more megappixels per sq. cm - the benefits for 16mp HS20

bobn2 said:

ii) the people you're talking about use their phones these days.

Click to expand...

No question about the impact of the smartphone but many new low end cameras were launched just a week ago at the CES show, there is still a huge market for these.

Wellington100 said:

bobn2 said:

My own view is that for a compact the absolute DR and resolution is a better trade, because if you want the low light performance, you probably won't be using a compact in any case.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you. I think that mainstream compact users are not interested in photography and want to record memories parties, dinners, functions and events, often indoors often in poor light etc. those are precisely the sort of images that compacts are no good at. Most people know next to nothing about their cameras. Think of the Beijing Olympic games and the hundreds of thousands of useless flashes that took place at the opening ceremony.

Ironically these lowest end of users have quite possibly the most demanding of requirements

An analogy is who needs the most powerful PC's, is it architects, designers, photographers, investors. Nope its teenagers wanting to play the latest games in their bedrooms. Nothing sucks the life out of a computer like a modern computer game, and the least likely of users is the group that needs the most powerful computers.

Click to expand...

All good points, and none that I disagree with. However, what Bob is saying is that if low light performance is high on the list of priorities, then most would likely choose a DSLR as the "proper tool". The problem, of course, is that most are unaware that the reason DSLRs have better low light performance is because the lenses have larger aperture diameters for a given AOV, which is also what gives the more shallow DOF.

In other words, to get "better" low light performance with a DSLR, you must also accept the more shallow DOF. But, since elements of the scene outside the DOF are, by definition, not rendered softly, many compact shooters coming to DSLRs are disappointed with the reality of large aperture shooting.

So, if you want the DOF of a compact, then, low light or not, the compact will usually be the better tool since their sensors are often a bit more efficient (not to mention size, weight, and cost are much less).

Of course, all the above presumes that we're not using flash.

bobn2 said:

. . .

Plus, of course, if there's a mischievous side to someone, and there is no law to fear...

However, I would say that I don't think anyone I took on under the guise of any of those nicks did not deserve it at the time. I never confronted, argued with or messed around anyone who wasn't acting extremely unreasonably in the first place.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that our recollections differ in areas, but one thing I recall is that what was found most unreasonable and what triggered the most vehemant, contentious replies and insults was when the sock puppets were publicly recognized. Maybe today you'd admit to understanding why some would consider that the "Tyrone Wellhung" DPR ID was more offensive than amusing, even if it wasn't to you or your pals?

Wellington100 said:

Wellington100 said:

ii) the people you're talking about use their phones these days.

Click to expand...

No question about the impact of the smartphone but many new low end cameras were launched just a week ago at the CES show, there is still a huge market for these.

Click to expand...

Actually, a frenzy of not-very-different product releases is one indicator of a market in trouble. If they can't sell enough, and the labs can't find a product good enough to make people upgrade, they turn to the marketing people, and out comes a camera with new 'features'.
--
Bob

Billx08 said:

bobn2 said:

. . .

Plus, of course, if there's a mischievous side to someone, and there is no law to fear...

However, I would say that I don't think anyone I took on under the guise of any of those nicks did not deserve it at the time. I never confronted, argued with or messed around anyone who wasn't acting extremely unreasonably in the first place.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that our recollections differ in areas, but one thing I recall is that what was found most unreasonable and what triggered the most vehemant, contentious replies and insults was when the sock puppets were publicly recognized. Maybe today you'd admit to understanding why some would consider that the "Tyrone Wellhung" DPR ID was more offensive than amusing, even if it wasn't to you or your pals?

Click to expand...

Thanks for raising that, it's a chance to get it off my chest. 'Tyrone Wellhung' was intended as a joke, when someone posted that I returned with nicks that sounded like porn star names, so I gave them a truly porn star name. What I didn't realise was that in the US, 'Tyrone' is a name strongly associated with black people. That isn't the case in the UK, Ireland or, so far as I'm aware, the rest of the world. In the UK, the name 'Tyrone' would most likely bring to mind a popular soap opera character, who is not black.
http://coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrone_Dobbs

It appeared to me therefore that accusations of racism were scurrilous, since I had no intention of being racist, nor did I know the overtones of the name in the US, and I treated them as such.

I have happily hung up the Tyrone ID. I have no qualms offending the prudish, but there was never any racist intent.

Edit: On the other point about nicks (not sock puppets, one at a time mostly, although at the height of the dispute, the frequency of bannings might have made it appear that there was more than one) being uncovered triggering 'vehemant, contentious replies and insults' was never the case. In fact, when you're an illegal, the thing you mis most is the recognition and continuity of posting, so people recognising you are actually doing a service, and welcome. The system used to go, if I said 'I'm Bob' or Joe said 'I'm Joe' that nick would be banned immediately, if someone outed us, that often wouldn't happen. the vehement replies you got were when you insisted that Joe and I were the same person, and continually accused us of running sock puppets when we weren't.
Much though I like Joe, being accused of being him is too much, I'm afraid.
--
Bob

Great Bustard said:

. . .

All good points, and none that I disagree with. However, what Bob is saying is that if low light performance is high on the list of priorities, then most would likely choose a DSLR as the "proper tool".

Click to expand...

But for most compact owners, noticeably better low light performance is often good enough, and a G11 will take much better pictures in the relatively low light at indoor parties, restaurants, etc., than the tiny sensor P&S cameras that they moved up from. The same G11 wouldn't be as nearly out of place at a table than a larger, noisier DSLR. When I bought my first DSLR (a Nikon D50) I was well aware of its better low light performance, but I didn't buy it for that reason. I bought it because my C-8080 focused so slowly that people that should have been in the picture often walked out of the frame by the time the shutter was released. Next in importance was that the D50 focused much more accurately on tough objects such as fur. Has the G11 been available at the time, I would probably have bought that instead of the D50.

Great Bustard said:

The problem, of course, is that most are unaware that the reason DSLRs have better low light performance is because the lenses have larger aperture diameters for a given AOV, which is also what gives the more shallow DOF.

In other words, to get "better" low light performance with a DSLR, you must also accept the more shallow DOF. But, since elements of the scene outside the DOF are, by definition, not rendered softly, many compact shooters coming to DSLRs are disappointed with the reality of large aperture shooting.

So, if you want the DOF of a compact, then, low light or not, the compact will usually be the better tool since their sensors are often a bit more efficient (not to mention size, weight, and cost are much less).

Click to expand...

DSLRs only suffer from smaller DOF when the shutter speed needs to be relatively fast. They can often match the wide DOF of compacts since they can use much smaller apertures before the effects of diffraction take their toll. Tiny sensor compacts do have very wide DOFs at their largest apertures, but many lose a lot of detail to diffraction by the time they're closed down to f/5.6. DSLRs can take reasonably good photos at f/11, f/16 and even f/22, if not enlarged excessively. The weakness is that it probably would require the use of a tripod, but serious landscape photographers would already have been routinely using their tripods. The majority of compact owners (even G11 owners) make do without tripods and don't give them very much thought. The few that do are the ones likely to move up to DSLRs.

bobn2 said:

Billx08 said:

. . .

I'm sure that our recollections differ in areas, but one thing I recall is that what was found most unreasonable and what triggered the most vehemant, contentious replies and insults was when the sock puppets were publicly recognized. Maybe today you'd admit to understanding why some would consider that the "Tyrone Wellhung" DPR ID was more offensive than amusing, even if it wasn't to you or your pals?

Click to expand...

Thanks for raising that, it's a chance to get it off my chest. 'Tyrone Wellhung' was intended as a joke, when someone posted that I returned with nicks that sounded like porn star names, so I gave them a truly porn star name. What I didn't realise was that in the US, 'Tyrone' is a name strongly associated with black people. That isn't the case in the UK, Ireland or, so far as I'm aware, the rest of the world. In the UK, the name 'Tyrone' would most likely bring to mind a popular soap opera character, who is not black.
http://coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrone_Dobbs

It appeared to me therefore that accusations of racism were scurrilous, since I had no intention of being racist, nor did I know the overtones of the name in the US, and I treated them as such.

I have happily hung up the Tyrone ID. I have no qualms offending the prudish, but there was never any racist intent.

Click to expand...

I may be mistaken but I don't think that I accused you of being racist, just that the name "Tyrone Wellhung" was likely to be seen as being intentionally racist, whether it was the intention or not, consisting as it did of not one but two relatively familiar, synergistic stereotypes. I accept that both may not have been stereotypes in many countries, but I didn't buy the argument that because it may not have been similarly offensive in the UK, that it shouldn't be considered to be offensive in the USA (a point that was made more than once) or even in the UK by its more worldly citizens.

bobn2 said:

Much though I like Joe, being accused of being him is too much, I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Would you settle for being called "equivalent"?

Billx08 said:

bobn2 said:

Billx08 said:

. . .

I'm sure that our recollections differ in areas, but one thing I recall is that what was found most unreasonable and what triggered the most vehemant, contentious replies and insults was when the sock puppets were publicly recognized. Maybe today you'd admit to understanding why some would consider that the "Tyrone Wellhung" DPR ID was more offensive than amusing, even if it wasn't to you or your pals?

Click to expand...

Thanks for raising that, it's a chance to get it off my chest. 'Tyrone Wellhung' was intended as a joke, when someone posted that I returned with nicks that sounded like porn star names, so I gave them a truly porn star name. What I didn't realise was that in the US, 'Tyrone' is a name strongly associated with black people. That isn't the case in the UK, Ireland or, so far as I'm aware, the rest of the world. In the UK, the name 'Tyrone' would most likely bring to mind a popular soap opera character, who is not black.
http://coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrone_Dobbs

It appeared to me therefore that accusations of racism were scurrilous, since I had no intention of being racist, nor did I know the overtones of the name in the US, and I treated them as such.

I have happily hung up the Tyrone ID. I have no qualms offending the prudish, but there was never any racist intent.

Click to expand...

I may be mistaken but I don't think that I accused you of being racist, just that the name "Tyrone Wellhung" was likely to be seen as being intentionally racist, whether it was the intention or not, consisting as it did of not one but two relatively familiar, synergistic stereotypes.

Click to expand...

I think that's a fine distinction. My own view at the time was that the matter was in the eye of the beholder - and taken with your synergistic (and untrue) accusations of sock-puppetry, plus an arguing style that seemed to depend on questioning the bona fides of your opponent, it seemed at the time like one more shabby tactic.

Billx08 said:

I accept that both may not have been stereotypes in many countries, but I didn't buy the argument that because it may not have been similarly offensive in the UK, that it shouldn't be considered to be offensive in the USA (a point that was made more than once) or even in the UK by its more worldly citizens.

Click to expand...

There is no reason in the UK for it to be seen as offensive in that way (indeed, the interpretation that 'Wellhung' had racial connotations seems to involve a jumping to conclusions which are dubious in the first place). And if you look at the 'discussion' the point or reason of its offensiveness in the US was never clearly made, too much mealy mouthed discussion around the issue, based on an a-priori assumption of bad faith.

Billx08 said:

Billx08 said:

Much though I like Joe, being accused of being him is too much, I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Would you settle for being called "equivalent"?

Click to expand...

I would very much like to be equivalent in photographic talent.

--
Bob

Billx08 said:

I may be mistaken but I don't think that I accused you of being racist, just that the name "Tyrone Wellhung" was likely to be seen as being intentionally racist, whether it was the intention or not, consisting as it did of not one but two relatively familiar, synergistic stereotypes. I accept that both may not have been stereotypes in many countries, but I didn't buy the argument that because it may not have been similarly offensive in the UK, that it shouldn't be considered to be offensive in the USA (a point that was made more than once) or even in the UK by its more worldly citizens.

Click to expand...

As a well travelled UK citizen I have to say this is the first time I have ever heard that T/W has racial connutations in the US. I guessed that it referred to someone from County Tyrone in Northern Ireland - hardly offensive if a little over macho.

It does highlight how easy it is on international forums to misunderstand others sensitivities.

By the way, the label 'prothetizing disciple' you used was new to me also. It is not a phrase that gets traded on this side of the pond.

Nick

Thats a possibility but this years compact camera releases follow a well established annual pattern. I think the upgrading has more to do with the fact that the sensors are still climbing annually in terms of MP necessitating new models. That may well be one of the ways that the consumer market now differentiates itself from the smartphone market to the less camera literate buying public.

Billx08 said:

Great Bustard said:

. . .

All good points, and none that I disagree with. However, what Bob is saying is that if low light performance is high on the list of priorities, then most would likely choose a DSLR as the "proper tool".

Click to expand...

But for most compact owners, noticeably better low light performance is often good enough, and a G11 will take much better pictures in the relatively low light at indoor parties, restaurants, etc., than the tiny sensor P&S cameras that they moved up from. The same G11 wouldn't be as nearly out of place at a table than a larger, noisier DSLR. When I bought my first DSLR (a Nikon D50) I was well aware of its better low light performance, but I didn't buy it for that reason. I bought it because my C-8080 focused so slowly that people that should have been in the picture often walked out of the frame by the time the shutter was released. Next in importance was that the D50 focused much more accurately on tough objects such as fur. Has the G11 been available at the time, I would probably have bought that instead of the D50.

Billx08 said:

The problem, of course, is that most are unaware that the reason DSLRs have better low light performance is because the lenses have larger aperture diameters for a given AOV, which is also what gives the more shallow DOF.

In other words, to get "better" low light performance with a DSLR, you must also accept the more shallow DOF. But, since elements of the scene outside the DOF are, by definition, not rendered softly, many compact shooters coming to DSLRs are disappointed with the reality of large aperture shooting.

So, if you want the DOF of a compact, then, low light or not, the compact will usually be the better tool since their sensors are often a bit more efficient (not to mention size, weight, and cost are much less).

Click to expand...

DSLRs only suffer from smaller DOF when the shutter speed needs to be relatively fast.

Click to expand...

They don't 'suffer from' smaller DOF, they can achieve smaller DOF, which is only a suffering if small DOF isn't what you want. In fact, as Joe points out, it's a trade. It's the big aperture that gives the small DOF which also gives the extra light which allows better low light performance.

Billx08 said:

They can often match the wide DOF of compacts

Click to expand...

they can always match the deep DOF of compacts (provided the lens stops down to the same apertures)

Billx08 said:

since they can use much smaller apertures before the effects of diffraction take their toll.

Click to expand...

Diffraction takes its toll at the same aperture, same DOF, same light, whatever the size of the sensor. The same aperture occurs at larger f-numbers, due to the larger focal length for the same AoV, which maybe where the confusion's creeping in.

Billx08 said:

Tiny sensor compacts do have very wide DOFs at their largest apertures, but many lose a lot of detail to diffraction by the time they're closed down to f/5.6. DSLRs can take reasonably good photos at f/11, f/16 and even f/22, if not enlarged excessively.

Click to expand...

The G10/11/12 has a crop ratio with respect to APS-C (DX) of 3. f/5.6 on one of those has the same aperture as f/17 with the same AOV, and produces the same diffraction blur. Diffraction blur is inextricably linked with DOF, no sensor size has a magic wand which gives DOF without the associated diffraction blur, they are all the same.

Billx08 said:

The weakness is that it probably would require the use of a tripod, but serious landscape photographers would already have been routinely using their tripods.

Click to expand...

Tripods also don't help a lot with moving subjects. However, the DSLR owner has another option, he can rais the ISO, thus maintaining the same DOF, motion blur and, as it happens, image noise.

Billx08 said:

The majority of compact owners (even G11 owners) make do without tripods and don't give them very much thought. The few that do are the ones likely to move up to DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Which kind of comes round in a circle to what I said, through another route.
--
Bob

Great Bustard said:

So, if you want the DOF of a compact, then, low light or not, the compact will usually be the better tool since their sensors are often a bit more efficient (not to mention size, weight, and cost are much less).

Click to expand...

I took the desirability of shallow DOF as an article of faith for a long time and so do the many people who buy FF or DX together with massive 2.8 zooms or 1.4 primes. Then I saw people on the Panasonic forum extolling the benefits of the reduced DOF of the LX3 for landscapes together with many stunning examples.

The point about the DSLR of course is its utter flexibility, it can deliver any sort of DOF you want, its just a question of setting up the right bits in the system.

My gut feeling though is that the ideal compact for the masses would have a DX sized sensor optimised for low light and high DR, no more than 10mp and a short zoom to keep it all compact. This sort of camera would work effortlessly in much lower light and be far better suited to the social photographer who could then shoot portraits, candids and groups under most light conditions from sunny holidays to nightclubs.

NIK11 said:

. . .

As a well travelled UK citizen I have to say this is the first time I have ever heard that T/W has racial connutations in the US. I guessed that it referred to someone from County Tyrone in Northern Ireland - hardly offensive if a little over macho.

Click to expand...

Back in the threads where this was discussed, I mentioned that "Tyrone" was recognizable (at least to the older generation) because of Tyrone Power, a well known actor who coincidentally was named after his Irish great grandfather, also an actor. But that was long ago. More recently "Tyrone" has been stereotypically used by comedians and I previously posted the cover photo of a book that also used the name because of its associations. Here's Dave Chapelle's character "Tyrone Biggums" and the same book cover :

NIK11 said:

By the way, the label 'prothetizing disciple' you used was new to me also. It is not a phrase that gets traded on this side of the pond.

Click to expand...

Did I type that typo? If so, it should have been "proselytizing", quite familiar in the USA with it's Bible Belt and possibly more preachers per square inch than any other region this side of Betelgeuse.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

DSLRs only suffer from smaller DOF when the shutter speed needs to be relatively fast.

Click to expand...

They don't 'suffer from' smaller DOF, they can achieve smaller DOF, which is only a suffering if small DOF isn't what you want. In fact, as Joe points out, it's a trade. It's the big aperture that gives the small DOF which also gives the extra light which allows better low light performance.

Click to expand...

That's well understood. Sometimes the narrow DOF is desirable. But as I noted, there can be cases when a very fast shutter speed is needed with a wide DOF, and that often makes it impractical or impossible to use the required small aperture, whether a tripod is used or not.

bobn2 said:

Which kind of comes round in a circle to what I said, through another route.

Click to expand...

The commodious vicus of Howth Castle & environs fame? I remember it well, and serendipitously, from none other than James.

Again the same crop of before from the image done with the Panasonic FZ100 (here the original http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/panasonic-dmc-fz100-preview-samples/slideshow )



and a different crop of my same picture with the old s100fs. This time I resized the picture to the same dimensions of the other one (4320 larger side, shorter sides remain different because of the different image format)



Here the full picture downsized to match more or less the preview dimensions of the other one:



Ok, my picture was shot in raw (Iso 200, 1/1000, aperture 4), but the difference is so huge that this can not be an excuse.

The fact is simply that the image quality of the new Panasonic is very very low and the many Mpixel are completely useless.

bobn2 said:

eengelmann said:

Two crops, one from a picture shot with the new FZ100 at ISO 125 (here the picture http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/panasonic-dmc-fz100-preview-samples/slideshow ):



one shot with my old s100fs (at ISO 200)



The difference is obvious!

But to best recognize that in the first picture the noise level is much higher, just look at the sky! An homogeneous "surface" should produce a homogeneous picture (or part of it). This regardless the pixel number of the sensor. Looking at an homogeneous surface you can completely separate noise from resolution.

And in fact in the first crop the sky is full of little artifacts, in the second it is perfectly clean.

Click to expand...

What proportion of the image are we seeing, and with different images different exposure, things are hard to judge.

That being said, I find it difficult to undertsand how any camera manufacturer could have made as much of a hash of the JPEG processing as is going on in the first pic.
--
Bob

Click to expand...

--
Enrico Engelmann
http://www.milanofotografo.it

Billx08 said:

Billx08 said:

Billx08 said:

By the way, the label 'prothetizing disciple' you used was new to me also. It is not a phrase that gets traded on this side of the pond.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Did I type that typo? If so, it should have been "proselytizing", quite familiar in the USA with it's Bible Belt and possibly more preachers per square inch than any other region this side of Betelgeuse.

Click to expand...

No, it's actually my typo. Your apparent concern about sensitivities of other groups is to be commended.

Does your concern stretch into accepting that when someone (from another culture) is labelled as a 'proselytizing disciple', it is actually a 'religious jibe'? I thought the Bible(belt) and religion were inextricably linked. But as a non-believer I am all ears.

Nick

NIK11 said:

Billx08 wrote:
. . .

Does your concern stretch into accepting that when someone (from another culture) is labelled as a 'proselytizing disciple', it is actually a 'religious jibe'? I thought the Bible(belt) and religion were inextricably linked. But as a non-believer I am all ears.

Click to expand...

I'd say that you could also call me a non-believer, but I don't consider 'proselytizing disciple' to be a slur. It depends on the situation. Some are reasonable people and others, such as the ones that smuggle bibles into countries where it's illegal to do so, deserve all of the scorn usually heaped upon them. Of course they don't agree, but I'm not a fan of religious fanatics, whether Christian, Muslim, Yankees, Knicks or Rangers.

Billx08 said:

I may be mistaken but I don't think that I accused you of being racist...

Click to expand...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=36164631

As for "Wellhung", that probably was chosen for the reason you gave. But to pair "Wellhung" with "Tyrone" makes it an obnoxiously racist pun, surely also intentionally chosen.

Billx08 said:

Billx08 said:

Much though I like Joe, being accused of being him is too much, I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Billx08 said:

Would you settle for being called "equivalent"?

Click to expand...

Bob's far more knowledgeable than I am, and he's taught me quite a bit.

Billx08 said:

bobn2 said:

Billx08 said:

DSLRs only suffer from smaller DOF when the shutter speed needs to be relatively fast.

Click to expand...

They don't 'suffer from' smaller DOF, they can achieve smaller DOF, which is only a suffering if small DOF isn't what you want. In fact, as Joe points out, it's a trade. It's the big aperture that gives the small DOF which also gives the extra light which allows better low light performance.

Click to expand...

That's well understood.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. And it's a lesson that those of us "equivalence purists", who never seems to "win any converts", keep trying to teach.

Billx08 said:

Sometimes the narrow DOF is desirable. But as I noted, there can be cases when a very fast shutter speed is needed with a wide DOF, and that often makes it impractical or impossible to use the required small aperture, whether a tripod is used or not.

Click to expand...

The point is, you cannot simultaneously have the wide DOF, the fast shutter speed, and low noise in low light environments, and that's what many don't understand.

But, amazingly, even though this is an important lesson of Equivalence, there are those that constantly disparage those that teach it.

Wellington100 said:

Great Bustard said:

So, if you want the DOF of a compact, then, low light or not, the compact will usually be the better tool since their sensors are often a bit more efficient (not to mention size, weight, and cost are much less).

Click to expand...

I took the desirability of shallow DOF as an article of faith for a long time and so do the many people who buy FF or DX together with massive 2.8 zooms or 1.4 primes. Then I saw people on the Panasonic forum extolling the benefits of the reduced DOF of the LX3 for landscapes together with many stunning examples.

Click to expand...

Like anything else, the "appropriate" DOF is subjective and dependent upon the scene. While I usually use deep DOF for landscapes, on occasion, I find shallow DOF to be the way to go.

I think most people use wide apertures simply to get less noise in a photo, and don't pay attention to the fact that it also affects the DOF. In fact, one poster once said, "I want sharp pics across the frame no matter what aperture!" It points to the fundamental misunderstanding people have about the role the aperture plays in photography. This is why the role of the aperture is central in Equivalence, and why Equivalence replaces the exposure / f-ratio paradigm with the total light / aperture paradigm.

Wellington100 said:

The point about the DSLR of course is its utter flexibility, it can deliver any sort of DOF you want, its just a question of setting up the right bits in the system.

Click to expand...

Exactly so. But this flexibility comes with added size, weight, and expense. For some, the cost of this flexibility is simply not worth it.

Wellington100 said:

My gut feeling though is that the ideal compact for the masses would have a DX sized sensor optimised for low light and high DR, no more than 10mp and a short zoom to keep it all compact.

Click to expand...

More pixels result in higher IQ, so no reason to limit the pixel count. One can simply use options in the firmware to specify an output size, as is done with in-camera jpgs.

Wellington100 said:

This sort of camera would work effortlessly in much lower light and be far better suited to the social photographer who could then shoot portraits, candids and groups under most light conditions from sunny holidays to nightclubs.

Click to expand...

Thom Hogan is a big advocate of such a camera, and so am I. I thought that the Sony R1 was going to be the first of such cameras when it came out, but I was mistaken.