Canon brought to market the Powershot G1X II featuring an in-house odd 1.5" Type sensor.
The Quattro H is a great example actually, because it has an APS-C counterpart available for $800 and the only difference is the sensor.
Eventually when sensor production cost is low enough we will have 100% image circle coverage but not so much to generate round pictures but enable the photographer to change from Landscape to Portrait without changing ergonomics.Who decided that pictures have to be rectangles. Why don't we just keep the whole image circle?
The images made with the original Kodak No. 1 Camera were round. One advantage with a round image is no worries about keeping the horizon level when taking the picture. Also, no need to turn the camera for portraits.Who decided that pictures have to be rectangles. Why don't we just keep the whole image circle?
The A6500 is selling no problem at a higher price than the Quattro H even though is using a smaller sensor. The price differences are sometimes more about what margins manufacturers can get away with, not the actual production cost.
Not an issue, you can simply replace that piece of plastic with a circular hood from eBay for less than $10
A rectangular crop from the image circle would have minimum vignetting since you are getting to the edge of the lens with 4 corners. Only 4 pixels will reach the edge.
Not a good idea for you, but it is for me and many other potential buyers, like people voting YES on this poll above.
There is an image circle. There are multiple rectangles inside this circle, each with the corners touching the edge of the defined image circle.
There are tangible benefits to be have by enlarging the sensor, which I've listed and explained in many posts above.
Which supports the viability of enlarging the APS-C sensor for gains in quality, versatility and convenience. A good set of Cost/Benefit ratio.
It is actually the opposite. For IBIS a larger sensor has a greater degree of motion within the image circle which translate in better motion cancelation.
And automatic horizon leveling.
Well, this approach is not limited to APS-C and could be used with FF too.
Not really. It suggests that other cost are probably more important like development and also price is a function of sales volume.
I think your understanding of physics needs work. A sensor that is the exact size of the image circle has exactly zero room to move without moving out of the image circle
But since very few actually do show that they are willing to pay more and or use technology which creates more pixels the theory is not supported by reality.
You've predicted that this is going to happen. But it seems to me that when film ILCs were (almost all) designed for 35mm, camera manufacturers settled on 1.5X or 1.6X crop APS-C sensors as a new standard for DSLRs (when sensors were new and expensive) then designed lines of lenses for those sensor sizes ... and now they're supposed to move to slightly bigger sensors to squeak a little more benefit out of those lenses when cropped to other aspect ratios (and to benefit users of FF lenses, thus discouraging them from upgrading to FF bodies) ?
At a higher cost for little perceived benefit. If it costs $1 more per phone, that's millions of dollars ... is it going to net them millions of dollars more in profit ?
Nothing is stopping Sony from applying the same sensor expansion to FF. This would keep the gap from APS-C to the same level as it is now.
Yep, I own one and I love that feature.
Electronic Device manufacturers have to, as a matter of survival make constant improvements in their product to justify consumers upgrading their devices.
No because that really requires a different set of lenses and the cost is much higher than crop cameras.
This is not an entirely new camera. Is just a more efficient and flexible camera design. Another step in the evolution of cameras, that is all. Unless you want to get stuck in the present.
Not at all, the sensor size difference is significant enough to belong to different categories.
It is not an extra cost for anyone who already owns an a7r. They could actually save money by purchasing crop lenses -this would give them the same effect you are describing. But they do not do that because there is no photographic advantage.
m43photo.blogspot.com
