... I saw SONY submitted new Patent recently. I'm not sure when SONY will realize it.

If shooting at 720mm f/6.4 equivalent zoom with a 1/2.3" sensor, one is lucky to get a half-decent JPEG. Auto noise reduction is obligatory. The choice is between a somewhat smudgy and flat picture, or one that is no good at all. RAW would be of no aid to the casual user and more headache than help to someone hoping to turn grape juice into champagne.

It is indeed very strange how this line now has some higher end enthusiasts features like the upgraded Zeiss lens, manual control ring and built in EVF, but no RAW. The only logical explanation is that Sony really does not want to cripple their RX100 line.

"RAW would be of no aid to the casual user and more headache than help to someone hoping to turn grape juice into champagne."

Complete nonsense. These days we have sophisticated software tools at our disposal that can suppress more noise while simultaneously accentuating more detail than any in-camera JPEG engine is currently capable of.

The only people who say the sorts of things that you're saying here are people who haven't seen what the most effective workflows can achieve.

This is only an option for people that want a 700mm lens in their pocket.
Today this can only be achieved by using such a small sensor.

The size and weight of that camera in full frame version would require a built-on tripod with wheels to move around.

Does 4 inches justify the term "bazooka". I don' think so, but that is the length of the NIkon VR 70-300 (810 equivalent) lens for the Nikon 1 which is a 1 inch sensor. Try getting your facts first.

@wb2trf The 70-300 starts at 189mm. Since when did 189mm = 24mm?

The Nikon 10-100 is the closest comparable lens to this from the 1 system, and it's gigantic in comparison and only reaches to 270mm and doesn't even start at 24mm. You will need to carry that around your neck, but with this you can slip it in your pocket.

Canon's soon to be released 1" 24-600mm should not be as big as "bazooka".

Perhaps the RX100iv, but with only 3X zoom, and for $950. If you want 1" sensor and more zoom, it won't fit in a pocket. Think: RX10 or FZ1000.

You are missing the point of "Compact Travel Zoom". Of course it is possible but that would not be compact. With 1" sensor and 30x zoom range you will see the lense like a long bazooka or long angel's trumpet shape and it won't be retractable bec. the cylindrical diameter is increasing from the short to the longest focal length, it will be like a cone shape. Well you know what I mean.

>I'd buy this with a 1" sensor and same size. You Sony figure it out

It already exists. It's called an RX100 III.

At least i have a vision for a product I desire as a customer I have the right to do so.

Some people are self-contained by existing technologies. Future is guided by dreamers like me. So, Sony figure it out, that is why you spend billions in overhead.

My guess is that Steve Jobs would have never hired people like some in this thread into Apple, a hallmark for innovation.

Rest my case!

You have no case. Apple can't change the laws of physics either.

@lacikuss. That's like saying you want a device with a battery that can last for a year without needing to recharge and no bigger than a normal phone. That's great that you can dream that, but its just not going to be a reality. Same as wanting a 24-720mm f/2.8 zoom to fit in your pocket.

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.

Contd...

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrical_optics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_optics
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/multi_layer_diffractive_optical_element.do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera

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...

... 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.

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.

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...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10/3

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.

@lacikuss you seem to know well enough then..so start changing the game and stop waiting from Sony....

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

NarrBL, you wrote

> If you just want to learn some things about lenses …

That's a broad and very interesting topic indeed, but when I asked "which physical laws exactly would a camera as described by lacikuss break? How would it break them?", I really wanted to know exactly that. Of course only people who know/believe laws of physics would have to be broken can answer these questions, and I'm not sure you are one of them, NarrBL. If I understand you correctly, you are amongst those who actually think that physics research will provide new insight in the future, that new materials and technology will evolve based on those insights as well as on past insights that have not been applied to their full potential in products yet. So while it seems that you felt addressed by my questions (you replied), they may not actually address you.

(to be continued)

Let me close with the remark that people who embrace science should not feel disrespected when someone questions statements *claimed* to be scientifically verified truths, laws of nature or so-called common sense. Questioning things is essential to science, believing is not. (I've nothing against faith, but its place isn't in science.)

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.

...

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.

---

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'.

...

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...

....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...

...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

It might need an outsider to give us a nudge into another direction then. An advantage of outsiders is that they can be less prone to be persuaded by us to adopt our tunnel vision when discussing the problem, exactly because they don't understand our approach easily.

That's a very special case though. It's definitely not an encouragement against education. It's just a reminder that thoughts don't need to be rejected just because they're uneducated and that there are situations when they can be helpful. But I also understand and agree with your point about our time and energy being limited and your explanation where to invest it makes perfect sense.

I am sorry you had to type things twice due to the trouble with the software, but happy you spend some time writing here, sharing your insights. It's great how the WWW not only allows to listen to the experiences from people all over the world, but actually talk to each other.

Martin

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.

http://www.amazon.de/At-Home-Universe-Self-Organization-Complexity/dp/0195111303

Thanks again for this conversation, and for the chance to view your site.

Clive

"8-12Mp would have been a better compromise"

Why? That means less detail for only a small gain in noise performance. 18MP gives you crisper images for the same print/display size, and if your print/display size is so small that you wont notice the difference then you likely wont notice _any_ sort of difference.

Since we have the ZS40 and the ZS50 floating around now we can look at a real-world case study that involves two small format cameras with identical lenses, identical sensor sizes, but different pixel counts, and learn from it. And what we learn from it is the same thing we learn from the same sort of relative differences we can see in the ILC world which is that higher pixel counts can bring better IQ at low ISOs and with a penalty at high ISOs which is probably not as significant as most people think.

In fact depending on the sensor tech sometimes we can get more detail _and_ less noise (see the FZ200 vs the FZ70 for an example).

Maybe so with larger sensors and lenses, not so much with these small ones. These tiny lenses is incapable of resolving 18MP of resolution anyway. Even at base ISO, the images will not be "crisp" as you say, and it goes downhill quickly from there as ISO rises.

The phrase "incapable of resolving 18MP" isn't meaningful. On the other hand it is indeed meaningful (and correct) to say that the 18MP sensor in the ZS40 puts out more detailed images than the 12MP ZS50 does, and that this translates well into a scenario where output from both cameras is viewed at the same print/display size.

More detail is great. Blown highlights and reduced dynamic range due to tinier pixels are not. Increased info is welcomed as long as it's not useless noise and blown highlights. At web resolutions that these types of cameras are most frequently viewed, you will notice the blown highlights more than any detail increase. Unless your cropping a lot, which is unlikely with a 30x zoom.

Noise can destroy detail. More pixels can capture more of it. So depending on the nature of the detail (how it responds to noise reduction for example, whether that be in-camera or in post), and the ISO you're shooting at, either more pixels _OR_ less read noise can give you an acceptable result, with the tide turning in favour of one or the other as the specifics change.

Here's what Eric Fossum has to say about rising pixel counts: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/37409155

Cainn24,
I am not familiar with the ZS40 and ZS50 cameras, but my thoughts were based on what Sony managed to achieve when they designed their FF 12Mp A7S sensor over their high-res 24Mp/36Mp versions.

If they could achieve a similar increase in low light cap. and DR in this 1/2.3" sensor, I would take the 8Mp any day, or even 6Mp.

It is the area of the pixels that is important and if the pixel count is reduced from 18M to 8M the area is more than doubled (even if linear height/width are increased only 40%). In addition the service areas in between merged pixels, that were not collecting light before, get included in the larger pixels.

Plus I have no use for 4896 x 3672 images and will always down-sample them anyway. Most images these days are viewed on HD monitors (2Mp) and even a portion of it. Even with an 8mp image you have potential to crop or improve the quality by down-sampling, especially as the low res sensor would have captured a wider dynamic range and less noise.

Absolutely, and this camera is only an option for customers.

Sony and other manufacturers do have plenty of models with larger sensors to chose from.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that we aren't being _forced_ to buy this camera, and that there are already some alternatives with larger sensors and shorter lenses available to purchase instead?

You might want to double-check that as many of the replies here seem to suggest that you are incorrect.

Raw?

@photonius

Imaging Resource states in their HX50V review: "employs a five-bladed aperture engineered to produce pleasing defocusing (bokeh) effects"

The HX60V has the same lens.

Further, IR also notes in their HX90V preview: "the new 24-720mm equivalent 30x zoom lens in the Sony HX90V will definitely pique your interest. It now carries Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* branding, rather than the Sony G branding of the HX90V's nearest predecessor, the 2013-model year HX50V."

And: "There's a five-bladed aperture iris"

So not only is it a proper lens with a proper aperture, Sony seem to be indicating that there might be some optical improvements as well.

In case you have not noticed, Sony also makes cameras with larger sensors, i.e. the RS models.
However, there is no avoiding the laws of physics for optics. Big sensors, big optics....
If you want a small camera with a good zoom range, this is the only way to go.
To be honest, my wife has a precursor, it's really nice. I often find myself grabbing it instead of my dSLR because it's so convenient. And the built in GPS works quite ok, why can't they get that into dSLRs if they can get it into such a little body.
So, in the end of the day, it's your choice what you want, no need to bash a product if you don't understand the reasoning behind it.

"I don't no why camera makers keep producing cameras with these
SMALL CRAPPY SENSORS[1]

It's time the public were educated [2] to what they are buying
Instead of being ripped off by ALL camera manufactures [3]"

1/ It is not a crappy sensor; it is a compromise. If a manufacturer wants to make a small form camera with large zoom range there is no other choice. Different users have different priorities.
2/ Given the documented decline in camera sales across all formats it would seem that many people are happy with their camera phone's pictures. Is this lack of education or perhaps convenience is more important?
3/ People are not being forced to buy cameras. They do it of their own volition. The ONLY time they get ripped off is if they get charged more than the advertised purchase price. By the same rationale if you don't like it you do not have to buy it.

"I don't no"

Says it all.

I agree to a large extent, but with current optics I don't think it is possible to produce a compact camera with 30x zoom and a large sensor. (or if possible, it would require very expensive technology)

Roughly said, if we would like a sensor twice as wide and heigh, the optical system of the camera would be twice as thick with same technology - and thus not pocketable...

Can you imagine how big a 24-720 zoom would be for an APS-C sensor or for full frame? Some people like SMALL and accept compromised IQ (I am not one of them... still happy with my Hasselblads).

@tom1234567 Rest assured that at the long end the DSC-WX500 beats the large sensor RX1 by a huge margin, which would require cropping to achieve the same perspective.

@kevin_r Outstanding clarity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater

@kevin_r
The human eye (lens and sensor) is actually very mediocre and has only a small central field of reasonable sharpness and color resolution. The rest is all POSTPROCESSING, and that is truly amazing :)