X20, XQ1) and 2.7x the area of the more common 1/1.7" (G16, LX7, XZ-2, etc.)
edu T: (what I'd like to know is) WHO's the soundtrack by...?a nice juxtaposition of '70s-ish all-too-familiar elements --hence the integration with the cliche images-- but with the bonus of elaborate, haunting vocal harmonies (0'48").thanks anyone!
Thanks, Rowel. Loved your painstakingly well done volley sequence, http://roelh.zenfolio.com/p1046028174/h5854a698#h5854a698 . (BTW it was a neat touch, setting the axes of most of the zooming in/out action on those off-center balls.)
Thanks, Laureen, I see you added the info to the copy.
(what I'd like to know is) WHO's the soundtrack by...?a nice juxtaposition of '70s-ish all-too-familiar elements --hence the integration with the cliche images-- but with the bonus of elaborate, haunting vocal harmonies (0'48").thanks anyone!
qwertyasdf: If I were to recommend a Canon entry DSLR to a friend, without a doubt, it will be the 550D.
Good point, tkbslc: more than just seasonally planned obsolescence or gift freshness, there HAVE been effective improvements.
I might even agree, except for a minor issue: the 550D/rebel T2i b is thrice removed from this Christmas twenty thirteen season.
Hugo808: I got as far as number 7 before deciding that if I'd taken them they would have gone into the bin and never been seen by anyone!
Then you'd only waste a chance to have your shots appreciated 48 yrs later.
springsnow: You have to get a data plan yourself. So you have to spend $200, and pay more to your carrier for a data service that is just for this camera to work. Imo it's DOA. They should just do a wifi version for $100 and develop a smartphone app that the camera can pair with so people can use their existing data plans.
Should they? Then who would buy a low-end-phone-class camera only to pair it with a smartphone?
JEROME NOLAS: To DPR staff- why don't you have photo-contests too?
Challenges are also kind of contest, you know, only that they tend to be held by what was described as "a bunch of artsy types that wouldn’t know acutance from aberrations"...
Iliah Borg: One category is missing - shots made with self-made digital cameras.
That sounds promising. Suppose a *self-made* camera can shoot itself as the subject; then the next logical breakthrough is a "self-replicating" camera.
alexzn: Well, if the image is correct, the achilles heel of this camera will be the bulbous lens front element. It will get scratched in no time and bye bye clean videos. It looks like a really questionable design decision. I don;t like GoPro, but at least there you don't have to worry about scratches.
Good point, but hopefully they were clever enough to give the front element a pretty hardened surface (even if not optically ideal).Am I being too optimistic?
Camp Freddy: A pretty ugly concoction, but somehow Olympus ( and Sony therefore as major share holder) are committed to a superzoom and retro PEN / OM styling.|Better off doing an mFT 16mpx chip with a non interchangeable 24-120 collapsing zoom for around the 700 USD mark IMHO. Let Fuji amd Panny fight it out with Nikon following soon after in the superzoom sector.
@ caver3dYeah they do indeed. For the full scoop I suggest this neatly illustrated article, http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/8/5/microfourthirds
@ Wim1964"mFT16mpx chip" is a 16-megapixel Four Thirds-size sensor on a camera whose lens mount is micro-Four Thirds.
Deleted78792: Once again, the Equivalent Aperture chart shines and informs. The constant aperture F2.8 seems to be the new race after the interest in megapixels has waned- and it's good to see a return of focus (intended!) to optics.
The Stylus 1 does look interesting at almost half the price of the Sony RX10. The colours and contrast look great in the samples, and one does expect that from Olympus jpegs. It would have been interesting to see the size comparison against the RX10.
I also really enjoyed the photography in the samples, much nicer than the cold clinical approach to samples that DPR sometimes prefers. The good lighting and the beautiful season help of course.
AnuragP is right about the equivalent aperture chart.
About the measures, ISO 800 looking cleaner on a (35mm) full frame sensor than on smaller ones is not "an illusion" at all; not only it looks cleaner indeed, but also noise is numerically measurable. That's because, for the same shutterspeed and same f-number, a larger sensor is hit by a larger amount of light -- simple as that.
So, something must be done about spreading misconceptions... ;-)
Burbclaver: I like the sound of Pure photography - Take a D800, but smaller with no video. Set autofocus, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and white balance using on-camera controls. Dispense with the rear display all together (you can review your pictures when you "develop" them on computer). I'd keep the bracketing button, because of this, but I always bracket manually.
Removing the display also allows you to get rid of image review, trash button, image lock button, zoom in and out buttons, OK and live view buttons. Keep the top LCD, so you can see limited menus and set date/time etc. Vastly reduce the custom features and totally remove the retouch menu. I'd keep picture controls for the JPEg shooters.
@ CFynn Agreed, it's just that forgoing those 3 mm might be crucial for the camera to feel like an FM in your hands (and there are lots of happy FM owners around).On a 2nd thought, a possible solution to make up for an extra 3 mm would be to make the lens mount barrel protrude 3 mm more from the front, keeping the rest of the body as thin as an FM. But, alas, then the pentaprism/mirror would also need to be shifted forward...
There is another reason Nikon might want to dispense with the rear LCD.
It's not related to nostalgia/ shooting method/ user-interface aspects; rather, it would allow them to shave off at least a couple of millimeters of the thickness, in order to make the camera look & feel more like the svelte FM/FM2 than like "molten lump of black plastic"-styled DSLRs.
Actually, they didn't really have many trimming options, as current sensor assemblies, with their filters, circuit board, etc, are way thicker than film+pressure plate (see this enlightening photo of a tore-down D600 sensor assembly, http://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/XRu3PELglKpWsdSc.huge , courtesy www.ifixit.com), and I suppose the 46 mm or so F-mount flange distance isn't to be messed with...
cinemascope: While you're at it please bring back aperture control on lens... And please put that on the 58mm before they come out of the oven.It always boggled my mind why they removed that... Isn't it wise to play on the strenghts of you heritage? Too much dumbing down for no reason these days...
The best place (to me) for an aperture control is around the lens *next* to the mount... provided the shutter speed control, in turn, is a ring around the camera body throat -- analog Olympus OM-style!That way you can change both f/# and s.s. with the same hand and the same gesture, yet keeping the same exposure. Think of it as a "manual program-shift" (uh?)
Greg Van Deusen: I've sometimes wondered why cameras aren't made with round sensors to capture the full [round] lens image. It would give you more image area to crop from.
It's the other way around, actually!For these are crop circles-- oops, CIRCULAR CROPS, I mean, FROM squarish sensors, err... negatives.