HowaboutRAW: "it [noise] comes from the light you're capturing."
Meaning optically better lenses help with noise.
Oh wait, that's been clear for years, despite vociferous denials in these comments.
I'd like to think that HowAboutRaw may be on to something, Rishi.
His general direction, and the one he takes here, is about actual observation, and he apparently has bothered to have the kit to make the observations.
I'm thinking about the color properties and micro-contrast which are generally thought that Zeiss offers. On my own much more limited scale, I've begun to notice how much raws from my XZ-2 will clean up if I'm careful about the color temperature in PP. I suspect similar removal of gumminess might alter the perception of noise with the Zeiss and higher end camera?
Since if we are talking about photography, perception has at least to be waiting in the wings of any more hardwarish discussion?
I actually think Olympus was not slouching as far as those picture qualities of the XZ-2 lens, so the comparison may be not that far off, possibly.
Anyway, interested if you may think this could open up some corners of the discussion.
duartix: 4 pages of article could be summed up in 4 letters: ETTR.
I suspect that for actual photography, it will turn out a little more subtle than that...
pidera: As pointed out by others, the summarizing phrase "There are three factors that affect how much light is available for your sensor to capture: your shutter speed, f-number and the size of your sensor." is a bit unambitious. Shutter speed and physical aperture do the trick, no need to bring in sensor size except for the fact that sensor size and available options for physical apertures are somewhat linked (albeit more in the past than now).
Richard, I think you did very, very well in the article -- and in all the clarifying answers to persons who may be visualizing differently. Credit where due also to Rishi, and Karroly with others considering carefully. Ready now for the 'ISO irreverence' ;)
Karroly: "As a result, when you shoot two different sized sensors with the same shutter speed, f-number and ISO, the camera with the smaller sensor has to produce the same final image brightness.. from less total light."
I am sorry, I do not agree at all.
Please, let me put this another way. If I use an F:2.8 FF lens on a APS-C body, it is still an F:2.8 lens and the picture taken (at same aperture/speed/ISO AND PIXEL SIZE) is just a crop of the FF sensor. The APS-C area of the FF sensor gets the same amount of light (either total or per area unit) than the APS-C sensor and thus the signal-to-noise ratio is the same...
Very well seen and stated, Karroly. Thank you for carefulness, particularly the considering of context, in the thought...
lacikuss: The only problem is the small sensor...
I'd buy this with a 1" sensor and same size. You Sony figure it out
Hello again Martin, just to say I had a chance to look up your hometown and your gallery site. The pictures were interesting, framed as they were by quite interesting comment conversations. I enjoyed this, and it made me thoughtful.
You have an interesting approach, and I think something of a mathematician's view. It made me think to recommend this book, which might add to your store of connections, and which I hope you might enjoy.
Thanks again for this conversation, and for the chance to view your site.
...so indeed invite if I haven't replied well enough here. It's been a pleasure to try, and I will look back on what we've said.
Cheers for now, Ocolon,Clive
....but it seems clear, doesn't it, that we should be ready to put all the hard work and dedication into something that fits our talents. And then appreciating those real talents of others, it goes without saying.
Ocolon, I really got interrupted, besides the forum destroying work, so this probably isn't what I set out to say entirely. I hope it shows due appreciation of what you carefully said, if now written much more quickly.
As far as languages, I do entirely appreciate, and apologise for taking one of two apparent branches on your meaning. This was influenced by being in conversation not only with you, also.
Your English is excellent, and I would say you have that ability to communicate by means of your care (and talent) anyway. I lived more than half my adult life in second-language circumstances, so I do appreciate. And, if you are younger, languages are so much better taught now, to degree which seems often remarkable to me.
I have to go, take care of that interruption...
I hope you would recognize in this story the other very large side following the intuition, and building more intuition on it, over the progress of what is science -- which is the verifying, the creation of something working which shows the theory fits at least (not truth...), and which independent people can duplicate on their own without whatever magic sauce or unexpected influence may be in your own laboratory or persons that you lead.
All this is far beyond the wishful demands being made in questions here, but it is exemplary of real things that eventually may result in something like these raw demands desire. It's the difference between going to the film, and being part of the team that actually creates one. Of course, we have a lot of armchairs holding persons who might feel they know better, and we do have arrangements both for educating the ones who have something to offer, and for avoiding too much time spent with those who would only waste it. Everyone is talentet, but...
This was not supposed to be possible for at least a decade, according to the PhD group who became very angry with this success. Their twice above boss came in, heard them try to cross-examine me, and then invited me for a meal after their own boss put an end to it. He asked me if I would help his people (he was Asian if au fait in the West). I said I would, and did, for a year, so they could have a separate success that fitted with ours. So I know how this goes, in dimensions.
The system itself worked because I hated the mechanicality of the heavily grammatic approach, and intuited another -- from insight on languages, in this case. It worked so well that it functioned perfectly in an international laboratory where considerably pidgin English was a good part of things, of some spoke and wrote as normally as you do. I later found there had been research towards my way in roughly the timeframe, so perhaps it was as people say about discoveries, 'in the air'.
Well, this comment arrangement just 'ate' several paragraphs, so let me try again.
I wanted to say that I heartily agree with you in how questioning is essential to discovery, and hence science. Those who like that too easily just need to remember that it needs to be _educated_ questioning, by really knowing and understand the field and the specific you are seriously questioning for research. Rabbits out of a hat or boyish enthusiasms are not respected for it as they simply do not work - you wouldn't know what you had even should you stumble across something. Very likely you wouldn't see it if there were indeed something to stumble over.
I would like to say at this point that I actually have created several things in my time, for Googles of the day, which were indeed coming from the unconventional -- and one of them turned out to last for 18 years, for Bell Laboratories, which was a system for understanding human-written stories in a complex but focused domain.
Hi Ocolon, and in return surely, let me thank you for your own thought and thoughtful reply.
You are quite correct in reading between or in lines yourself, that I am not someone who ever had the tendency to 'believe' in 'laws'. As a quite separate historical footnote, I don't think we will ever who know of it forget august Lord Kelvin stating that there was nothing new under the sun, that with Maxwell I suppose and a few others all had been discovered and put to bed mathematically (the last my words, since that is how they liked to 'prove' things.
Of course this was just about the time Einstein was pulling new relationships out of Boltzmann's thermodynamics. which would become quantum mechanics, responsible for nearly all that we call 'technology' in the last 50 years, yet still not understood one iota what it really is -- though we do have quite useful if stringently limited mathematics. This he won the Nobel prize for, as relativity and he were too political by that time.
lasikuss, my boy, you are really fishing now.
As far as the Sony-Petzold article, the idea of significant size reduction is brought up only in a comment, and then rather thoroughly refuted, including a few 'bright' ideas. It ends up just where I had said it ought to.
I might allow the Harvard case a slight improvement, as if substantial amounts of corrective elements could be removed, the lens length might go down a bit, though I expect not substantially. Diameter, for the same f/stop opening, not so much. Thus not much changing the character of big lens for big sensor, though an increment is always welcome.
You are still grasping at straws, and trying to 'win' by being a nasty youngster with ad hominem. This shows you don't know much about cases as you talk, a lawyer's actual practices, or common courtesy leading to learning. I'm sorry.
Most of these are not a crime, but some are. When you grow up enough to distinguish the differences, then you will have better conversations
No, I hadn't heard of Sony's 'curb sensor' (sic). There is however, this, which explains its very simple curved concept as dating from the mid 1800s. Nothing new here, and by the principles lenses are designed by, I expect it to do as the article states and lower weight, but have very little effect at all on size.
Dr. Capasso's team's work is exactly the one I mentioned but could not fully recall, and dwells in that quantum world. It promises new configurations, lighter weight,less aberration, and it seems possibly better apertures. By the way it still uses geometric optics, I don't see that it would make a game-changing reduction in size.
You might read what Joseph says eloquently, and consider some of that education, which you can do yourself these days, are invited....
They are aware that the complex of science and business seldom hides anything that can return value; and more, they will have an ear-to-ground familiarity with anything that might escape this relationship. Someone could always have something in a basement, but this is unlikely (see 1906 roots of Lytro, and also the 1890s insight of Poincaré which set the stage for complexity theory once computation was up to it).
[and yes, this hard limit comment setup is fantastically irritating, but can be subverted when there is need.]
Picture page where if you are careful about how they change image scales, you can see how enormous the RX10 becomes when _using_ that 200mm capability. Like a Transformer...
And it's true what they say in that page's article just below - all the technical engineering about lightening and balance mean that the camera still feels quite good with the remarkable extension. What it just isn't, however, is small.
I would close by noting that the Sony RX100M3 is a kind of pinnacle of trading off technological possibilities: a 1 in sensor, which can still enable a reasonably small lens, provided that to be any good that lens has to be quite limited in its zoom range. The Lumix GM5 is another example of micromanaging the tradeoffs. Go in the direction of larger zoom range, and the lens required markedly expands, as is directly visible in the Sony RX10, where 200mm on a 1 in. sernsor leads to enormous extension when you use it (I recenty tried one out), on camera already no longer at all small. And that is at f2.8.
I think in closing that you and those who otherwise challenge should learn to respect the way mature knowledge works. I happen to have the formal background; it is not necessary, to learn adequately from deep familiarity with the practical results, as so many reminding of the real world to you do here.
... if with some interesting character.
Now, I believe to have seen something recently on a truly non-refractive approach to using the light field, in its infancy and no where near high performance at this point, but interesting it could be. Can't locate a reference this morning.
Left out of all of this are the deeper mysteries of light, which go to the ground of so many open questions in physics, through this moment. Light is a wave, and it is a particle, truly nonsequitor in our way of naming observed phenomena. If this is old news, it is still very unsolved news, and it is in such areas where new physics will be illuminated, if it can be. More truth here would open new possibilities for technology, and possibly some of what is still fantasy when mentioned here.
The first deals with 'conventional' geometric optics, the basis for the knowledge of lens size-sensor size tradeoffs. You'll see it starts simple, and rapidly runs off that track when you get down to cases that enable high performance lenses of today.The second gets just slightly into a more 'true to today' view, just to show some directions.The third shows that even the behemoths are willing to take directions if it will financially help them, if not to go so far as admitting to Foveon, etc., while it does show they use physics.The fourth is a non-venture-capital-occluded view into one contemporary 'new item', which mentions that its physics was understood in 1906. We also know that Lytro is a large, low performance camera...
Ocolon, I wonder what you really would like to appreciate, in your comment. Yes, some of us have more than adequate physics and mathematics background (and current attention) to 'know what they are talking about.'
Somehow its tone reminds me of youth who think a previous generation 'screwed up the world' for them, which is a view that entirely misses the insight of what is knowable and much less knowable in the world, specifically in economics for this comment. To go further, it shows ignorance of fundamental concepts brought to light in recent years, all bearing on what is now called complexity theory (santafe.edu).
If you just want to learn some things about lenses, the materials are all around you, on the internet or in more serious books and courses. Here are a few quick links: (follows)
There's a book where some serious scientists set out to understand what they could towards futures as imagined sometimes just to cut studio filming and dramatic costs for Startrek. They came up with at least one interesting possibility, a kind of self-surfing field that might be able to operate as a warp drive. You could read about it and understand better the kind of unavailable unobtanium that would have to be discovered, and used at what scales to disrupt the normal world's tendencies.
That's the kind of thing behind the enormous accelerator at CERN, where they hope to learn more -- and maybe create some mini black holes that they assure are harmless while doing it.
And who knows, maybe such will someday open new ways to make lenses suitable to your desire. There is other work more directly on that. But not at all ready for the hands of camera making machines of the Far East, or an Steve Jobs either, who would very well know the difference, operating on it every day.
lacikuss, I'm afraid you haven't understood Steve Jobs and what he did very well.
He hired the very best, of people who had developed remarkable ability to do things, to make the best technology out of the best knowledge due to science. He paid for and used the best working design, not 'vision', from the Smalltalk team of mathematicians and educators at Xerox.
He sold imaginative description of what you could do with the hyper-completed, polished products, again, not 'visions'. He guided the design and development of each succeeding product in just this way, with an iron will that slowly matured and humanized.
In no case did he try to reverse what was well known at the foundations, the science. He would have understood that this would never win, while being ready to understand and use each actual discovery.