 |  |  |
| Sproing! by BrassGlass from My Best Photo of the Fortnight | Roman snow globe by Surfwalker from Lens Ball Challenge III | _MG_2302 battersea 2 1500 by Pavel Kohout from Remains |
| | |
| Sproing! by BrassGlass from My Best Photo of the Fortnight | Roman snow globe by Surfwalker from Lens Ball Challenge III | _MG_2302 battersea 2 1500 by Pavel Kohout from Remains |
FM1978: I fail to understand why modern full frame digital cameras are as big and heavy as they are. All the processing power you need fits into a circuit board weighing no more than 50 grams, if that.
Check out any smartphone. The processing power in an iPhone 12 vastly exceeds that needed by a digital camera.
Think back, too, to film days when Rollei's and Olympuses and Minoxes were the size of Kleenex packs, if not smaller.
It should be entirely possible to engineer and manufacture a full frame camera that weights less than 400 grams (a weight threshold that is noticeable to shooters), have a .8x viewfinder, and be small, with suitably small lenses. Given the sensitivity of today's sensors, a maximum aperture of f3.5 or f4 for primes would help keep sizes of lenses down, too.
Instead, we're getting bloat and weight gain in camera bodies, but also especially in the lens department.
I'd hapilly forsake an lcd screen, any video whatsoever if my beloved X-T2 could keep the same EVF and other features and be smaller and lighter. Its not that it is too big or heavy just that I don't need an LCD screen or video so would be ok without them for even less size.
FM1978: I fail to understand why modern full frame digital cameras are as big and heavy as they are. All the processing power you need fits into a circuit board weighing no more than 50 grams, if that.
Check out any smartphone. The processing power in an iPhone 12 vastly exceeds that needed by a digital camera.
Think back, too, to film days when Rollei's and Olympuses and Minoxes were the size of Kleenex packs, if not smaller.
It should be entirely possible to engineer and manufacture a full frame camera that weights less than 400 grams (a weight threshold that is noticeable to shooters), have a .8x viewfinder, and be small, with suitably small lenses. Given the sensitivity of today's sensors, a maximum aperture of f3.5 or f4 for primes would help keep sizes of lenses down, too.
Instead, we're getting bloat and weight gain in camera bodies, but also especially in the lens department.
F4 primes without OIS don't make money like F1.4 ones with OIS do ;)
Sure a Sony A7 IV is a consumer camera. I can just see the rebel brigade queuing up to.oay thousand of dollars for this for their family photos and holiday snaps
https://camerasize.com/compact/#857.862,679.359,ha,t
X-T2 and 18-55 F2.8-4 not as wide but longer.... weighs less, costs less and just as good for travel
The winner in my book
SignalRauschen: Kits always appear as a stock clearance promotion at Leica. Either the product is discontinued or there will be something new soon. Since Panasonic has announced its intention to exit the compact segment, I'm not sure if there will be a successor to the LX 100 II.
Shame. I love my LX100 to bits for travel and social snaps but ISO 1600 is definitely the limit and don't try landscape on an overcast day, it super struggles with DR. If they made a M3 with THE latest Panasonic M43 sensor I'd be in. AF is already good, all features are good enough for me already, lens is sharp as I could want, just would like EM10 IV sensor performance and away we go!
That was a really fun video.
PortraitLover: m43 | 25mm f1.2 = USD 1,149 equ FF 50 f2.4
fuji gfx | 60 f2.8 = USD 1,499 equ FF 49 f2.2
fuji apsc | 35 f1.4 = USD 599 equ FF 52 f2
Canon | 50 f1.8 = USD 125 equ FF 50 1.8
Nikon | 50 f1.8 = USD 216 equ FF 50 1.8
Any question?
To be fair both of those lenses are peach, the EF 50 F1.8 STM is amazingly priced, now has a metal rear end and is a dream in terms of IQ. Best selling lens in the world apparently. Fuji shooter.
(unknown member): Interesting. Just curious. Looked at a few comparisons. Im still amazed.
I do not need the resolution, but still... I compared the "noise signature" in above images for this beast compared to my LX100 from around 2015 (12 megapixel, huge pixels, 4.19 um pixel pitch) up to 6400 ISO (and beyond both are entering real no-go zones, but from there I absolutely prefer the LX100 ;-).
There is obviously more to PhaseOne's new sensor, and especially everything else around the sensor, no doubt, but really... I had expected a far better noise performance, than my ugly, little critter with an old sensor - methusalem in digital terms - could deliver on the same scene. Lo, and behold...
Just saying'!
Lol I love my LX100 but never dare use it over ISO 1600
dstate1: Larger sensors have to be the future of the high end market. Since the actual visible quality differences between brands are so small, the last frontier is the true “medium format look” that only a big image circle can offer.
You don’t sell people what they need, you sell them what they want.
Yeah when you learn how to use line and light and composition, you realise you can get that magical medium format look on most gear. It's all quality and direction of light, framing, and lines etc
EOS GUY: Surprised no mention of the $350 Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM for Sony for comparison / alternative purposes. It is a stop slower as you zoom in but at half the price would definitely be a worthy mention
Sorry guys, I thought it was also available in E mount.
EOS GUY: Surprised no mention of the $350 Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM for Sony for comparison / alternative purposes. It is a stop slower as you zoom in but at half the price would definitely be a worthy mention
No it's an APSC, lens and they made it for all brands. They also do a 17-50mm constant F2.8 EX DC OS HSM for APSC ;) I had it for Nikon D5300 and the IQ is peach except at 17mm ;) I can't discuss the quality of the bokeh as I prefer a stopped down aesthetic. Cheers
Surprised no mention of the $350 Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM for Sony for comparison / alternative purposes. It is a stop slower as you zoom in but at half the price would definitely be a worthy mention
Meh is just Covid and nobody buying new cameras hurt for cash and also nowhere to go for most of us anyway!
Wow 5K for a camera with the same sensor as all the others and the same or less functionality that takes photos that look the same as all the others.... And before I get slammed, I briefly owned an M10 before selling it when I realised it took photos no better than my X-T2 and X lenses an the X-T2 actually felt better to use in hand. Of course each to their own. Horses for courses etc.
inorogNL: The whole concept of filming everythink around you and than choosing the snap out of it that you want (or letting the app chose for you) is is so groundbraking!
insta360 is pure fun, (there are alott story modes, bullettime especially looks awesome)
It's depressing. New digital photographers who already believe more expensive cameras will make photos better rather than learning the basics of photography etc will now pick random shots out of a stream of footage which will look like zombie photography as they did not observe to look for a special moment with multiple elements at play while thinking through the framing and composition which is what makes photography an art elevated above random snaps
Dont love it when reviews say something is perfect for street photography thinking street photography is just any photo 'taken in a street' like the ones in the review which are not street photography
I smiled at them
jonby: Quite an underwhelming performance for a £900 (UK) lens. Ok, it's just one copy, but based on what we can see here, all the copies of the EF 16-35 (£1000) f4 I have used trounce this optically. Considering it should be easier to design wide angle lenses for mirrorless, I'm not sure what is going on with Fuji, or why anyone would pay this kind of money for such a lens. In APS-C, The Pentax 11-18 2.8 seems to produce much better results than this for almost the same price, and it's a stop faster.
They are medium format lenses, which are usually a stop slower than FF
jonby: Quite an underwhelming performance for a £900 (UK) lens. Ok, it's just one copy, but based on what we can see here, all the copies of the EF 16-35 (£1000) f4 I have used trounce this optically. Considering it should be easier to design wide angle lenses for mirrorless, I'm not sure what is going on with Fuji, or why anyone would pay this kind of money for such a lens. In APS-C, The Pentax 11-18 2.8 seems to produce much better results than this for almost the same price, and it's a stop faster.
The Canon E-FS 10-18 around £200 and optically excellent. Has IS. No WR. A stop slower after wide open but a very impressive lens. Build not same level but dslr lenses rarely get damaged easily. I left Canon and now shoot Fujifilm but lens prices are prohibitive. EF-S 24m aprox £200, tac sharp from wide open. My Fuji 23mm F2 I had to get GM to get under £300. Is also excellent optically and WR. Canon F1.8 nifty fifty under £100. Fuji 35mm F2 over £300 though now XC version for £150 which is a good concession. For non pros who never shoot in storms WR lenses cost a lot. I got the 18-55mm F2.8-4 Fuji lens, better than any Canon 18-55 but had to buy from China and wait weeks for delivery. 16-55 F2.8 is so expensive while for DSLR's the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM is excellent and a good price. I went Fuji X-T2 from Canon APS-C for the functionality of the body (much larger VF, silent shooting, direct controls) but own only two lenses due to cost.