Please, please, try to understand. You do not have a longer lens. The longest lens available for a full-frame camera is, let's say, a 1200 mm. You can put that lens on a m4/3 and it will get you closer.
There seems to be an agreement that designing a new lens (unless it's a minor revision of an old one) takes 2-3 years. People seem not to get this... Plus even a trivial revision takes a LOT of production engineering.You're an accountant. I am in manufacturing.
Trust me, people have NO idea of manufacturing, they think that everything can be made on short notice the exact way they want it. Materials realty? A 1mm wall is completely unrealistic? No way! That's what I want!
Grrr. Please don't get me started
If it has the aperture ring, and if it does not focus by wire.
Tried Sigma 150/2.8 (Nikon mount) with an adapter, nope, it does not work that way. Have you tried it yourself?
We're so far down the thread perhaps my original point is lost, which was exactly that. I can see them designing a FF camera to shoot 8k, although I would think they would use an existing mount (so no lens designs needed). Probably one with lots of Cine lenses available (EF, PL, etc.). Would e very expensive.
What doesn't work?
You can not control the aperture with it (it is controlled from the camera). In fact it will not work with almost any of the modern lenses I have, including for macro.
Panasonic already makes higher-end video gear. I'm sure they will continue to do so. That's not the same as ILCs where their market share is small (order - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic; and Sony have 13% market share, Oly sell less then 500k cameras) .Panasonic are a massive company , they made aprox $3.4 billion operating profit almost five times what Olympus made, as such their survival is not in doubtPanasonic and Sony have a long rivalry in a number of areas such professional video so i doubt very much they would work together. I wonder if Panasonic are aiming this at the high end video market where prices for gear get astronomical.
Current Varicams are Super-35, so maybe a FF one?That's.. an excellent observation! They said "full frame SYSTEM camera", who said that this system must be stills oriented?Panasonic are a massive company , they made aprox $3.4 billion operating profit almost five times what Olympus made, as such their survival is not in doubt
LOL What does it matter if you are interested or not. I am talking about the advantages of higher linear resolution of the sensor.
Though you'd need a huge pixel count to make such a large crop a winner?!?
80M = 20M crop
I already told you it does not work that way.Have you tried it yourself? Why are you avoiding to answer? You are making the statement and then you ask me why it does not work - do you have any idea at all of what you are talking about?
And more pixels, what happens then?
You have larger frame with more pixels on it, it will collect more light and it will deliver more detail. In addition it will stress the lenses less than if you put the tightly packed small sensor behind it. What both and law of physics are talking about?
It works exactly like that. And yes, I have tried it myself - can get more magnification in macro with an m4/3 than is possible with a full-frame.
LOL, you really don't get it, do you? You have two full-frame sensors, one with 20 mpix, one with 40 mpix. Larger pixels on a 20 mpix sensor will collect more light (less noise), smaller pixels on a 40 mpix sensor will collect more details. You cannot have both on the same image - low noise of 20 mpix sensor and high details of 40 mpix sensor.
Exactly like how, most of the modern lenses do not have aperture rings on them, so how do you set the aperture then?
Magnification is like the size of the camera, at some point it just gets very uncomfortable to hold it. There are many ways to achieve it, at whatever discomfort you chose to live with, cropping is just not something I would put on the list of the macro photography achievements.
They will collect the same amount of light regardless of how many pixels they have. It is not the size of the pixels, it is the size of the sensor (the area the light is projected on) that determines it.
Just have a look here (top two cameras); one has twice as many pixels as the other, both have the same noise at the ISO I would not use.
It's true that Nikon and Canon have a large catalog of adaptable lenses for their new mirrorless systems.
In the lens category, yup.
It does seem like quite a stretch to make a major dent in that market. My guess is that the large sunk costs in IP in m43 will translate well to the 135 format, so launching a new system won't end up costing them much in terms of new engineering relative to launching 4/3 and m4/3.
Wrong. The total amount of light - total information - is "divided" between the quality (lack of noise) and quantity (resolution). Larger pixels have lower noise, but the resolution is also lower. You cannot have low noise and high resolution at the same time. It is a fundamental limit of digitalisation, or sampling, of any information.
Well, you obviously don't understand what is going on. At full resolution, the noise is not the same. The noise is the same only if you reduce the higher resolution (it's called downsampling or pixel-binnig). As I said, you simply cannot have low noise and high resolution at the same time (on the same image). Physicaly impossible.
