Such lenses always have bulbous front elements :/
you cant have rectilinear with FOV>180 degress no matter what price
well yeah, but assuming that you have already bought FF camera, you can use this lens almost same as if you had m43 camera. Btw sony’s best aps-c camera is A7R4…
also if you shoot videos with this on m43, top and bottom portions of circle are lost.
You can only chose between wasting sensor area and wasting lens image circle.
There isn’t a revolution.
um isn’t A7 II with IBIS significantly heavier than A7?
You know some people would like A7-sized camera with IBIS.
I know “muh what about 200-600” but thereis 35/2.8 and 45/1.8 as well…
Rather more like ISO 25.
You yourself started this thread comparing to Sony’s FF, not him!
Thanks for transcript!
how DSLR and MILC are almost evenly matched, but in top-20 list 11 data entries are DSLR and 6 MILC?
Да, я там живу
Russia isn’t quite “heathly”. Her GDP per capita is about same as Brazil, a country with ~2/3 SD lower IQ.
>As much as the white Spaniard …. killed off the indigenous population
Spanish conquistadors immediately began marrying Amerindian women. That’s not what people do they they want to kill.
Don’t you think that 9 II name was bad to begin with?
I can’t think of anything other when I read “A9II”
it would be funny if Sony’s own cameras (both a7 line and RX100) didn’t grow in size with each iteration.
When I poiinted to the latter thing to many people, they responded like “nobody really needs AF or electronic aperture for tilt/shift anyway”
In electronic camera, sensor should be tilted and not lens. So you can have tilt with all macros and telephotos, and heavy portrait lens as well.
Thom why do you say clever things, but never back up your statements, like with Nikkor 58/0.95 too wide for Sony E?
I read somewhere that DN might actually might make things worse — e.g. ISIS militants would be quick to notice that the killer “god” doesn’t target them but western&japanese criminals, and consider it as another proof that their idea is right. Was it at gwern?
Well, not really. Mirrorless cameras are referred by what they don’t have, rather than by what features they have due to omission of mirror. The differences between current mirrorless and DSLR aren’t that big as between horses and cars.
There isn’t a reason why IBIS and eye focus can’t be in a DSLR. Pentax K-1 can use its IBIS to fix skewed horizons, a feature which’d make more sense in a mirrorless.
Current MILCs are like Fardier de Cugnot’s steam car which replaced horse with a cauldron without any changes in paradigm
It’s also free of cholesterol and sugar.
Often pros shoot gear that they don’t own.
Authors get tired with storyline and HAD to terminate it somehow
maybe it’s a money laundering scheme xD
We. Need. Anamorphot. Pinhole.
A nice strawman you made here. No, I am not saying this, and you’re not using term “TIFF” properly.
Could you answer on Nikkor 58/0.95 being supposedly too wide for Sony E-mount, where you claimed raytracing and something which supposedly proved your point?
There’s a thread on dpreview about this. Pretty much everyone agreed that 3mos or G+R/B are bad ideas.
> The actual demosaic time in most of the current ASICs is near nil
I’m afraid lightrooms and the likes do demosaic in software-only, maybe using only one CPU core.
No, it the organic captures greens and reds and blues and passed down to the silicon. For separation, they multiply RGB triplet on Color Space Conversion Matrix (with negative weights — kinda Barry was speaking about the same thing above)
Did Canon ever want to buy that patents? You mean Foveon?
1 layer is too few. 3 is too much. 2 layers to rule them all.
Where is the ducking raytrace of Nokt 58/0.95?
Don’t antagonize people.
Also admin asked you to avoid bringing politics here.
wdym? should i prove your point for you? at Bill’s site there’s “optical bench”
and the lens in question is missing from the list. The listed f/0.9 lens has quite different composition from the commercial f/0.95 Noct.
and I don’t remember any measurer taking correlated noise into account (other than marker to check if RAWs are cooked)
Thom, where’s your raytracing for Nikon Noct 0.95 please?
Remember X-axis here (unlike dxo) is not actual exposure but setting but what camera reports. They don’t have to match between cameras.
both 45/1.8 and 35/1.4 have ~25mm entrance pupil but one lens is small and the one is genormous….
‘low pass filter’ could also refer to wavelengths < 700 nm, silicon sensors are natively sensitive to wavelengths upto 1100 nm which is not desirable
>the A7R IV is still a uniquely brick-like camera
all mainstream still cameras are, the difference is brick with straight edges vs. brick with slanted edges
Look at how small the front element of the ZX1 is. Lens appears underdesigned, probably doesn’t fully cover 36×24 as well…. /jk
is aspect ratio new megapixels?
A vintage lens in excellent condition might sell as well higher than a new one… (ofk you might occasionnaly get such lens for a garbage price — but it’d be luck)
Also, as you say, some of them had no coatings or single-layer coatings.
Well, almost every manufacturer cheats on f-stop values, some more, some less…
2) those PDAF pixels might get USED by sophisticated RAW demosaic, also with more color information (as its sensitivity isn’t a linear combination of R, G, B pixels).
In other words, Sony reinvented Dual Pixel AF. If they found a way around Canon’s patent, I’d think it’s nice.
As pixel resolution grows, DOF limit becomes more and more apparent (and it’s not possible to solve this by making lenses bigger and motors more powerful, as most SAR readers want), so….
The video tells more about his face/gestures than the lenses being discussed :/
Maybe because 200 mm (that is, about 5x the image diagonal) is “sweet” spot for sharpest lens
I guess transgenders are already over-represented (relative to population) in photography.
you prefer no distortion+soft corners to some distortion+sharp corners?
In fully electronic camera, T/S effect should be done in camera body… Then you’d get it for all lenses, including macros and teles, AF and having less bulk to carry too…
Well it’s partly true… Photography forums often turn toxic to anyone asking for smaller cameras, many men take pride in carrying a brick with grip and if it’s not possible to make lens smaller, they ask to make brick and grip for the brick bigger — instead of paradigm change. Mirrorless yet doesn’t do much here they’re intended to look and act like DSLRs but marginally smaller/faster.
Imagine how many comments would have been here had it been f/1.4.
if this was made autofocus would be slow AF (I mean other acronym).
she’s talking about possible advantages a lenses with 85 FL could have if made for wider throat
AF is incredibly useful for focus stacking
for such a niche product, they’d probably use a single server to host versions for all languages
I must admit there’s shortage of small lenses because many people want faster, faster, preferably f/1.4 which drives size up and even after optics, these get with thick barrels and non-removable hoods.
Composition with WATE intended to be done with external viewfinder… So it’s more feature of camera/viewinder than the lens.
>Optimising the lens to work exclusively at 3 focal length would be better
Unfortunately, no. Many designers tried but no success. Even with case of 2 FLs advantage over entire range is usually too small to be considered. The WATE has this strange feature because it is for MECHANICALLY COUPLED rangefinder.
what’s so unique in WATE? a zoom lens with 1.3 ratio! they could make a 1.05 ratio zoom lens, then it’d be even more unique.
…if anything, leaf shutter makes it easier to make IBIS than focal plane shutter.
Why the lens is called “Distagon” whereas it has strong negative element sitting atop the sensor? (and not in the front of lens)
>The lens can only be used in macro distances and cannot focus to infinity.
obviously it can focus to infinity (with MILC), you’d need just to use thin reverse mounting ring o.o
Hmmm…. if they make such thing, it would highlight A9′ inability to make entire stack of into fraction of second.(such lenses are typically used with focus stacking)
Then people will start asking what is the difference between E and AE ….
noise is depedant on number of photons hitting sensor. That is why 3200 ISO at FF and 800 ISO and m43 have similar noise rations
what could be the solution?
links, please? do they have 36×24 size? A9II is already on the top end of pricing of mirrorless cams, A7m3 with similar or even better (for purposes of long exposure shooting) cost much less.
or maybe they shouldn’t sell their crappy software permanently attached to their good sensors. and I don’t think camera makers need to reinvent their own software for posting to social networks etc.
Yes of course I’m referencing something else… Most brands have cooked RAW more or less. I meant — OSPDAF pixels replace regular imaging pixels, and because most RAW converters aren’t aware of it, you can be sure they do interpolate these pixels. (Sigma’s Quattro H however outputs it as-is, hence rawdigger has setting to hide these pixels)
They must do it anyway because of OSPDAF pixels.
> will likely be better served by an actual scientific camera
which will set at 10x the cost, with similar hardware
Remember, folks, E-mount is “open standard” mount (but actually not).
Name please Canon RF lenses that do make use of its extended rear…
This doesn’t mean they’re going to bring every single patent example to market
Calm thy boobies, 35/1.2 is going be the only of these three to see market… Companies patent way more than they produce
E-mount was young that day, today, it has matured and grown in size…
yeah, the thing i tried explain to many people here
Notice the 50 mm one has f/1.25 specced in patent not 1.2 and the 40 has f/1.26
well, not only photogs like this, but their clients too! And clients thinking they are good photogs *actually* helps them to be good photogs
You forgot 4k 60 fps o.o
This lens is denying existence of mirrorless, not using mirrorless advantage in area where mirrorless have the most advantage over DSLRs…
Aren’t modern scanners using CMOS imagers too?
sorry for being late, this ratio applies to lens mounted to a SLR; on a mirrorless you can mount it closer to sensor (using other adapter) and get less extreme, more like 1.5:1 ratio
so EU customers are affected by US tariffs against China too? o.o
huh? a phone with 1/1.2″ sensor and a prime can have better IQ than RX100
Really? A6400 now sells less than NEX-7 sold in 2011 but has more.
A6100 is has EVF unlike NEX-5N and costs less.
Majority of (potential) camera bueyer aren’t photographers. If manufacturesr cater only to those who considers themselves photographers, no wonder there will be only expensive low volume models. Happy market shrinking!
??? The 40 mm one is design for the Batis 40, has been here for nearly a year.
The 40/2 one (Batis) is already release long time ago
Often they start producing something and patent in later when the lens is in late stages of production; patents aren’t here no help produce, they are here to deny others to produce.
A lens gets better when it’s stopped down, however, this does not mean than making lens faster than you going to use it makes it better. Faster lenses typically are longer/have greater count/more complex elements than slow lenses. Saying “make a f/1.8 to be used at f/2.0” would only restrict space of possible optical designs. A f/0.95 lens of 10 elements (Mitakon f/0.95) gets better when it’s stopped down, but it never gets as good as f/1.8 lens with just 7 elements.
I guess they’re largely identical and there’s no possible to make a6100 cheaper , they could only make a6400 more expensive (which they didnt)
well, they can make sensor replaceable to you could replace only this part, also one could switch one to suit taste (color rendering, BW, etc.)
well but adding OSS would have made lens even bigger and costlier, which would also be problematic for A6000 and earlier camera owners.
You can’t have 36×27 in e-mount…. 36×24 just fits.Larger sensor would also make camera much more expensive.
um do you mean google cache?
Of course yes, because even inner focusing lens with mechanical coupling still has a potential point of failure.
Coupling type of course is largely orthogonal to inner or extending focusing type, but it you want best sealing you’d want inner focusing fly-by-wire type.
Find me a gf
The niche of ‘small camera’ seems to be dying…
Normal people don’t like to remove/put on lens caps, body caps even if they’re ok with interchangeable lenses. Enthuasists/pros like bigger is better.
Oh, you’re so used to see SLR lenses with big front element and small rear.
These lenses are opposite: small front eleemnt and big rear.
yeah, but 1:2 macro at such wide FOV… it would also have short working distance — AND it has wide front (to have same filters) — which would also obscure light. They of course could make it to have longer working distance than a SLR lens (no need to retrofocus), but still..
if so, then focus-by-wire is much better for dust sealing than mechanical coupling, but i don’t remember this point raised on the forums! (focus-by-wire doesn’t make lens bigger = per bigger is better = bad or irrelevant)
well generally Japanese compaines are more welcome.
Ah. You don’t get it.They often make a lens, say with FL = 192 mm max, f/2.95 and market is at -200/2.8.
“try again” what?
Number #1 of the reasons is that EF mount has largest marketshare, also it’s advantageous for users to stack adapters (compared to Nikon F adapter).
Pentax with marketshre in single digits doesn’t make a difference if it’s lever controlled or not.
Wasn’t problem with Commlite adapter was bricking camera and/or lens? Even it was restricted to rare combos it’s very frightening
Yup, sometimes electronics can be more difficult than mechanical couplings!
on the box it says it supports Pull Rod)
Focal lengths in 70-200, 70-180 are marketed, not true. Ditto apertures (i’m not referring to transmission losses here).
E-mount is not open.
It’s entirely Sony’s decision to license or not; at a whim; opposite of open.
Btw ef-m is not “open” but Sigma announced their f/1.4 primes in that mount.
Techart makes autofocus Sony FE-Nikon Z adapter.
Those kind of reducers could benefit from Nikon’s wide mount greatly
Of course it wasn’t because it was overpriced for what it offered. Now with Sigma it can live.
Yeah, L-mount lenses protrude a little more than E-mount so backfocus is the same…
Mitakon 50/0.95 isn’t retrofocus.
remember the joke? Sources say the next Sony camera will be bomb…. later: Announcement cancelled due to security reasons…
what else did you expect when you name it 9/11?
Unfortunately, the front super thin element would still have to be 300 mm in diameter…
You can jump to mirrorless system to use SLR lenses on a tilt adapter, option not possible on a SLR
Yes, the Noct f0.95 has a fixed reducer as part of its design. But it is designed to work as a whole and has better IQ than a combination of separate reducer and lens could have had.
Also, if you say, slap a reducer to the rear of 85/1.2 lens the combination won’t cover FF. You’d need a medium format 85/1.2 + medium-to36x24 reducer for this.
Yup, real f-stop on the Canon is closer to 1.3 than 1.2. Manufacturers love to market somewhat dishonestly.
I.e. Sony has created only one mount?
>something has to hold the rear element in an absolutely aligned position, even when it moves.
You say as if the lens in question (f0.95 nikkor) had mobile rear group. In some E-mount lenses the rear group is focusing group or participates in zooming. Apparently you cherry picked a FE lens with smaller rear diameter.
Ok, since you here speaking about renowned optical scientists, show one (unaffiliated with Nikon) who says than this 58/0.95 can’t fit in E-mount, or stop pulling it of thin air.
Could you please provide the raytrace? You know that most people reading this, even whose who can do it, wouldn’t spent any time doing it (hence you can claim anything without evidence and avoid being checked) I’ve seen patents from NIkon which wouldn’t fit E-mount but this design isn’t any of these patents, and the design doesn’t even have to match any of patent examples ever.
In my primary area of expertise, I say never trust of discussions such as C++ vs Java etc. People being skilled doesn’t prevent them from being opinionated fanboys. And the more they intelligent, the tougher their lies are to crack.
Few days ago you mentioned photography school. If you run it, you are professional in selling words.Your tone and command English is far superior to mine or Puni Puni’s yet I don’t remember you providing a single ducking raytrace, and references in general.
Torque = force x arm projection so it does matter…
They don’t have a fixed price. The price is decided upon negotiation of parties.
Apparently not much, thought it’s too early to tell with the organic sensor, getting rid of CFA might raise sensitivity by 1 stop.
Some say SWIR cameras can the through clothes. It’s a sensor for security/automation, not photography.
Green layer on the top also might “eat” some residual chromatism.
There’s easy way to get color fidelity: subsitute 4-cfa pattern with 6 or 9-cfa pattern, since there’s enough megapixels, which could be put to good use them.
ah…. “remember kids, Sony is electronics company and Canin/Nikon are serious optical companies”.
I guess for single shots 48mp Quad bayer is roughly as good as 20 mp traditional bayer. The only good use for Quad bayers is multi-frame stacking (which cameraphones do automatically).
both these are FSI sensor. The 20 MP one probably has much better angular response — which is quite useful for MILC but barely for DSLR, also it’s faster which is important too for better EVF feed.
Probably 26 MP BSI sensor is much better than both, but Nikon hasn’t negotiated it yet.
P.s. oh s%%t, just realized the new nikon 20 sensor is a BSI one.
Waiting Mitakon to make a larger, higher quality f/0.95 with same as as Nikon at 40% of the price.
but for end user fair is what whey get for what they pay for.
Highly doubt that Brazil would provide same or better labour quality per unit of cost than China can do.
Don’t you understand why people voted for him in the first place?
it’s more due to manufacturer having technology rather than cost. (e.g. Yongnuo AF lenses are even cheaper).
Playing devil’s advocate: the Mitakon 35 is an APS-C lens.
E-mount has excessive width for aps-c but only just enough for FF.
No. With short flange distance it can’t cover anything than slightly more its rear opening diameter.
For SLR lenses with their generous ~38 backfocus it is common that they cover more, not for this.
Formula is simple: rear diameter + 2 * backfocus * tan (chief ray angle)
with BSI sensors now they have greater freedom in lens design so probably doable.
If we had sensor Z-shift we could have AF with this instead of moving large thick lens elements.
Nikon 1 used a system with entire rows dedicated to OSPDAF which is bad, because it affects IQ; is it used by any other cameras anymore?
Most OSPDAF patterns are quite uniform in horizontal/vert axes: olympus e1 https://www.imaging-resourc… iphones: https://www.gizmocrazed.com…
#2 well in a system with off-sensor AF, TCs and mount adapters can lead to neccessity of calibration because it’s off-sensor in the first place (and probably not continuous as you claim). Anyways, with growing pixel counts TCs would go extinct (as they would server no other purpose than magnify picture in OVF).
Motor calibration shouldn’t be an issue because each lens has feedback to tell camera body how much exactly focusing element has moved.
well maybe standard complaints:
not rugged enough
slower than entry level DSLR
>We will see this in m43 long before FF gets it
we haven’t seen any BSI sensor in MFT camera, let alone stacked BSI! Yet A9 is 2.5 years old. Also majority of new FF cameras announced use BSI sensors.
It’s price of sample. Sony don’t want hobbyists to place orders on this but only serious customers, so they can keep it high.
Also when sensor be in production, yield typically goes up and costs down.
I thought I saw a table on EOS-HD.com or the like site….
The table even had an entry for rotating bladder film cameras o.o
(yup, film cine cameras had rolling shutter too, but it was hard to notice bc they didn’t shake cameras)
Small sensor can also function as digital teleconverter — birds photogs always have tele reach in deficit.
It isn’t technical info, more than a marketing teaser. Manufacturers get technical info only after signing NDA.
because “Bigger is always bitter.
The same design on m43 won’t produce same pictures… On FF, something like 400 f/11 might be usable but on MFT 200 f/11 would suffer more diffraction blur and worse SNR.
You’re strawmanning here. I never talked about collapsible 30-80/2.8. FF needs f/5.6 where MFT needs f/2.8.
Also, they can make smaller FF lenses, like Canon announced smaller 70-200/2.8
Canon RP is 485 grams with battery, vs. EM5 ~ 425 grams. The price difference is more singificant.
You are correct that pixel vignetting is sometimes exaggerated. Of course, some of light hitting sensor as shallower angles is still registered and seen in blur circles getting bigger, but it has less insensity than center of blur disk.
You can see some effective t-stop values at dxomark. Im not talking about cine lenses here, but same lenses for stills compared on different camera bodies, small pixel FSI vs large pixel FSI vs BSI sensor.
Sensor in Olympus E-M1M2 has generally “best” high ISO but also worst pixel vignetting…
>Losing some light isn’t a problem. Sensors are so sensitive today
??? in the previous comment, you wrote…
>as aperture size is the main reason for noise perdormance and therefore DR there
>and DR is dependant on using a lower base ISO.
well unfortunately making lower ISO (in sense of potential well storing more photoelectrons) isn’t easy task. So both large and small sensors store about same charge per unit of square micron…
Um these f/1.2 lenses have effective t-stops of about 1.8. Due to very large count of components, and coatings can’t eliminate all losses when angles are shallow. There is also major pixel vignetting at such apertures because M43 still uses FSI sensors.
And in part due to population growth and China and India getting out of poverty.
“cheapist plastics”? Don’t you think there were plenty of plastic cameras in film era? Just from decades ago these cameras are broken or recycled and you look at surviving more robust cameras which were handled much better and exprapolate this to all film cameras of past.
Well, in fact the only major advantage of smaller sensors is price.There is really no reason they can’t make smaller lenses for larger sensors (say, collapsible 24-70/7-11 equivalent to 12-35/3.5-5.6) — they just don’t want to. Also with large sensor you have option to mount lens with smaller circle coverage when one needs tiny setup (provided MP counts are enough) and equip large lens when they want max IQ.
can’t wait to see more NSFW stuff with TOF sensors o.o
please be more specific
I don’t quite get it. what “everything” is so small in A7/A9?
Canon RP actually has slightly more width than the Sonys and appears to have same volume as them. Also due to having no bulky IBIS unit it can allow its bayonet mount shifted away from grip. The Canon’s total height is smaller than Sonys due to smaller fake bump, I appreciate this.
Do you remember when Fuji rotated bayer pattern by 45 degrees and called this SuperCCD? Seems like Sony found this marketing trick again…
George Bush is still hiding A9II from us :c
well kinda yes, but when asked “how to place controls well and make grip more ergonomic”, the answer is always is “make them bigger”
Shit, the one the right even has a fake pentaprism
oh, does this SR-T have double hinged mirror? I thought whey wouldn’t need such things until A900 (when they needed to fit IBIS behind mirror)
>in those times where the market keeps shrinking
couldn’t it be because the photo market isn’t offering new things? 30% better AF and 10% better DR isn’t very interesting.
Perfect things ain’t need to change.
I thought it was 16 fps.
Those are hidden messages to the sources, which Andrea can’t send directly.
Nah, SAR is perfect.
I’d prefered if camera was A920 or A960 or something, no this silly mixing of different numerals
I thought ARRI gives GS or at least even faster readout than A9. It’s about dozens times more expensive than A9, after all.
take him to the infirmary
How do Canon shooters get paid without aperture ring on their lenses?
one can film 20 fps series of stills with A9 and call it a video xD
are you joking? this is mixed lighting.
so in fact you were on EU soil more than once xD
GPDR requires this towards all EU citiziens even if both them and website are outside EU. So websites preemptively do this towards everyone
I wonder if FF MILC disease gets Xiaomi and Huawei some day xD
but it also dosn’t make coffee. No deal /s
Thank anti-cookies war for this. Enjoy even if you never has been on EU soil xD
Oungnoy? woosh… :c
because i’m nolifer who lives in the past too much
Yeah, but won’t be calling camera 9 II won’t be disrespectful in the first place?
No Sony Nine Evelen on Sep, 11? I am dissappointed :c
It is a sensor problem, not a lens problem. Canon still uses FSI sensors vulnerable to this problem. It you shoot any of FF Sonys except first A7R or A7M1,2 it’s not going to be a problem.
because the horizontal signal is row-select which is same for all pixels in a row, yet outcoming signals are different
Are nasal piercings haram? xD
Twice shorter than it takes to travel 20mm.
Assuming same sensor area, sensor with longer aspect ratio will have shorter columns.
The signal which travels horizontally – row select signal – doesn’t need to be as fast.
i don’t think it would work with plana design.
it’s going to be a new lens then, having only focal length in common with old one.
Because the signals would travel larger path. An electoric signal isn’t just like a wave as in optical fiber but it needs change in voltage to be effective etc.
You defined the difference thru “compression of telephoto” which which link explicitly refutes.
50/1.8 = pick the wider Samyang instead
(which, btw, has optical layout similar to zony 55)
Ah, yes, but you posted a FF example; much less an issue with aps-c one. When same optical design downscaled 0.66x, backfocus goes from 38 to 25 and rear element now sits closely to mouth of e-mount.
Also, space added by transition to mirrorless is empty tube which mainly affects length but weight only a little. Collapsible designs are possible (like Leica did)
it’s silly to make choice on small marketed difference, real FOV a FL only loosely match nominal ones, both Vil 33 and Sig 30 might be 31.5 mm in reality xD
Doesn’t RawTherapee has almost same median filtering?
Yes they are. However they would have to travel from pixel to edges about 4000 times (or how many rows the sensor has), and you want to happen this 60-300 times per second, so there’s some difficulties.
Mechanical shutter which you mentioned, also travels towards shorter dimension of the frame.
Then begin charging entrance fees?
wdym. 35/1.5 => 23.333 which is closer to 23, not 24…
If these customers are photographers which have stupid customers, then, they probably should care…
How is this relevant?o.o
I guess none, althrough many film SLRs come close. When digital era came, fashion for bigger cameras came too.
Sony mistook brands for stars and begin to eat themo.o
When I asked a Fuji rep about this, he referred to them as crap as told it’s good that they didn’t have them o.o
Isn’t 35/1.4 a unit focusing lens — entire barrel moves at once? There’s not much can be do there.
It is simple, by, say, using high and low sensitivity pixels to make sensor with more DR (max)… which nobody realls wants, since than would sacrifice other parameters.
> The higher the base dynamic range, the better low light photography
No. A7S, Nikon D4 and the likes have low base DR, they “sacrifice” it to get better high ISOs.
BS. “Look and compression” is defined by point of view. What these lenses do change, through, is lens flare
Because rows and columns are not interchangeable. Given same area area, long sensor would have shorter columns and smaller path for signal to travel from pixel to ADC.
A principle to be independent.
They never opened it, it is an urban legend coined by forum idiots.
A company has to sign multiple NDA agreements to join, and even the review process is under NDA itself.
In past, there were fullframe nifty fifties f/1.4 smaller than this 33/1.4 :c
Sony make 4:1 aspect ratio sensor for these people please… Or better 6:1 aspect ratio sensor.
…dear SAR readers, do you know long aspect ratio sensors have innate advantage in getting faster readout? That is, when sensor manufacturers make square (or near square, 3:2) sensor they struggle with making it read faster. After they put labour into it, other people make anamorphic lenses for it, if it was long aspect ratio to start with, it’d both require less “glass” and less difficulties in making sensor itself.
I guess R4 is still better than M3 despite median NR.
what is the filtering it affects RAW files but nor JPEG only?
>Just look at the sensitivity curve for cooled astro cameras
Do you mean extended sensitivity in 650-700 nm range? With consumer cameras it’s easily mitigated by removing/replaing IR cut filter.
Nikon HAD median NR filtering in many of their cameras about 10 years ago, but no more.
um what about words for new concepts and ideas, which didn’t exist before?
You could also add that as pixel counts grow, median NR becomes less issue. For, say, 3 mp images a lone hot/stuck pixel was immediately obvious, with 24 mp images, not so much
But then, if people are paying $3.5k for camera, they expect it to have RAW.
…um… apriori knowledge of PSF? Dark frames?
Don’t these special cameras provide worse bang per buck?
>No camera in the world, at any focal length, can claim to capture every star
There, of course are obvious physical difficulties. People aren’t talking here about hardware and physical possibilities, but about shitty piece of software than Sony put into it. It’s completely fine for JPG files, but RAW files should be… kept raw?
Well kinda yes, but bigger is better, so why use small filters? xD
Well, it’s a feature. Orange is the color of Sony, so SAR uses it too xD
Oh, a positive locking mount. This would too good to have in consumer camera? I’m so sick of contact pins scratching pads :c
Has anyone confirermed “Zony” and Sony lenses have different coatings? I’d guess Zeiss sold some tooling which Sony could have used both on their-branded and CZ-branded lenses.
I only heard about T* coating being more scratch and element resistant rather than less ghosting.
Might be, but it needs to be actually tested.
E.g. FE 70-200/4 almost matches its marketed 200 mm, dxomark tells is FL is little above 199.
People sometimes say that 150 FPS (say, from A9 sensor would be useless because of overheat an so on. But with greater speed you could take entire stack in a fraction of second rather than several seconds and it could work with living insects.
They kinda offer it, but none of these options are entire area of sensor.
Nah, the best is sqrt(2) = 1.41421… ratio.
I had a Pentax Q (4:3 native ratio) and tested how it recorded 4:3 videos…. their 4:3 videos are cropped from 16:9 !!!
We’re stuck with that stupid 16:9 for a long, long time.
To be fair, we don’t yet know it its 20 mm difference or not, as marketed focal lengths only loosely match real ones.
In a perfect world, camera sensor should have rotated, not lens :c
Zeiss has nothing to do with desiging “zony” lenses, also, zeiss-branded 24-70/4 and 16-70/4 widely mocked for poor QC and sample variance.
THIS. IS. A. CHEAP LENS. Interest of aps-c camera (cheap) users. So it makes more sense to for add-on focal reducer to turn this into 50-125/2 lens.
How do you know that? It has low zoom ratio and long focal length — which suggests long backfocus either.
Also it COULD have rear element close to mount in wide end (where TC is of little use anyway), but moving forward at mid and tele settings (you’d need TC most at max tele, right?)
Anyone has impression that Sony shredded licensing CZ brand? I guess it serves good for them.
The Sigma is a large aperture, wideangle SLR lens. It could be much smaller if made for mirrorless.
however… you know, to keep framing the same, paraxial focal length MUST change. unit-focusing lenses (most old lenses) where entire block moves at once have focus breathing in this sense (albeit small) thought their paraxial focal length is strictly the same…
Lenses go too… because older lenses have less sharpness or can’t held AF speed to state-of-art cameras.
If you wanted compromises, you might rather prefereed an extension by means of allowing smaller image circle at extreme ends. e.g. lens covers FF at 70-180 but image circle starts to shrink as you go past 180 and at say 220 the image circle is only aps-c.
it’s called diversity…
This lens has pincushion distorion at tele end (as most of such lenses do). If you would add lots of pincushion distorion to a lens, its FOV would shrink and it became “more telephoto” even if its focal length stayed the same…
I think dxomark do have a collimator, they aren’t like guys who print test charts on A4 paper.
There are quite different defitinions of “focus breathing” which are mutually exclusive!
Why do you think they would have non-disclosure agreement then?
Hm… probably you should have said “magnification ratio” or “focusing distance”, thought I get your point.
I think dxomark measures this at infinity thought I can’t be sure as they publish little of how they do measure.
You however talk about another but related issue; if you don’t like CRC (internal focus) in the lens you canalways use macro extension tubes, but I talk about lens having smaller elements to start with.
if distance between front and rear elements doesn’t change then retractable lens can be as sealed as internal zoom one…
Strangely nobody on forums claims than focus-by-wire lenses can have superior sealing to mechanical coupled ones xD
Your statement doesn’t apply for adapting Sony E lenses on Nikon Z.
Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS II is really 186 mm at tele end not 200 and nobody complains… strange? Feelings, feelings…
If the “standard” was to have 22-65 zooms, you’d complain 24-70 wasn’t wide enough! xD
Don’t forget many of Tamron-developed lenses are released under Sony badge.
Keep in mind focal ranges of zooms are marketing values, not real ones. 70-200 might as well be… dxomark says Sony GM 70-200/2.8 is actually 192 mm on tele end (though, it says 70-200/4 is 199 mm)
…checked Canon 70-200/2.8 IS 2… Eek! Dxomark says is 186 mm!
in some sense a6100 is a downgrade from a6000 (evf resolution is much lower but i think it’d be acceptable still).
flagship cameraphones have multiple lenses now O.O
Why? 15-20 years ago DSLR provided a very major boost in image quality or AF over 1/2.3″ cams. Now due to stacked sensors and multi-frame NR effective gap is much smaller.
> or getting an amazon gift card for 250.
if they did that en masse, they would get a serious problems with the law
you didn’t get what we was asking about.
You could, but then you get f/4.2 equivalent lens instead of f/2.8, so competitor of E 16-55 here is Zony 24-70 f/4 which is both cheaper and lighter.
Duh, in the middle he says rear element of the Canon bumps in front element of the Vitrox (at the very widest FOV). Be warned
can the canon work with a focal reducer? p.s. Oic, he does use a focal reducer rather than plain adapter (one could also see this from front photo — the adapter is much narrower than plain adapter)
Maybe they finally install RAM for 40 frames, enabling focus stacking to be done in a fraction of second.
well… but then there are also Bieber, Beyonce and rappers…
I want downscaled 28-75/2.8 to 18-50/2.8 (that’d be ~160 grams)
one couldn’t do this with dslr lenses because they aps-c dslrs have disproportiately longer (relative to image circle size) mirror length and backfocus limit, making downscaling FF lenses impossible in majority of cases (they would bump in the mirror path), requiring more retrofocus schemes.
A camera body growing a mm in each iteration will at some point reach A900 o.o
so what? Many people like it, they visit SAR, clicks and give some income to Andrea
Sony Nine Eleven
PERFECT SOLUTION FALLACY
could there be an insurance on this? xD
>Actually Sony sells more Full-Frame cameras than Canon or Nikon
citation needed… Most times I heard about this was in weeks when a new Sony came out rather than year-averaged.
>So how on earth did Sony manage to become NO.1 Full-Frame camera seller
Playing devil’s advocate here: Sony just found unused market niche of toy cameras. When dust settles out (i.e. every geek buys one — market saturated), Sony’s marketshare shrinks again.
DSLRs have ‘exposure’ metering sensor some are about megapixel in resolution (oh, just checked: nikon d5 is specced to have 180k RGB+IR: is 180k total number of dots or RGBIr quads?). they can also replace pdaf sensor.
you credibility would be higher if you hadn’t written 100 reasons why nikon would keep f-mount for their FF mirrorless xD (ditto Canon EF)
Eek, why does it matter if it has mirror or not if Sony makes cameras which are intended to look and act like a DSLRs just little better.
Those people are all under NDA and won’t tell anything, and if they will it will be what marketing dept allows them to.
They don’t want wrong people to know too much about improvement they plan to do.
>While there is still room for improvement on the software side for a few years,
um. Better AF, eye AF, better WB/denoise is all about software.
>Imaging 20 stops of dynamic range,
would be nice to have just to have more room for error rather than for any improvement of IQ.
>with incredible tonality.
what is this?
>How about including a pentax style astro-tracking feature into all new ibis cameras,
They think it probably isn’t worth the hassle. Not that it’s difficult, but it would have very little effect on sales. More customers want bigger grip and bigger battery; if these are main components in a camera why spend labour for some rare astrophoto….
pfpfpf how does Panasonic has enough bandwidth for 4k60fps but Sony doesn’t? Different physics?
Btw, the OP doesn’t ask about more bandwidth — just less rolling shutter; the data may stay at sensor in the between.
The digital’s way should be using higher density sensors… for same price, say, 1″ sensor can be BSI-stacked and provide multiple indirect benefits over larger aps-c FSI sensor sitting behind teleconverter (which would invariably eat some light).
well… the 70-300 is probably 285 mm really and 70-350 is 332, so the same ratio can hold even if they both inaccurate xD
and here is some philosophical problem. If we can replace 350 with 300, and nobody would notice, then we could replace 300 with 260 too, then 260 with 225, 225 with 195, and so on…. Where do we stop?
These marketing focal length are almost always inaccurate…
In theory, lens made with same size/cost constraints optimized for aps-c should have better resolution than FF lens put on aps-c, because there are always ways to trade image circle for extra resolution, especially for high ratio zooms.
In practice, not really…
Not to mention 70-350 probably covers FF in medium zoom positions.
Lemme nitpick. Sony A7R4 has smaller pixels so 350 mm on it give more reach than 350 mm on current aps-c cameras. Also 100 mm at FF presents wider FOV than 70 mm at aps-c.
and techart-af adapter. In e-mount we can have stabilization and AF with bottle glass
is it ever cost-effective to employ shills for that? or i guess manufacturing is only about 40% of price paid by retail buyer for a camera…
9 years of e-mount, finally a camera with both EVF and 180 flippable LCD…
Ah ok, I apogolize for being harsh. Zonlai/7art 25/1.8 aand 35/1.8 lenses are converted c-mount lenses. But I have not been able to found if, say, zonlai 22/1.8 is a converted c-mount lens, where is its c-mount origin? Is the 40/0.85 converted c-mount lens? could it be bought cheaper?
Note: X-axis on this plot is “nominal” (as defined by manufacturer for the model) ISO rather than actual one, and they don’t have to match between cameras
> well get a cheap C-mount lens from AliExpress for under 50 bucks
count you please point at which ones? C-mount lenses often don’t cover MFT sensor size
how much shills are paid? I’m looking for a job
I read that there are some designs in which substitute some green pixels with ospdaf, then substitue some blue with greens to make up for missing greens, in such casefaithful demosaic by raw converter is impossible.
Waiting A9 mark 2 on Sep, 11. A new era in photography
I agree for most parts, but lenses… only if you cherrypick some their small lenses. Their some lenses are larger. E-mount has better choice overall.
Yeah, but it had wrong badge and 2-2.8 instead of 2.8, real photogs can’t use that.
It is possible to adapt samsung NX lenses to Sony mount, but since lenses are focus-by-wire it needs electronic adapter, which doesn’t exist yet…
180 tiltable screen BOTH cameras! finally.
Is 2.34M EVF same as the one in NEX-7? Why this thing still costs like 50% of the camera?
(remember when Sony released nex 5N + optional EVF this optional EVF sold for like 90% of A-mount DSLR at that time).
> it weghs the same as 18-105/4 which is a nice achievement
no. SAL1650 is 400 grams versus this nearly 500 g.
Oof, at least 16-55 is not monstrous size as Fuji’s one. Nice. But still its about same size weight as fullframe Tamron 28-75.
When E-mounts appeared Sony advertised compact size but it has large sticky belt ears which DSLRs have hidden… and they still have it.
ah, thanks. just i don’t want to buy from amazon since they recalled 1984. of the first item I opened said “this does not this into russian rederation” :/
When I asked author of Rawdigger, he said his interest in this is very low.
While there are working patches — i think they’re in some aspect like patching jpegs, since unmingled data from sensor is lost.
Kasson is one of few guys who tests cameras rigorously rather “I feel like this”
This is site about camera gear.
Why can’t just brand publish these maps of PDAF pixels so demosaic could account for them rather just interpolating?
QX1, as you put it in in quotes, is a complete camera, sans screen and grip. Not just sensor, but a shutter, popup flash, memory, cpu, sd card wireless link and so on. So its cost is same as complete camera. And it wireless only, as sibuzaru has already pointed out.
Could be a perfect drone/gimball/tripod/electronics hobbyist camera.
With 3rd party shells containing buttons, but since the only option to connect more options for it is super complicated wifi… none were made.
cuz main part of the camera is a big grip, obviously.
if theory you could put small separate BT buttons over malfunctionioning ones of your original keybaord
I spent about ~4 hours looking for BT keyboards and failed find any.If I asked for them in a shop, shop clerks usually couldn’t even understand what it is.
this keyboard isn’t scissors? it is supposed to better?
Yuck. Mirrorless, M43 sensor, SLR EF mount…. makes perfect sense (not)… it won’t be a success.
no furu saizu sensor, either.
there is demand for both, but in practice manufacturers offer only one type with very little variations.
Just buy a Nikon D860
unlike you most photographers think: bigger = better, so it makes little sense to manufacturers to make things smaller.
>mirrorless primes are ridiculously easy to take apart
please be more specific
>You should be able to DIY remove the clicking mechanism
the aperture ring is not mechanically connected to the iris, it is just a “fly-by-wire” input button, actual setting is done by camera body sending commands to iris motor.
Yeah, but then it’s a f/1.8 lens not f/1.4.
If we would downscale canon ef 50 1.4 by factor of 0.67x it would weight 86 grams. o.o it would be a 33/1.4 lens
Canon EF 50 1.4 is 290 grams (specced) and V 33/1.4 is 270 grams — same FOV but the former lens cover FF (of course, not very sharp lens, but…)…. :sob:
now, of course Canon’s mirrorless lenses are large too.
>There’s quite a few tricks
they already do superresolution in higher-end models.
one can simulate larger sensor with 4 shifted exposures, too…
Yes. Makes sense because lenses are big behemoths and even “small” ones are in 100-250 gram range. Sensor mass is about 2% of that.
is this even issue for buildings? ah, oic, with electronic keystone correction this might be an issue.
>It might work if both planes, the ‘lens’ and ‘the sensor’, would rotate
No. Tilting only one out of two is sufficient.
wait, wait, an aps-c camera, and more than 400+ comments?
something happened with SAR? Lately any posts with aps-c got very little attention (aps-c is dead… only FF for real men)….
Time for anamorphot pinhole…
No, it’s because today’s digitals are not intended to be small; people, esp. in USA like it big and smaller segment is eaten by cameraphones. Buyers often don’t get satisfaction if they buy a camera which weight they can’t feel in hand.
Film is more efficient in lower entrance threshold to making film cameras; they are basically holders for film, but for digital, hobbyists can’t buy sensors and it might even be difficult for companies.
>digital ‘needs’ card slots
slots (SD, and esp. micro-SD) are lot smaller than 135 film rolls.
most digitals don’t have it or have very small ones.
> a large battery,
needed for 500+ shots or 5+ hours of liveview which film cameras don’t have at all.
most digitals don’t have it. this is esp. silly given the Minox has no stabilization at all.
is considered a must but if you can live without it on film, there is no necessity it to be present on digital, esp. if you can connect it to phone/pc and use larger screen.
>a lot of control buttons,
it depends on camera class not what it has inside.
nice but not really required.
in theory digital could be even smaller than this because it doesn’t need place for film rolls but in practice all digitals are heavy and large :c
So? The Sony has EVF with bigger resolution.
Light brown beard looks so contrasty with black hair.
Many sources indicate Geghis Khan was a redhead… xD
Is there an asterisk somewhere which says comparison is restricted to small subset of compact cameras?
Nice, now make this with a bayonet; instead of these silly teleconverters.
well, 4k could be 3840 x 480 xD
oh, haven’t I asked already? T.T
how it does?
I love garbage that works xD
because goal of all these comparisons is to bring money, “good” is a byproduct at best *SAD*
35/1.2 = 29 (mm)
Compare Voight 40/1.2 which is compacted relative to this. Sigma likes large lenses.
With telephotos, front mounted filters require much higher tolerances.
Offtopic: what if Sony releases A9 mark 2 on 9/11? Do you still thing these Roman numerals is a good idea?
without electronic contacts there is no way to control focus & aperture…
Don’t trust marketing millimeters.These “subject to change without notice” and everything. I thought it’be easy to check if you have both cameras…
>still offer a sophisticated focus adjust feature,
I think it’s more to make users happy than necessity.
How? If blanks are not quite blanks but contain some non-uniformity.
It can focus on blank walls
Some telephoto lenses or macro lenses would obscrube non-TTL sensor.
>Time of Flight sensors are not imaging sensors.
Have you checked that it’s not due to shutterspeed? Banding disappears when shutterspeed is a multiple of illumination period (e.g. 1/100, 1/50, 1/25 for Europe or 1/120, 1/60, 1/30 for USA). Maybe Panasonics pick proper shutterspeed automatically.
maybe licensing fees are too high
So this is non-TTL. Remember early digital compacts (e.g. Canon Powershot Pro 1) had a pair of small “eyes” next to lens barrel — essentially a digital rangefinder, “a legacy” from film cameras. Looks like every manufacturer discountinued this feature… and this isn’t good in an ILC.
>if Muted Tony decided to downsize the R4 picture to the size of the R3 picture.
These 1/3 would have no worse than they are now, but EVF in the corner would be better for 2/3.
Camera buyers should be a protected class.
A sharp replacement for 16-50 kit lens would have amazed me xD
I think it crops to 16:9 from 3:2 sensor?
That would be good engineering, but poor business!
I once got a dust specle UNDER the IR cut filter on the 5N.
Which are probably crops from 16:9 xD
It doesnt :sob:
If you shoot buildings at ~5 km away, yes.
For birds at 50 meters away this is a non-issue.
Or it could have both options, or mode. With other aspect ratio than pesky 16:9 (the sensor is 3:2!)
well if they can’t bother implement it themselves, can they allow option to install 3rd party software which will?
But with that technology, they could make also a 61 mp aps-c camera with longer reach, and it’be cheaper too…
can we have automatic lens & camera caps in 2019? I guess lack of these if why many people never buy an ILC. Changing lenses always requires these changing caps, and these get lost all the time.
Waiting for Barry!
At lest one person would be marginally happy with this.
Do Sony smartpohnes have 4k60 or…. did they terminate the line?
Still lower than old Samsung NX1, and framerate probably too o.o
So if you need a good crop camera, you need to buy this and use this in crop mode o.o
A9 is the new A7S xD
we don’t have to wait for 100mp FF sensors, people placed lenses on nikon v3 and pentax q (which have similar pixel sizes to that hypothetical high mp FF sensor) and proved that Barry is right.
It’s not racist, the reason for his dislike is PRC authoritarian regime, not race of its constituents.
yes, but BOOORING
In that case signature won’t match the contents, and web broswer (or any viewer program) would notify user about this.
Digital signature on-chip so public could be sure photo hasn’t been tampered in PS. Ah, no, that would be too far, I think it will be bigger blacker camera with 4k60 finally.
Those who want small ILC are sad
I thought Samyang was licensed, otherwise I couldn’t explain why they did difficult E mount protocol instead of long known EF to everyone.
Why would Canon add extra pins for control ring instead of multiplexing?
Oh you found a weak person who you may address personal insults to, you aren’t going to say that to other people who you disagree with in this thread.
Lens-camera protocol is not a “technology” in 2019. Unlike specific patents on OSPDAF and manufacturing methods, these all protocols achieve the same result: camera tells lens where to move.
Microsoft, and even Apple share some more complex technology for all — for free
flange distance isn’t same as back focal distance. L mount lenses rear elements protrude from mount slightly deeper so there’s no difference.
The smaller 45/2.8 is asking for a rangefinder window
Apparently, circular logic is strong in your statement.
probably rx, big, bigger, the biggest.
Eventually only big cameras and smartphone will survive… anything in between dies
shutter is still needed to make dark frames (i.e. dark current, stuck pixels), and it’s cheap, don’t expect it to disappear soon
I think Sony A9 users need ribbons “my camera is silent” xD
For some simple cases, yes. For arbitrary case, no. E.g. multiple light sources (artificial vs sunlight) + complex reflections.
Think a subject is lit by artificial light but background by sun.
When I first tried some Pentax aps-c DSLRs in a store, I noted how quiter they were compared to NEX-5
When was the last time Sony released a lens with unusual focal length/aperture?
Tamron has very deep relation to Sony, some of Sony-branded lenses were designed by Tamron or in cooperation, so it doesn’t really count as third party.
If you crop 24 mp from 17 mm fov to 28 mm fov, you are left only with 9 mp… So maybe it does. Until 100 mp sensors become common, that is.
which is just another way of saying, why taxes are so high in EU?
wdym? Yongnuo makes 35/2 which is an old SLR design.
Well in theory they could just avoid making it retrofocus. Rangefinder 35/1.4s are small (they have to — because of viewfinder blockage).
After ~1 year of their 35/1.8 Sony will allow Samyang to release 35/1.8 too.
Nikon Z cameras have right badge, but then.. there is no flapping mirror :c
There were speculation that Z mount protocol was designed to make it illegal to use without Nikon authorization and it looks like it turned out wrong.
Impossible, such adapter would need glass element or won’t provide infinity.
The only way to use Nikon Z lenses on Sony E as intended would require major modding of lens and/or body, with much more labour than guys adapting M42 lenses to Nikon F do.
Вероятно в случае покушения на президента использовались бы не кулаки, а снайперская винтовка
Yes, there’s Olympus AIR here.
I’m quite afraid that attaching via remote monitor would increase input/EVF lag significantly.
Without paradigm change any aftermarket mods would be quite awkward.
I didn’t investigate this much anyway because i’m dirt poor and thinking about it makes me sad that so much people think in old paradigm that produced TRIAXEZ until every retail shop would list device in new paradigm.
I don’t think that people would think that tube facing upwards or downwards is a missile launcher, they would probably be worried if you point a tube towards them
yum isn’t it that Fuji 56/1.2 smaller than Sony 85/1.8?
DSLR emulation. Here’s a step towards fully electronic way
if one attaches a diagonal mirror in front of lens, they can just put it hanging down and shoot with little stress on arms. Plus, people would be less scared of you.
Now tell us than VW benchmark cheating did not occur and price fixing doesn’t exist.
I am not arguing in favor of the Sony or the Sigma, just trying to educate people about this little technical triviality. Sony exaggerates number either — once most sellers do, the ones who don’t put themselves into marketing disadvantage.
I have provided you a source for similar Sigma lens having smaller zoom ratio than advertised.
You can open any (tested) lens on dxomark, distortion – profiles tab and see numbers.
This is a patent for Sony 55-210 https://patentimages.storag…
all three working examples in this patent have zoom ratio and aperture smaller than marketed.
Since you, unlike majority of people here, actually have this Sigma 150-600, it wouldn’t be difficult to actually measure our copy?
It’s more expensive and its aperture is slower than f/4-4.5
They do. The only f1.2 lens for Nikon F mount lacks them.
I understood what you said, you did not understand what I said.
I tried looking 150-600 at dxomark, but it seems they haven’t measured a single one from any manufacturer.
For one, that you haven’t heard it doesn’t mean it isn’t. Nobody confirmed its focal range either! Most lenses are marketed slightly better than they are, why yours 150-600 be an exception?
Because for most people FEELINGS are more important that scientific methods, you don’t see many measurements.
Actually, no. Unless they are offset, microlenses don’t improve sensitivity for shallow angles and might actually decrease it. Offset microlenses are more difficult to manufacture and they didn’t appear until much later.
If they wanted to bash Sony, they’re doing it wrong. They forgot to add than not all diameter is usable as there needs to be inner barrel and electric pins. “angle value” for Sony FE would have been negative, then.
if you’re going to shoot face portraits with it.
18/1.1 = 16 mm, same entrance pupil as 50 at f/3.
mount millimeters is new megapixels xD
Ideally there should have been ~42 mp crop 2 camera body but there is none xD
to be fair, if it was about f/1.4 primes and one measured on FSI sensor and one on BSI — this might explain part of difference.
FSI sensors aren’t good for catching wide cones unless their pixels are very large.
Provided same cost and size, a f1.8 native lens at 1.8 would be always sharper than f1.4 lens at 1.8. Faster lenses are ‘sharper’ because they use more complex optical schemes, larger and/or more expensive glass not because they’re can be stepped down.
No, but if you’re brave you can try modding because there’s lot of empty space in the rear.
Those are marketing f-stops, don’t trust manufacturer to be honest with them.
e.g. accoridng to dxomark,
Sigma 150-500/5-6.3 is really 155-475
DSLR emulation mode.
Where’s focal reducer to make this to 140-430/4-4.5?
Oh, DSLRs did not have them, but only teleconverters. So Sony FE won’t have, either.
The 600 is a lens with interchangeable cameras. At that point one designers think outside of the box to radically change “ergonomics”
how do they work OK on a Nikon camera?
what do you think of people here on SAR saying that e-mount is open standard?
>he larger front element causes a domino effect meaning
lol, not really. Increasing zoom ratio from 2.5x to 4x would have more effect
I am the only one pissed that in 2019 there’s no easy way to make (at least simulated) orthoscopic respective given closeup photo as input?
These lens barrels have quite regular geometry, would have been easy… or even a neural network to build 3d model from single photo?
Bigger front element for “serious” look.
They have to reverse engineer BOTH ends.
Andrew Dodd here said multiple times of features Metabones adpater which suggest reserve engineering, and Metabones site itself mentioned they were not licensed by Sony.
Companies can get specs if they sign NDA and lots of other stuff which we don’t know about because it’s under 1st NDA itself, this is not “open”.
USB is open standard: membership is for small free, protocols are freely published and one only needs to buy a Vendor ID which is completely optional.
No they are not. Metabones had to rely on reverse engineering to make their adapter.
Much more people take “sports” pictures than people shoot birds, it’s not profitable to cater for the latter group. They are a commerical company, after all.
70-200 f4 was released obviusly before teleconverters… I think it can be modded to work with TCs (just cut a few plastic baffles) since it has a lot of space in the rear.
Yes.. except Sony doesn’t have 42 mp aps-c camera at the moment.
Of course it’s easier to design sharp 100-400 rather than 70-300 (smaller FOV, less zoom ratio) even more the latter has faster f-stop.
Rectangular opening. If someone puts a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 into this — hello clipped bokeh! It might happen with cheaper 50/1.4 lenses, but I’m not sure.
Sony wants everybody to buy every lens in native E-mount, so users would get tired of subpar AF and spend cash on Sonys.
> And that is the most crucial point – software/firmware.
In a perfect word, this software in adapter would have been simple wrapping/unwrapping…
What? The difference of flange distances is (44-18) = 26 mm, 26 freaking millimeters, thats a lot.
I want a tilt EF-E adapter… for using with macro lenses…
but if person has to buy 3 adapters, like Andrew wrote above,…. ah… screw that.
oh gosh, is that another touchscreen?
the title says “Panasonic and Olympus digital camera news”
When sensors resolution rivals optics, they add teleconverters to the lens lineup, just the time o.o
No. Megapixels are units of area.You crop both vertically and horizontally.
lol no. it changes as square, not linearly.
(24/105)^2 * 100, not (24/105)*100
Funny thing is, pixels are smaller than any of FF cameras ever marketed. They are even smaller than 24 mp aps-c.
Crop 100 mp from 105 mm to 24 mm fov: you have only 5 megapixels left…
I don’t get how movements would affect this, readout speed maybe.
RAWs are already cooked, you’re late here :c
But this has nothing to do with AI.For getting rid of demosaic, there’s solution to make pixels smaller.
I believe 2-layer detectors are the way to go. Demosaic is a small cost to pay for better SNR.
Oops, this also means they can add DRM on-sensor.
I agree about this, but it contradicts your previous statement.
Can anyone link to a patent for any of CV – marketed lenses?
cube = flat surfaces = no convering power
It’s part of licensing, if they don’t sign Sony rules they don’t get licensed. Everyone knowledgeable is under non-discosure agreement, thought, so we can only guess what are conditions to Sony licensing
I wonder if marketing dept has some input on whether make first surface negative or positive.
Btw funny fact: you can put some water on its concave front and you get macro lens albeit works only for upwards xD
Sony doesn’t allow them to make AF 35/1.8
Well generally smaller sensors are easier to apply tech upgrades than large sensors, so it’s not weird. also… does Sony sell more 1″ sensors or MFT sensors?
What IS weird, that Sony’s own aps-c cameras still use FSI when fullframe are BSI. Even Fuji got 26 mp BSI sensor (apparently a Sony one), but not Sony…
Strictly speaking, it doesn’t, T-stop should refer to lens alone, but dxomark reports it combined with sensors.
Source for panasonic cameras not BSI and not using Sony sensors?
Microlenses improve response only in some specific direction (usually light falling at normal) having adverse effect on directions far away from it. FSI sensors improve angular response by reducing height of stack, width of wires between pixels (that is, thinner fab process) and with lightguides.
Dude. Flagship DLSR aps-c used to have 4 years between iterations. I suspect we’ll see it in less than two years, are you going to die before?
… but if u meant a65000 not a6500 then you’re probably right
gm5 discountinued too.. …so one wants to have small camera find EVF, woe is them…
(pen-f still not as small for compact camera)
Olympus camera division was unprofitable for years.
Nitpicking: it can combine data from both AF modules to make it better.
It eats some light, but not that much that. Whereas old AF module in LA-EA4 is much worse than OSPDAF of A9/A7M (for most use cases, at least).
were there cases when Tamron announced but never delivered?
The same f/1.2 Zuikos get better “T-value” on 16 mp sensors (bigger pixel, better angular response). DXOmark does not have method to tell apart if lower t-stop is due to lens of sensor, so value reported by dxomark is always combination of both effects. Remember my prediction: when m43 gets BSI sensors and dxomark tests it, “T-value” for f/1.2 zuikos will improve.
Always speaking truth is a way to become pitiful penniless being.
It’s probably intellectual property issues.
If you use that 20 mp sensor with at low f-numbers it suffers because of poor angular response. DXO reports zuiko f/1.2 lenses as having T/2 on it….
>And a 32 MP sensor with the same per-pixel performance as the existing 20 MP sensor would be much more than that
won’t happen… you can’t have more than 100% quantum efficiency.
Sony 9/11? what could go wrong?
They probably have many prototypes that they don’t give public coverage of. Even if true, there is nothing to wonder of. Canon had 130 mp aps-h sensor for a long time which didn’t make into a commercial camera.
They usually said ‘it makes no sense’
28-75 could be much smaller if made for aps-c frame… :c
Ok, sorry then I don’t get it. Sony did publish a lot about wi-fi remote protocol — leaves much to be wanted – but much more complete than wired remote protocol.
Maybe Andrew Dodd meant thaf if their wired protocol was at least that complete as wi-fi one….
You don’t get the point.
All E-mount cameras have USB which can do everything needed. All later Sonys have multi-slot which is extension over micro-USB with more wires, the hardware is already there, and it is already used for remotes, it’s just software protocol is extremely crippled like we were living in time of 8-bit controllers with 32 kb of ROM.
They can work via USB power input, which is even better.
Probably telephoto lenses OIS & AF consume more power than sensor/OVF.
>as well as their affect on low light vision,
this is a more rather software problem, there isn’t really a reason they can’t reduce illumination levels to match dark surroundings. They don’t because probably very few users care about it.
I want, for one xD
Fuji X100 and X-Pro have hybrid finder and it some people like it.
There were also some patents with mirroless matte glass OVF where sensor jumps in and out.
>that these lenses will be designed for the 20mm flange distance of the L-mount and than simply modified to fit the flange distance of Sony E-mount too
That’s folk optics there. Posterior elements often protrude from flange (e.g. early SLRs had “invasive” fisheyes, so if one mount had longer flange distance but their posterior elements protrude more, they give same back focal distance — that’s what matters for optical properties.
….vinyl had increased in sales in recent years… on the shelf where i saw a580 in 2012 there is vinyl players :c
it was a typo, you dumbass
unlike Mitakon, YN apparently relies on reverse engineering and so itsn’t bound by licensing agreement.
they already have released about half dozen of their own designs.
Calibrating would need to use CDAF.
I recall Sony had to use more complex hinge system to make it work on A900/A850 (as IBIS ate some space used for mirror previously). This wasn’t a problem for crop cameras because of disproportionately long flange distance. Can Nikon do this with one hinge?
Sometimes this might be advantage for DSLR: you use shake seen in viewfinder as a feedback to hold it steadier. It is a disadvantage for manual focus… which probably most users don’t need anyway.
lol why. there were lots of DSLR with IBIS previously, just IBIS didn’t activate during framing but shooting only.
Though hybrid viewfinder would be nice, but I’m afraid this is too radical change.
“look friendly” meaning people think it’s a fashion accessory and don’t afraid of being photographed?
how come that there is “no data” for system and sensor size category but not brand?
But sometimes rugged/weather sealed lens/camera doesn’t exist for some brand and/or sensor size.
It’s the most useful FOV. out of your list, two lenses are AF and three have huge size.
Why else they need NDA?
Sony controls which lens Samyang can make in their “open” mount, and they said “No” to 35/1.8
And then if you borrow Canon EF lens from someone, you can’t control its aperture. :c
look, I fixed it for you: It’s funny, Sony once paid Zeiss so they could stamp a Zeiss badge on Sony lenses.
this QC is marketing myth
Zeiss primes for Fuji X do have aperture rings.
Zeiss batis for sony E have OLED range indicator. It’s not something just occasionally happens.
It needs to be meaasured not speculated….
It does “cover” but what about corner quality? It one doesn’t care about corner quality they might just extrapolate image.
Most of this design is probably outsourced.
How eye-af is specific to lens? It moves where it’s told to, speed and accuracy of movement is depedant on lens, but ROI is on camera only…
Neither is mine! Because primary form for English for me is written, mistaking lose and loose doesn’t happen ^.^
WHERE. IS. THE. APERTURE. RING.
on supposedly “open” e-mount, Sony even doesn’t allow their partner Zeiss to have them.
>journalists would stop giving the fraudulent organization any coverage
now read that again, but slowly.
What about non-Japanese brands? xD
Zeiss-branded Zony E-mount lenses do have aperture rings for those who needs them o.o
Simo was outlier notable for being an outlier. You cannot just assume average terrorist to match it
Maybe he got a decentered sample
If it’s same as SLR 50/1.8, I’d rather like to see seamless integration with their lens adapter than this :c
For cats we need something to extend DOF… either superfast stacking or light field camera o.o
you mean non-linear effect for focus movement? that’s a software issue :c
Maybe you googled “trump stupid” too much and Google thinks you’re interested in this xD
All but a single E-mount lens have focus ring…
IQ4 isn’t a better sensor, it’s just a larger one.You’d have to use a larger lens to get its better “sensitivity”, or (non-existent) teleconverter with existing FF lenses.
aren’t there gopros with interchangeable lenses? or, don’t they have option to fix barrel distortion in software?
This naming scheme is insane
is there a single thing we both can agree on?
I am asking questions, I want to learn nd it’s you who stressing it.
You are not following that these people told about flip touchscreens. These are fine for smartphones and , but for photographers workhorse
If motors are fine why Nikon’s 58/0.95 is MF and e.g. panasonic’s unit focusing 20/1.7 was essenitaly replaced in favor of 25/1.7 with inner focus? Rejecting unit focusing — because we have to move whole lens instead of small weight sensor — is a constraint for lens. For smaller aperture lenses it’s not much but for f#~1.2 it is bad.
Fotodiox adapter is impossible to use with many variants and some lenses which exist in m-mount would be made for thin sensor stack whereas lenses made for 2mm stack have e-mount and therefore are not usable with this adapter. also stacking in with leca M-canon EF adapter is… simply bad, and loses exif info too.
>As for Fotodiox, then it’s a lot cheaper to design and build an adaptor
because?? why? could you be more specific on this?
One could mount a lens with tripod mount on fotodiox adapter, then put lens on a tripod. Now Fotodiox adapter moves “the entire sensor, shutter and image stabilisation mechanism”
>when you’ve challenged me on these sort of developments and you were proved right.
It depends on what you would consider as a proof. Cameras with z-shift didn’t appear. However I never had made a prediction that Z-axis shift would appear in a camera. It doesn’t prove me right, but it doesn’t prove you right either.
How would I differ your reasoning from thing people used to say on forums “flip touchscreens are never going to appear in pro FF camera, because they impact reliability of camera, which is — because i think so — and therefore have place only for consumer aps-c cameras”.
Oh, name calling. Then you are a stubborn conformist I guess.
How come that Contax made such film camera where entire mirrorbox moved (and hence it was slow) — but it’s a no-no for ditigtal MILC where it does make sense?
Potential market would be everyone who owns manual lenses. Plus, some AF lenses with slow motor would utilize it too. Currently many people are not simply aware it’s even possible and if told about it, they’d think it’s a scam.Utility of existing fotodiox adapter is limited by speed, weight limit, fragility and need to stack adapters (which would add to vignetting unless aps-c camera used).
“Vast amount”? How could small Fotodiox could make such adapter? If Sony made this in-camera, R&D cost would be be split per many units,
I agree about impracticaly of hypothetic A-E hybrid.
X-sync of 1/500 sec? that’s faster than usual 1/250 but i’d not call it “very high”.
I have Pentax Q and it’s 1/2000 s with builtin-flash altrough specs allow only 1/250 with external flash o.o weird
Consider such use case. We are shooting a living insect and we want to do focus stacking. If sensor can digitize entire frame it 1/160 s, then we’d need DRAM to only hold slightly more — and they would DRAM of A9 sensor capacity be about as same amount of data as small 1/2.3″ sensor?? Why didn’t Sony add that? Probably because it wasn’t DRAM to start with…
You are applying perfect solution fallacy. Noone was suggesting Z-shift to replace focusing with 90/2.8 macro lenses or 135/1.8.
With Fotodiox adapter, user can set lens to approximate distance (as in zone focusing), then let camera to nail the focus.
Fotodiox solution isn’t as nice as is could be, it’s a cludge. If brands did it themselves with state of art motors… it’d be beatiful.
>and much deeper front-to back.
It’d add about 4 mm thickness, which is called “ergonomy” is photographer’s language.
Benefit of sensor Z-shift than f/0.9 lenses can have fast AF which is impossible if you move lens.
>clearly incompatible with a physical focal plane shutter.
Rudiment of film times, where it also doubled as protector for film during lens changes.
I have scars from those claiming than BSI is useless at 24 mp FF, insulting me and pretending they knew something about yields which Sony gets (of course, they didn’t, all people who really knew are under NDA). No one gave an excuse.
All proofs of yours than A9 sensors had DRAM were nothing but insults.
The problem wasn’t that only QE (microlenses compensates for that — so you were getting similar due sacrificing only angular response), but more of FWC and DR.
Nikon D40? I’d want to read review to its global shutter function.
I’m not suggesting users to reverse enigneer software, I’m suggesting brands to add option for users to create their own profiles.
What’s difficulty for adding a lens profile to camera? If they wished to, they could users to create their own profiles for ANY lenses.
It has *some* reasons besides brand loyalty. Third party AF Nikon F to Sony E adapters existing now are potentially dangerous to both camera and lens.
DOF calculators assume perfect lenses. For lenses with aberrations you get more DOF than f-stop indicates.
And manufacturers cheat with nominal f-stop, too.
For the nikon lens, you’d need ray trace for extreme field (corner), not center (and the ray trace on the picture is bogus anyway). Larger mount is for that they wouldn’t have to glue contacts over lens element.
You can’t say the banding is due to sensor or software. For output image, camera replaces OSPDAF pixels value with interpolated ones from conventional pixels. It seems like Sony’s doing better job at interpolating this.
thought it needs to be kept in mind DxO completely ignores correlated noise, which is far worse than white noise
MC-21 just relays data. It’s up to Panasonic to decide if they support DFD on these lenses or not.
No, dxo normalizes images to same resolution. 45/42
Imagine that we could have automatic sensor tilt with worked with ALL lenses and so be useful it about 60% use cases. Camera would detect three faces in frame, tilt sensor accordingly and all three faces are in focus. At f/1.8.
He says A6500 applies spatial NR to RAWs after that point — its raws aren’t so raw.
DXO tries to detect that and reflects this on the plot — triangle
If you argue that, you could also argue that camera that is perceived by women as expensive/pro has higher IQ than camera perceived as cheap because it would make them want to pose for you xD
Film camera is just a holder for film; sensor defines digital camera and most expensive component, other components — cpu, memory, SD card slot — are virtually identical to smartphones.
IBIS/AF gives nothing if you’re shooting night landscapes from a tripod xD
But now RAW cooking starts at lower ISO settings than before?
for a manufacturer who already makes AF lenses for these mounts, it is largely irrelevant.
yes it was about f/1.8 lens. For f/0.95 lenses it ever worse, then.
Bclaff unfortunately failed to fix patent data for mitakon 50/0.95 (it has errors).
>My question is about lens loss and how much of overall loss can be attributed to just the lens.
You have to be specific about the lens and sensor combination. In case of the Mitakon, it’s clearly not fair f/0.95 lens to start with. Also it might be that they optimized coatings for lower vignetting rather than best T-stop in the center, because apd-effect is often considered.
Just because he wrote this in 2018 doesn’t mean this wasn’t talking point from 2008. Jim Kasson put a real mitakon 50/0.95 lens on A7R2 and said bsi wasn’t a fix… but then it assumes than the mitakon lens is ideal. How would you expect cheapest lens to be?
later he wrote……
In a PM, Brandon Dube had some interesting things to say about the effect.
I don’t know why it happens. It could be genuine apodization caused by poor coating performance at extreme ray angles (it is easy to get to e.g. 65 degree angle of incidence in an f/0.95 lens, coatings have major issues above 45 degrees). It could be related to the microlenses, though that seems unlikely since it is nonuniform over the frame.
so Brandon says that it’s unlikely due to microlenses
Your question lacks if you’re asking about lens loss or sensor loss.
I posted a plots with about 80% efficiency at 20 degree range, 20 degrees corresponds to f/1.1. So, the sensor for which the plot is would have lost like 13% at f/1.1 (ideal) lens. Which is 0.1 of stop.
In engineering when you’re measuring something you’d want to have measuring device to be 10x more accurate than signal you’re trying to register. When loss due to lens and due to sensor inefficiency is about same… you can’t measure. Even less if brands market f/1.5 lens as f/1.4 and someone blames the sensor for not having T/1.4 out of f/1.5 lens.
on dxomark: https://www.dxomark.com/Len…
f/1.4 lens gets rated T/1.5 with A7R2 (BSI sensor), T/1.6 with A7R (FSI sensor) and T/1.8 on A6000 (FSI smaller pixel sensor).
Similar with https://www.dxomark.com/Len…
it gets T/1.8 on FSI A7R but T/1.6 on A7R2.
I repeat, you’re parroting 10 year old talking points. Now, there is, e.g. Olympus who offers small pixel FSI sensor in their flagship cameras and f/1.2 lenses — where they do lose a substantial portion of efficiency (bad for them) but it’s not a problem for Sony’s large A7S pixels or BSI pixels of A7M3/ A7R2.
Even for on-axis point of image, outer regions of lens have to work if aperture if fully open: http://www.photonstophotos….
note that ray exits 1st and enters 7th element at rather shallow angles.
>. I’m not referring to the transmission loss of the lens due to the various glasss/air interfaces in the lens. I’m referring to the efficiency loss at microlenses level at the sensor surface interface.
I already explained that in simple measurerements you cannot unentangle the former from the latter, and you just pretended to ignore it.
Maybe you read in in 2018, but probably the post wasn’t made in 2018.
>So at f/1.2, you’d expect to get the transmission of 1 stop less (in our example) or around f/1.7. But as you open up the lens further to f/1, you still get the equivalent of around f/1.7
Non-sequitur. Nobody claimed that the lens transmission loss is constant to regards of f-ratio.
You’re misrepresenting what these measurements really imply.
Such thing would have existed even if sensor was 100% efficient, because the lens isn’t. Manufacturers cheat with lens f-stops too, e.g. canon EF 50/1.2L is actually more like f/1.28, and faster lenses have lower trasmission, because anti-reflective coatings aren’t as efficient for slanted rays and fast lenses typically have high-index glass.
Suppose someone took f/0.95 lens and measure on some specific camera in gets about T/1.2. Can we say it’s an abrupt stop? We would need say f/0.7 lens to test further, and we have no f/0.7 lens to test with.
Moreover there are f/1.2 lenses with and without APD filter (e.g. Fuji X 56/1.2) If issue was as major as you present, APD filter would be superflous because pixel structure would do its job.
>however I’m stating this in light of already BSI improvements.
it is quite obvious you’re repeating 5 year old data
There are many more differences between canon’s and sony’s AF discounting possible orientation differences. AFAIK canon’s dual pixel is exclusively PDAF but Sony’s always hybrid and if it reverts to CDAF it’s not that far aparts.
I think if Sonys had cross-type ospdaf it they’d include it in marketing materials
There is diminishing returns on making faster f-ratios but it’s not like “limit”.
The “current” microlens architecture is not constant and changes. This was major issue on FSI sensors. Now with BSI sensors becoming norm the effect is greatly diminished.
Sony didn’t issue license to Meike, so they couldn’t make lens AF even if they already have it AF in another mount? ah so much for “open” standard.
Why do you think they make entirely new lens (even if they “knocked off”, they still have to set up production) rather than add extension tube to existing DSLR lens — it’s simpler.
Dual pixel af isn’t crosstype, but is Sonys? I don’t remember any Sony camera with crosstype OSPDAF.
sometimes it’s not 100 vs 200, but 12800 vs 25600…
exact same problem that exist in nearly even AF lens?
Sony’s engineers released some best and some worst lenses, like E16/2.8 of Sony 24-70/4. Sony’s sample variation is worst. Their LA-EA1 clips light rays even from SAL50F18 DT lens (aps-c).
They also did Star Eater which could not be turned off, well, why not.
Angle of incidence determined by stop — on axis. He’s talking about off axis image, in very corner (y=21.6 mm).
Not only. If someone wants to make a focal reducer from medium format to FF, Sony’s MILC mount would be a much more trouble than any of others.
Um, lots of photographers use Canon’s 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses.
Ratio might be similar, yes; but we are “forgetting” that not all throat diameter could be used for imaging — there has to be casing and electronic pins, also with same given ratio greater diameter makes it easier with corners.
There’s evidence — in form on LA-EA1 and LA-EA2 that they didn’t intent to go FF at the time.This presentation is an afterthought;
Moreover their LA-EA1 clips bokeh even with aps-c lenses.
I want something like Canon’s EF-M 22/2 for Sony E mount. Oh, there isn’t, there’s yuge Zony 24/1.8
….which are wealth/status symbols.
You’re only proving my point.
I’d love to see some invention which made another type of film, cheaper and more environmentally safe and it doesn’t even have to have greater image quality…
Photography now is more about how camera looks than making photos :c
I guess if beer teexts you, then you have a very serious psychiatric problem.
I feel bad because there’s no option to turn off pre-AF on my old NEX-5N.
probably with proper software add camera models can use IR/wired protocol to do this commands, even old NEX-5. But they’re not doing this, right?
In year 2019, technology is so good that we actually had manually focus via a remote…
only… on latest generation Sony cameras…
we’re shooting digital so we could use as small shutter speed as we want to. for.
suppose one takes 43 camera and shoots 300 mm /2.8 at 1/100, ISO800. then they attach teleconverter to it, making it 600/5.6 and put on FF body, getting same FOV, DOF, SNR — the only things change are f# and ISO number but output picture is ther same
I’m somewhat pissed that focal reducer is permanently attached to adapter, of course they want to sell more, but also it probably reduces number of people buying them.
i am quite skeptical about the last one because i don’t see a 35/1.8
Price is quite loosely related to optics size.
Why you think it has to be recycling? IIRC 6300 is still in production. And even after production ends, they often have some spare parts in excess.
I wonder if it raises market price
Andrew Dodd guaranteed than making this for aps-c won’t be any smaller, because flange distance is already low. Trust him, he knows lens design (not).
Kipon already announced electronic adapter for Z-mount so it’s probably not as difficult as one could think (probably reverse engineering is faster than they could get license from Sony)
um, everyone reading SAR supposed to know difference between 24 and 28 is as between pros/amateurs.
Slick? This is larger than dedicated 16-50 aps-c zooms.
Canon 70D was frist dual pixel camera. OSPDAF, or hybrid cmos af, appeared in 650D before.
why? Do you think he can learn something from it which he doesn’t know yet?
I am surprised it works with such long wires apparently even without shielding.
um… Canon was the first to put CMOS in a DSLR, first FF DSLR, dual pixel too? Canon’s first FF with touchscreen was before Sony’s. Canon’s first OSPDAF appeared in a DSLR before Sony’s.
What does mean Canon doesn’t innovate?
Using a smaller sensor would have been better…. that stacking two converters
nope, both options are possible.
Chances if Tamron was actually going to produce this, it would have been announced already.
Keep it mind patent applications take quite a time before being applied and published (so we can see it)
there’s 16, 30 and 56 f/1.4 Sigma DN lenses
and (probably unholy)
19, 30 and 60 f/2.8 DN lenses
Yes, a7r doesn’t have pdaf physically but it doesn’t mean its focusing can’t be improved; Sony just decided it wouldn’t be cost-effective to make upgrades to old cameras.
I still use NEX-5N and some its software features bug me out. (you can’t turn off pre-AF or auto ISO in M mode, for example).
that would require n=5 glass
There’s no point in 16 bit with small pixels.
This is the first E-mount camera with both EVF and selfie-able screen.
Btw which ideas you think might been?
I want sensor tilt and Z-shift xD
1.4 makes it a lot easier for OSPDAF system, than slow f-ratios.
obviously they don’t read all pixels for AF — only region of interest.
Well cameras are modular already: you can change lenses on them! xD
hah they already had what could be perfect for drone camera – QX1 but software is……. soso
Canon makes EF 40/2.8 STM. Small, cheap, sharp (well ok Zony 35/2.8 is a bit sharper, but) even has AF. Now I want FF camera with same mass and price.
AFAIK Fotodiox has already made a electronic adapter for Z mount…
No, these TC protrude into rear of the lens.
In any way TCs are more relic of film cameras and low resolution sensors.
A lot of people have cars which are more expensive than cameras…Makesyou think.
what if one criticizes Sony and Nikon equally? E.g. for not having tiltable EVF in corner but in a central hump?
I am used to get banned everywhere and still not banned here o.o
This is software limitation. For DSLR there were some combinations where according to specs camera shouldn’t focus but if one tricked it by putting a patch on some pins it still focused (albeit poorly).
Hm…. maybe you have weak pinky…
I actually placed a live mouse inside KO-120 lens (it screws apart easily).
Kinda yes, but are you going to have good accuracy better than 2% with ruler? Focal length sometimes marketed on assumption than after taking distortion in account, FOV is same as rectilinear lens would have.
And if you compare data from patents to marketed specs, the f# specified in patents is almost always lower.
E.g this: http://www.freepatentsonlin…
specifies F# = 4.12 for what would be marketed as f/4.
Oh. Remember when Sony’s 300/2.8 was announced what Canon fanboys said? Lighter, therefore worse.
Is canon 1.7x crop for video? You’d want to use m43 lenses for its video.
The Sony looks like they designed camera without EVF, and then added is as an afterthought.
Why Sony’s belt ears are so sticking outside? Some patent prevents them from hiding them?
Does it have _absolute_ edge?
As I understand it cannot have sharp edge like SLR AF systems; smooth fade.
Yeah, but then you aren’t going to brag about “FF” and chunky TC glass in front of it?
Well how would you measure it?
Despite long focal length, rear element is quite close to sensor
They almost always market lens as larger aperture is really has… f/4.2 is marketed is as f/4 and f/4.8 as f/4.5…
no it doesn’t. it shows you can make lens bigger if you want to.
Panasonic is afraid cannibalizing their m43 cameras.
135 and 100 could be one lens and a focal reducer designed for it.
lenses about 50mm greatly benefit too if they have large aperture.
Double gauss designs are unit focusing. For MILC lenses designers usually go a long way so focusing group is small, one (or maybe two) elements. You can’t just change double gauss into this.
Pincushion distortion is only marginally related to this.
“perspective distortion” occurs in fully rectilinear lenses too.
cosplay of Hieronymus Bosch paintings.
6 and 7R2 have flat bottom. I don’t see similarity between 5n and 6.
I like it when my pinky in under my NEX-5N
I had been looking for this for a long time
why is that difficult to do waterproof cameras with almost every control (save diopter adjustment) is electronic?
It was almost exactly this with first Sony’s FF milcs, A7 & A7R.
do you mean M-E adapter with motor?
many people here have a size fetish…
I wish real waterproof instead of weather sealing. Many e-mount lenses are internal focusing anyway so it seems to be easy…
in order to adapt THIS to e-mount, one would have to remove (and replace) its rear part…. so, simple add-in adapter impossible.
it’s impossible, they said… there must be a lot space to fit pins, they said…
It is not even close because there’s ZERO e-mount cameras from third party manufacturers. Only lenses. And these lenses e.g. lack aperture rings and buttons which sony(zony) lenses have.
This is marketese nonsense.
Even Metabones wasn’t able to obtain license for their adapter and had to rely on reverse engineering.
Even for Sony’s long partner Zeiss can’t use aperture lens in their e-mount AF lenses.
how can you compare 1:1 macro to non-macro lens?
MFT is as open in camera world as you get. Sony E-mount is not even close.
That is going to be SEVENTH brand, not counting original Pana&Oly.
Slots are new megapixels
Canon had outdated sensor tech for years which did nt affect their 1st place even by small bit…
Now canon has 28-70/2 which others are afraid to make
A camera with OSPDAF might useDFD but not vce versa…
Not neccessarily. Instead of more layers one can make die larger in area and use “extra” area to put any digital circuits.
Eeek why. Some chips are purposefully designed to be drop-in replacements for other chips.
Why would they need 16 bit if pixel size shrinks?
Because sensor has diffrernt rows of OSPDAF pixels they might obtain f-stop value from it. aaah. would be nice.
Sony licenses them E-mount and one of licensing conditions is that obviously Sony determines what they can release and what they can not. Sony chose to forbid them 35/1.8
Yup but e-mount is an “open” standard!
Learn to talk about technical stuff in what is not Youtube ads for wide audiences or misattributed tech sheets, then come back.
>unless it gains a level of complexity that we can’t see
>The desire for freedom is evolutionarily
Of course people who write such BS won’t be able if it can or not. xD
Ethics is relative and ulimately matters only who can enforce their ethics.
A9 DOES NOT have DRAM on sensor.
The link you posted is about cellphone sensor (with 1.22 micron pixels), smaller formats usually got upgrades first.
Eric Fossum develops Quanta Image sensor.
> (I mean, will no one sell Leica a decent FF sensor? Is that an inside joke between camera manufacturers?)
These Leica and Zeiss cameras are rather more like fashion accessories with camera capability.
Other people as same time will developed AI to discriminate (oh) fake people from real people.
Bad thing is: until these features be fully available in program with name starting with ‘P’ many people would still claim it’s impossible to implement these things.
How does this tax work and why does it increase customer price by 12-15?
? Even more big, black bodies with bigger battery.
? Copy every lens in CaNikon lineup
Lol this camera is smaller than big modern sonys which grow bigger with each iteration.
The problems are: interchangeable lenses, focal(!) plane shutter. Use cases too: gimball isn’t good for stills.And a conservative userbase.
it’s really a 38 mm and has pincushion distortion which makes it only slightly wider than 50 mm
They did say, because it wouldn’t add much in performance, but would have yuge increaase in manufacturing costs.
Well you don’t “make” a PC but stick ready components which are largely self-contained. HDDs, for example have their own CPU, flash memory, RAM cache and operating system.
Prior to IBM PC, you didn’t have even such option.
>You can not couple it with Rapsberry Pi
Why not? The only problem is that Sony doesn’t publish the specs.
Computer components are consumer products. Car components are o.o
So they increase FWC due to BSI?
How about some people saying BSI was useless once finer thinner processes had been available?
(joke) what are you going to shoot with it, sunspots and landscape in same frame?
…….ah..screw that, I want full color without CFA (doesn’t have to be 3-layer, 2-layer is OK).
How effective is turning IBIS off? Isn’t sensor free-floating and requires power just to hold in same place, anyway?
> Camcorders are likely to use them first
Rahter: they are going to milk money from $100k cameras first only later offer these sensors i $2k cameras.
Do you mean rectangle-shapred spot inside bokeh?
Reflection from sensor would change color. This doesn’t.
Maybe it’s due to sensor angular response outside or its intended range. I predict such things woould vanish on a BSI sensor.
I wonder how fast it’d kill camera if pointed on sun.
Lenses can be FF, small and sharp if they’re not f/1.4.
And when f/6.3 not enough, you can simply unmount it can mount large one.
There is quite loose relationship between flange distance and backfocus of lens.
Jupiter-12 in m39 mount (28.8 flange) protrudes deep into camera body so its backfocus is about 7.5 mm. — it bumps into plastic gasket if you try to mount it on aps-c E-mount camera.
On the other hand, none of e-mount lenses (18 mm flange) use shorter than 12 mm backfocus. Leica M lenses typically have about same 12 mm despite much longer flange distance.
So? The rear element of RF 35/1.8 would still fit it exact same optical diagram was used for e-mount.
They might have also changed mount for another protocol, the old ef protocol (same sa ef-m) is widely known, the new one is probably difficult to reverse engineer
NEX-3 had it…
But why limit to small set of options? Digital cameras can output ANY resolution.
>Look at his cousin estimates, which is a few points.
I don’t know which place in Jensen you refer to. I read some of Jensen’s works and found one place where he states that in the inbred sample, nearly half of people were considered unfit to be IQ-tested. A comparison makes little sense if you compare best half of inbred sample to all of non-inbred.
> Or look at more recent genomics work
Get a fully linear model with R^2>0.5 (preferably more) then you say that it is highly linear.
>measuring runs of homozygosity on IQ and height and other traits
Homozygosity isn’t the only non-linear genomic factor.
>But they aren’t, there never have been,
So super-smart designers babies also don’t.
Proper measure of effects of inbreeding is increase in homozygosity, not “generations”.
Jensen also wrote that inbreeding is worse to IQ than it is to physical traits.
In agriculture F1 hybrids that are used the most are the effective ones; nobody would plant millions of acres with F1 hybrids that aren’t. Just nobody cared to make breeds of humans for F1 effect.
All correct: it predicts bankruptcy of Canon, its purchase by Sony and subsequent usage of EOS trademark.
I mean, there is a quite loose relationship between mount distance and back focus. You can have longer flange distance yet rear lens element protruding more from the mount, so back focus is same as for canon ef. That’s why I’m asking.
What you said makes sense. still i want to know.
your sarcasm detector is broken
The term “alpha male” is widely used in popular/folk psychology.
“alpha female”, much less so.
Many vegans value animals more than humans, for a reason.
Your opponents know you better than you know your opponents. Your favorite POV is broadcasted by almost every politician, media outlet and top website.
Listen? When did you even listen to your opponents?
oh. “hate” is when someone has opinion you strongly disagree with. But when you hate something, it isn’t really hate because ur a good guy.
I love “43.3 mm” instead of abominable “full frame” or even more adonimable (for me, not used to it) Japanese “furu saizu”
Is “female” a gender? I thought it was always sex.
Are you joking? If not, what is the backfocus of this lens?
The first issue (larger size) is permanent and the second might be rendered irrelevant by software updates. A lens needs only to move where it’s told to, and it does not need large bandwidth for commands.
Protocol translation might be reduced to simple wrapping/ unwrapping.
AF/MF in case of the Sigma doesn’t add in length, only diameter. Optimization for CDAF can affect optical diagram, but the Sigma is a DSLR lens. And iris shape does not affect size at all xD
Lens size is the new megapixels.
Maybe someone said that next Canikon MILC would be the bomb and then they decided security to be more important.
Remember who used to say all the time than fab process used in A6300 is cheaper and superior than FF BSI?
If you applied same metrics to human intellect and staple productivity they’d be both “highly linear”. But you somehow keep the one glass is half full and the other is half empty…
Can you show that correlation between heterozygosity is zero?
Oops, it’s “ISO 64” device because it has deeper FWC, not vice versa o.O
Well it might be that Canon can’t sell them because of IP issues, or nobody going to buy them. These sensors can only sell with proper badge attached to them.
Yes you are….
How Nikon gets more FWC/DR?
>particularly because Canon is the elephant in the big sensor market,
Who buys sensors from Canon??
DXO is very uber strict about “resolving”. What test you need is to test the lens on smaller pixels. “resolving” at 30% contrast ratio does not improve DXO score, but it does raise IQ significantly.
Also your statement assumes that if lens renders 5% of area in extreme corners blurry, then center should be trimmed to match resolution of corners. I don’t have a singly idea why, the corners in 80% use-cases usually contain nothing but bokeh.
Of course, if you’re copying paper docs (on A4 paper), then corner sharpness matters. But who of people here admits doing so? xD
No advantage with 4 micron pixels. However, if raw files are cooked (e.g. to “fix” vignetting, color, or response non-uniformity) then extension of number of bits POST adc can be advantageous.
Do you keep the context? The subtopic being discussed is 24-35/2 vs 24/1.4. So, same DOF, same noise, resolution well expected to be enough + prime advantage over zoom.
Huh? so if i put 15-45/2.8 on pentax Q (it’s clean, tidy and nice) it’s then same as yours fuji 50-140/2.8?
He suggests using cropping for this. “perspective distortion” depends on POV, not FL of the lens used.
Sure. However there are lots of people that are satisfied with sharpness of old film lens. Made for MILC it can be smaller a bit. If you don’t like unsharp lens, it’s only 2 seconds to unmount and replace it.
When I use old lenses it’s usually lens flare and loss of contrast is most annoying… old (or absent) coatings.
Cool, didn’t know that, thanks.
But I meant APS-c cameras using sony sensors…
These modern CMOS sensors have more non-imaging circuits than 1980th CPUs. So you never know which silly restrictions they put there.
Intel engineers in 80286 didn’t make a way to switch from protected mode to real mode; it required HW reset for this. They thought everyone would instantly upgrade software and it’s not needed. They added switch ability later in 80386.
Yup, he made errors. So do you. If he believed in blending inheritance it doesn’t mean it has nothing to do with genes.
Geniuses are like natural occasional F1 seeds. Advantageous/disadvantageous combinations are likely to be disjointed and not passed to sons and daughters, and leads people to say ‘gee, genes have nothing to do with intelligence, and eugenics was a scam to start with’.
If it was ‘LUCK’ then correlation between MZ twins raised apart would be pretty low.
Make sensor Z-shift, then even f/0.9 can get fast AF.
What? Z-shift? We need to emulate a DSLR in almost every way possible.
Does it mean something to you that the very person who introduced the term, Francis Galton, put a genetic explanation to phenomenon he observed?
It is well observed that progeny of F1 seeds has worse properties than F1 seeds themselves, without any ‘LUCK’ and ‘retesting error’. Luck and retesting errors do exist, but sometimes these smaller effects just make studying ‘true’ genetic regression to mean — which is the relevant one in the subject, designing super-smart babies.
Technically feasible != will be done
I want option to turn pre-AF on on my NEX-5N.
People with newer Sony cameras want option to turn off Star Eater. It being feasible does not make Sony to add it because Sony think they don’t need it.
The first A7 surely uses line-skipping for LCD/EVF feed.
Many people thought JFK kill is a Deep State work even before the term ‘Deep State’ even existed.
I meant something with sane price.
And, RED does not use Sony sensors, so theirs might have this possibility to start with. Sony sensors might place limit on area usable for video.
Andrew’s point was that CMOS sensors don’t put limits on area — he likes to make ridiculous points without any evidence.
You’re NOT answering my question.
Just because there is regression to mean due to env-luck and retesting error, it does not imply there’s no genetic regression.
All intelligence-related articled in wikipedia are heavily edited by IQ-denalists and genetics-denialists.
I am already well familiar with IQ-denialist stance and please do not parrot it here. (because it’s get parroted everywhere).
Are you saying all regression is due to environmental luck being removed?
Micro43 has more DR than average photog has composing skills.
The only bad thing about m43 is price.
1.Ok maybe Sony uses old ancient bionz. Nikon? Pentax? Fuji? do anyone of them have full sensor area in video? AFAIK none of them uses these crappy bionzes, just sensor is the same. (stop talking about bionzes as ultimate explanation to everything). if the sensor is limit, nikon-pentax-fuji can’t make it better by using better image engine.
2.I’ll happily accept some drop in FPS as an option.
I want something like Canon EF-M 22/2 for my Sony E camera. The tech is here… kind has been here for like years…
HiV. Immunity. HIV. Immunity. As if their goal is that everyone should have HIV, just be immune to it?
Well it was easy prediction — this is politically correct.
Why then almost nobody provides video with full 3:2 sensor area?
Now, I know that there are 16:9 bigots but I want to be able to get full FOV of lenses — I can always crop later.
Bigger, and bigger and bigger they go….
These hypothetical descendants marry other descendants with same metrics.
Suppose A,B,C,D are ppl with certain given IQ. A&B make a child X, then C&D make a child Y. Then X marries Y.
>Or simply consider the fact that humans are much smarter than other hominids.
um this doesn’t prove anything.
Так глубина алгоритмов там не для вас, а наоборот, чтобы больше прибыли создателю. Делать сайт знакомств чтобы все друг друга быстро нашли и на сайт не возвращались, совершенно невыгодно!
Дисбаланс спроса и предложения ни одна система не исправит.
For most part of human history marriages were arranged and it didn’t matter.
Because they do have.
Note many humans use their intelligence to put ink inder skin and rings in nose, which is bad for fitness. Dumb animals don’t do that. Why humans can do this and still survive, is because this fitness loss is smaller than gains intelligence brings in other areas.
Smarter humans spend time having existential fears, pursuing eternal life, campaiging for gay acceptance, IQ denialism, etc. instead of making more copies of themselves.
Offtopic: how far are HLA-compatible pigs for human transplants?
>Regression to the mean only happens once.
I highly doubt this. I’d agree that after 1st generation it’d be weak but not zero. What you have written doesn’t look like rigorous mathematic proof.
It’s easier to make good smaller pixels than quicker deeper ADC *and* lower read noise.
And quad-bayer is a boo-boo.
These were 14 bits + 2 zero bits for your pleasure xD
Strangely is looks everyone avoids use of non-linear ADC, probably there must be a reason for this and not as simple as you say.
You’ll never know which stupid limitations engineers could put in an IC!
These CMOS sensors have more and more ICs on them, not just blank grid like CCD was => more space for stupid limitations to be here.
Probably he doesn’t have a GS sensor for such test in the first place xD
Cats deserve the best.
Can I please take photos of cats without asking for permissions from the Church, the Party and vairous moralizers?
4.88 micron pixel pitch, 16 bit… 16 bit probably a gimmick.
Wins due to RGBW over RGGB are very modest for most use-cases. What is worse, NR algorithms for RGGB are mature, for RGBW you’d need new ones.
Image quality isn’t just QE. Correlated noise and response uniformity….
Photonstophotos plots DR/SNR against nominal iso by camera manufactures(not real exposure) which you can’t trust.
A/D converters have nothing to do with counting photons, CMOS APL sensors have a transistor IN EACH PIXEL which converts charge into voltage.
Sensors are going 3D, neat.
Hey Andrew and others, remember you said making BSI&stacked sensors is insanely costsly…. Eat your hat.
>The Nikon D750 is holding its own
that’s like saying if the glass if half empty or half full.
D750 also has “advantage” or being OVF camera w/o OSPDAF or optimization for fast readout — which does impact IQ negatively.
Seeing non-removable lens hoods mades me sick.
I wonder how could it be possible Olympus hasn’t contracted FF MILC disease? The epidemic is rampant.
1. we don’t know if its 19 or 20 mm
2. flat cover glass makes it possible even if its 20 mm (see my comment above)
m43 lenses are designed to work with very fattish (4mm) cover glass. So this adapter would need to have flat glass to make up the difference — which you would want anyway, or else m43 lenses would work suboptimally.So this wins some spare flange distance. Using higher than recommended index for flat glass wins even more.
It’s so easy. Sony has “full frame”, “aps-c” and “automatic”. No rocket science.
Eh why would you trust these markings — and why expected better than 1 mm accuracy for them?
It’s much better to measure Leica M-L adapter.
Irrelevant. These cameras had both mirror and Keplerian focal reducer crammed into body (Not only reducer itself added to the bulk, they needed to keep eye point of OVF, hence adding twice bulk). Making a teleconverter is a lot simpler. No mirror, no OVF…
Probably not with short backfocus lenses (most MILC lenses).
Also for 0.5x reducer, glasses with n=2 index are desirable xD
coma, not comma (dammit…..)
Take Tamron 28-75/2.8 and downscale it by 0.65x — physics permits this. Small, zoom and f/2.8.
BS, name please something legacy similar to this 35/1.2 — you can’t.
Sigma will be bound by license limitations.
>can have big problems with most digital FF sensors
Soon everyone will shift to using BSI sensors, forget that legacy shit.
Sony A7M3 is already fine.
Leica buys outdated FSI sensors from someone, that it why they need shifted microlenses.
It does not compete with sigma/sony to start with. It’s easy to make lens sharper with you bloat its size.
I don’t see any manufactures to really innovate in photography. Big black bricks with a grip and a hump. If most Japanese don’t, who does?
You predicted Canon MILC would use EF mount. You predicted Nikon MILC would use F mount. With such quality predictions I’d take your information with a big grain of salt.
> move was that they did it before Canon/Nikon
No, because their first FF camera was years ago after Canon and year ago after Nikon.
Get a nikon D700 which has the right look.
Can’t wait to see you change your userpic.
If you troll here please use better one, at the very least.
better margins than what?
Lol there are few reasons to separate DSLR and MILC. (no, focus peaking and zebras don’t count). MILC makers carefully want MILC to be a slightly better and cheaper DSLR, and many options that MILC can offer (e.g. focal reducer, tilting EVF) are denounced as gimmicks by most photogs.
If you crop 24 GM you get 36/2.1 equivalent. If such lens existed it’d blow away quality of such a crop from the GM, at smaller price.
Damn. Will they clone canon’s 22/2 stm? small, fast, and good IQ.
nitpicking: cropping per se doesn’t give more reach, smaller pixel pitch does.
is that a SLR lens with extension tube?
Gross. Why would you leave comment like that?
Fisheye has much wider FOV than rectilinear lens with same focal length.
Based on existence of these plenty of programs, it’s rather rectilinear wides should be abolished, not fisheyes.
True, i didn’t fully understand your point but appears you haven’t understood mine as well.
Also, nearly all A-mount lenses have aperture lever. This is why it’s easier for engineers to make lens with physically connected control ring.
Remember all that idiots saying e-mount is ‘open’?
So, none — you can’t name any.
For 50 mm there are lots of em.
For shorter FLs requirement of FF coverage and mirror clearance forces lenses to be a lot bulkier than native MILC lenses.
Oh God please make all proprietary things open source….
This ‘usb’ input might rather be power bank, or a phone charger, or, even, usb hub connected between pc and camera.
I’m totally fine with 500 mA current for usb charging. This is minuscule to what CPU consumes.
I don’t need 5 A charging. and btw, why can’t they wire usb +5V separate from other things?
If you don’t need usb charging, get a Nikon D700. Problem solved.
I was sarcastic on both Sony and Nikon fanboys.
I have a Sony but no Nikons myself.
> Much quicker to clear buffer (Sony takes forever)
ah, rmemeber people, Sony’s strength is electronics and Nikon’s optics LOL. xD
BS. Batis provides OLED distance indicators which Zonys do not have.
Zeiss lenses match Zeiss lenses ergonomics and not Sony.
Heh now there’s E-mount lenses with aperture rings — for years — but not a single one non-Sony. It’s a Sony decision.
>And, your right, it isn’t open to “everyone”, only other lens manufacturers–the ones that this actually matters to.
There are also adapter manufacturers who need it, and there are hobbyists who want to provide EXIF data for legacy MF lenses. (E.g. there’s “dandelion” for Canon cameras)
>which probably means lawyers need to be paid, aka the cost of doing business.
Lawyers easily consume more money that engineers.
>For all intents and purposes, there appears to be no difference in “openness” between the two.
I agree on this point generally but m43 is more open.
Welcome to the real world? Well real world includes blatant lying, and denying that any lying took place. (but when Orange Man does this, is this bad, when you do this, it is not).
Sony licensed Sigma, who makes AF cameras and AF lenses and thefore is competitor to Sony. Sony didn’t license many smaller firms which make MF lenses or adapters, so they are not a competitor… makes no sense in POV told by you.
Yes, and real world also includes benchmark cheating (e.g. Volkswagen) and anti-competitive trusts.
How many vintage 12/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/1.7 lenses you have which are as small as this and of better IQ?
It’s freaking A-mount lens. I meant E-mount lenses.
Just because some E-mount lenses look like A-mount lenses does not mean they behave the same.
> It has similar setup
Ehh, just like Sony A3000 has emulated mirror slap sound.
Just because it looks, does not mean it is.
I am 98% sure too that aperture ring also won’t work either with just power supplied to lens but no electronic commands.
It does not work for many Sony lenses this way. Without power focusing and OIS elements might be simply LOOSE.
This lens diagram looks quite similar to Pentax Q 5-15/2.8-4.5 lol.
if you follow the links you’ll see that they DO charge for “free” basic specs), and even application process itself requires NDA.
There’s no point in NDA if it was ‘open’ to everyone.
Their site at some time said that E 16/2.8 has good image quality typical to primes — they say, so it must be so, right?
Stop lying.They didn’t. M43 is more open than E-mount. In E-mount, Zeiss lenses (except Zony, where Zeiss only provides blue sticker) do not have aperture rings even when Zeiss for Fujis have them!
A6000 is smaller than your film SLR because it’s aps-c… there were 24×18 SLRs as small as A6000.
>I say CAN be smaller/lighter, not that they ARE smaller/lighter.
Virtually small MILCs are those which lack EVF. Small FF MILC = first generation a7 with bad AF and sensor.
>but a good pentaprism,
>a good matt glass and
ultra cheap. it doesn’t even need to be glass — a plastic piece with fresnel grooves on one side and raster on the other will do fine.
>a good flapping mirror is still more expensive.
well this thing is really more expensive.
I’d like to see noticeably new things (like Canon’s 28-70 f/2 zoom) or sensor tilt (not yet) made possible to mirrorless design.
All three ILC cameras I have ever bought are MILC, not a single DSLR…
so.. actually I am amongst early adopters… but I’m disappointed.
… I used A3000 bought really cheap which is a MILC with fake slap sound and which doesn’t playback at EVF…
Even those CDAF-only Sonys are better?
If there are *more*, why are they called ‘mirrorless’ — defined via thing that they *lack*?
> Now cameras can be smaller, lighter
And each iteration of mirrorless is larger and heavier… These MILCs are of same size and weight as film SLRs of 80-90ths.
>a camera that is cheaper to make then an DSLR
EVF in MILC adds a lot of its cost. Really cheap MILCs (e.g. A3000) have abysmally bad EVF. When NEX-5N came in 2011, I was shocked by fact its add-on EVF was priced about as 2/3 of entry DSLR. Today these used EVFs are more expensive than used 5N camera bodies.
Well, sure, good EVF could be cheaper than FF mirrorbox that slaps at 12 fps. But most people are more than happy with 5 fps.
>And you can have cameras that focus better
It is rather property of lenses which allows CDAF to nail the focus. Nothing really prevents a DSLR from having approximate focus via mirror and then nailing it with CDAF, or calibrating its PDAF error via CDAF.
So… each AF lens for MILC has to be CDAF-capable and therefore more expensive than similar DSLR lens.
Why do people keep contraposing dslr vs. milc.
Both are big black bricks with grips and central hump.
The only difference is small mirror which makes about 5% of camera cost.
The most expensive component — sensor — is the same maybe with some adjustments.
There’s nothing what prevents DSLRs from having live histogram or zebras.
There COULD be things which difficult to do in a DSLR — like zoom eyepiece or sensor tilt or z-shift but they are avoided by milc makers.
Suppose its 60 years ago, and aircrafts users are like photogs.
“Hey, aircraft manufacturers! You now can make helicopters, cool! But please make me a helicopter which looks like an airplane and has speed and fuel efficiency of airplane. Vertical takeoff? No, I don’t need this.”
For all 4? How do we know this? Canon (and Nikon) might have chosen to make a new mount for the very reason Sigma would be unable to make lenses for them.
it might matter for telephotos. for wides doesn’t matter.
They made several lenses for aps-c mirrorless and some olympus branded lenses are sigma designs.
They make no sense for EVF-only system, except to satifsy duckling syndrome.
Anyway, you can use any SLR lens on MILC with appropriate adapter at TS.
of courtse f/4 lens is pricier than f/5.6 lens xD
Global shutter would compromise DR, so probably no. And it’s nice to have but actually few people really need.
Kind of, but for second exapmle there’s canon EF-M 22/2 STM which is smaller and even cheaper.
More rather like 1/3 to 1/2 stop of improvement.
I want 18-118 zoom for aps-c that small… (118 is the real, not “equivalent” FL for this camera)
I don’t like football 🙂
Are you sure the professor haven’t had a stroke or something?
That’s good, but…. will it blend?
Well apparently Sigma is licensed, so they’re safe. Metabones probably not…
They don’t have to. Thank them warranty doesn’t become void when user installs third party battery.
Use a A3000 — it has such trait and it cannot be turned off, as also fake mirror sound which cannot be turned off too xD
Well Sony’s serious fw updates come usually in form of new camera xD
When Sony E tilty screens are facing upwards, camera takes more space and potentially more fragile.
Look at Sony R1, which does not suffer from this.
Because here at SAR “evf at optical axis” means EVF is in hump shifted vertically (but not horizontally) from optical axis.
Are there bans on GPS? The only partial one I know of, Russia requires all GPS-enabled devices to support other GLONASS too. However Russia is a small market.
Another use could be that you can show images to model(s) which itself can be funny e.g. with fisheye.
Somewhat problem is, such connection would have worse time lag and resolution than native.
Saying that would hurt retailers who have it in stock (making them less likely to cooperate with Sony in future), so no.
It’s #MeToo. Other do, so I will too!
Knowing Sony, I am afraid, if they make it, it will be unusable xD
What? They added it then removed it???
If you think outside of the box, you can use e-ink on buttons too! That way you can have both.
Sony does have FF E-mount, but this is an AFTERTHOUGHT. Lucky coincidence that they were able to fit FF.
Add top LCD screen? Why not add a mirror back in??
Better, move the main LCD to the top (like Cybershot R1) and EVF closer to optical axis (not what people here mean by optical axis). That way it does with just 1 LCD.
Yup, and idiots say that e-mount is “open spec”. LOL
SInce many social media sites would crop a circle (hey, I am modern webdesigner so I use corner-radius) from your rectangular photo it is perfectly usable for FF too xD
Unfortunately there isn’t collapsible 24-75 f/5-8 for fullframe. But nothing really stops them from making it.
This is #MeToo from Canon and Nikon. Panasonic and Sigma are following!
For wildlife it’s much better to have dot-sight built-in and EVF angled downwards (like tiltable EVFs of some Panasonics or Sony’s detachable EVF).
Andrea do you know these cameras are under 18 y.o., don’t you?
Where is aps-c low end news? 16-50 kit zoom is the worst compared to those in other systems.
Really it’s telephotos and focal reducers where it matters.
Image-telecentric FF lens in E-mount is impossible.
Not really. To get rid of it, they’d have to make lens larger or sacrifice IQ.
Lens has longitudinal chromatic aberration and spherical aberration. These are main sources of direction information.
Also “CDAF-only” sensor might have non-uniformities which you can calibrate and use as poor OSPDAF sensor xD
No matter how many papers you read… you still can’t add DFD focusing to legacy CDAF-only cameras 🙁
These 0-360 are obtained from 0,45,90,135 with very simple math.
These front mounting rotating filters are very unwieldy to use and only because of lack of alternatives it looks “good”.
Funny this is, the “distagon” has front element smaller in diameter than the “sonnar”.
I thought you posted image on the right and the left one is the result. xD
So it became closer to perfect symmetry rather than to retrofocus behemoths. Effectively ceased to be a distagon.
Hud might be simple are able to show only camera settings, but people around can’t tell if it can or not so they will assume worst case so it’s creepy.
Ah, reading is time consuming… There are many things that can be done, but we don’t get them in finished real-world product because of IP issues or just nobody put enough effort. Sometimes I think these people saying ‘go out and take some photos’ have a point xD
That Nokia 808 camera was so good so it could even make sense to make standalone pocket camera of its own….
Hm, I think there’s flagship Huawei smartphone with 1/1.7″ sensor which is almost 2/3″
Well let me nitpick: it’s backfocus is about ~19mm, shorter than its focal length. Retrofocus is usually defined by backfocus being longer than focal lens.
Yes, and it can be extended by adding special energy conserving operating modes which operate with e-ink display only xD
Yup, Sony would need to make 85/3.6 prime to match the Pana in this regard. But, since A7R2 has lots of resolution — you can crop and still retain enough MP, for such use cases you can use crop lenses e.g. E 50/1.8
NEX-5N styled camera xD I really love to put my pinky UNDER camera hull so I don’t need to grip it — pinky supports camera weight
Remember that Sony R1 fixed lens camera with its main LCD at the top? That way, you don’t need two displays.
No you can’t, that’s creepy, what’s why Google Glass didn’t sell well.
Removing 3.5 mm analog jack can be justified — there are some problems with coupling analog signals so it’s better to use digital signal, more quality.
…because buyers are so fixated on large grips, large batteries and black color.
Yes. There are three (or more, if you’re lucky) color channels which can give independent information — remember bokeh fringing?
Front focused PSF and back focused PSF are different.
This is why DFD needs to know the lens.
Unknown lens — doesn’t work.
Lens out of alignment — doesn’t work.
If there’s unknown front converter attached — doesn’t work. (In theory, you could use AI or user settings to make for missing info — but hey, Panasonic isn’t so generous.)
From lens mounting POV it is a SLR.
Not really. Blades to not make for missing fangs and talons. They have abilities and use cases which fangs and talons do not have.
Isn’t ‘Distagon’ supposed to mean ‘huge retrofocus lens’?
Ah, they own the trademark so they slap it on everything they like.
‘Sonnar’ E 24/1.8 is should rather properly named a Distagon.
It can determine direction — in some cases. When it can obviously not, is when image is very far from focus (but again, flagship DSLRs use special focus point to handle very far defocus).
If the complains are about tracking autofocus — when image is already near focus — this is where DFD *can* determine direction.
How would you tell if lens was designed for L, E or both?
EU needs to make a law that there needs only to be 2 mounts, one for SLR and one mirrorless.
It’s very impressive that engineers can make up for missing mirror — make good AF, quick EVF update, lower power consumption etc. However this is also why cameras are called mirrorLESS. Not much value for user.
They can use 1.3 crop sensor they have now. It’s very likely also they tried to produce FF sensors eariler; it’s not sudden.
Leica’s input in camera bodies is mainly design. Cameras are EVF now? ‘high end’ would also mean EVF work fast and steady, Leica knows nothing about it — except, they can help with eyepiece (lol). Responsiveness, quick AF — Leica has nothing about it. Even their zooms optical prescriptions are patented by Panasonic and someone else.
With Sigma making L-mount cameras it might become, like, new FF open mount…
I would be quite surprised if they really do “baby A9” — there’s so many big sensor bigots, and bird shooters are a small group for brands to care for.
You can have better quality if you expose for low ISO which smaller sensor does not have — which is not case for bird photos, where it’s like ISO 800 with TC or ISO 400 on smaller sensor without TC. If you can use flash or longer exposure — then 100 on FF vs 50 — oops, it does not have it.
TC also makes OSPDAF pixels struggle with longer f-ratios (the 100-400 is slow already as it is).
This is a gear site…. so… everyone here xD
My point is, we would have had more such photos if gear that can make it with less bulk and cost had been available.
I wonder if L-mount protocol is same as m43 protocol xD
there are some cine cameras with MFT mount and other sized sensor from JVC and Blackmagic.
That’s odd argument. Lensbaby product are expensive toys.
>A9+FE100-400mm GM+1.4xTC, heavy cropping.
You can ask yourlself why’d you need expensive FF sensor, then install TC in front of it (making it act like crop sensor) and then heavily crop.
It could have worked with 1″ sensor with lower cost and faster reading speeds…
These buttons all electronic — virtually all AF MILC lenses are focus-by-wire.
All of these are prime lenses with internal focusing — all moving parts are inside. Why they ever need rubber gaskets when they can completely seal lens?
yeah, but it will have same lousy high ISO performance.
they’d need some major changes to improve it.
The title says ‘Panasonic and Olympus Digital Camera News’
When Huawei and Xiaomi are making FF MILC? xD
one lens to rule them all
> is why there were never any adapters made between Leica M (27.8mm) and Samsung NX (25.5mm)
It’s also because of NX-mount is narrower than M-mount. For L & m43, opposite is the case: L-mount is much larger.
>The sensor glass thickness would have absolutely zero impact on telecentric light rays at the center of the sensor
If lens is image-telecentric it only means effect of flat stack would be uniform across the frame. Also none of m43 lenses are telecentric
Have you read about mods where people remove filters (e.g. IR, AA) in front of image sensors? If glass if simply removed (replaced with air) camera loses ability to focus to at infinity (with lenses that don’t have overshoot past infinity), so ppl replace if with plain glass to compensate.
> it doesn’t change the situation in any material way
Well it does… you yourself described m43 lenses with thick rears which too wide to recess in L-mount. However if we “win” enough flange distance then it doesn’t need to and the only difficulty would be with pins — which is solvable because L-mount pins are on the top and m43 on the bottom xD
I guess these capacities are used for making cellphone sensors xD
There won’t be improvement in QE.
In digital circuits power reduction is obtained by making transistors smaller… sensors aren’t digital circuits.(but I really don’t know). You’d want full well capacity to be greater.
similar specs, but innards are different
Not as much mess as mixing roman and arabic numerals.
So if you don’t know the value you can’t “debunk” anything.
I wrote about sensor glass thickness differences which you preferred not to notice.
Pentax K has exact same flange distance and M42 and can still adapt M42 via very thin ring.
Where’s 20 mm number for L-mount comes from?
Also m43 features super thick (4mm) sensor cover glass. Leica SL features very thin stack. If adapter compensates with it with flat glass, it wins some distance.
E.g. 3 mm flat with n=1.52 “wins” 3*(1-1/1.52) = 1.02 mm.
Soon m43 mount will have more lenses that have aps-c coverage than those which don’t. xD
Time to release body with larger sensor.
Cellphone sensors need smaller feature size than big sensors.
FF needs to have good yields at big chips.
Somewhat different things.
They sell two mirrorless camera models, one aps-c and other aps-h.
NNNAH something small like canon ef-m 22/2 is more desirable
It’s larger than many nifty fifties f1.4 despite them covering FF. xD
Heh it could be opposite: Canon introduced new protocol for new mount which would be harder for Sigma to reverse engineer.
it’s much easier to make sharp 60-600 than 18-200 because narrower FOV.
Some people like to use 70-200/2.8 as long portrait lens, also, indoors…
‘Many’ doesn’t specify if it’s SLR or MILC. Today there’s more living MILC mounts than DSLR xD
>To eliminate color shift
oh, they make lens heavier to solve problem which modern Sony sensors don’t have
Physically possible, but very unlikely.
Smartphone sensor with 1.2 micron pixel pitch needs much smaller feature size than large pixel sensor. No way they use same capacity for them.
A FSI sensor could still house a lot of circuits outside imaging area.
However I agree sensor with integrated H.265 output would be impractical
Metallic aluminium was very expensive once, more than gold. Now it’s cheap enough.
Sony is focused on FF now — but I bet they would add BSI in aps-c cameras too. Maybe the same sensor used in Fuji.
Well FF camera with TC acts much like crop camera. ‘High ISO’ advantage is lost because it occurs in the first place when it gathers more light by using larger lens. Sometimes FF cameras have more MP but then they might easily add more MP to smaller sensor as well. The only thing FF camera with TC over crop has is potential for greater DR (if you’re using min ISO which you don’t in this usecase)
APS-c+ 1.4 tc is effectively 2.1 crop, you can use 1″ sensor without TC as well… but 1″ allows to have stacked sensor with insane fast readout as moderate cost unlike a9 sensor.
TCs also add some vignetting, aberrations and reflections
Best teleconverter is a crop camera! Making lenses compatible with TCs makes them more front heavy and/or worse IQ/other.
Is there a white paper proving that Sony did intent to use it for FF too?
I agree he is trolling, but it’s not that his point is imaginary.
Sony’s mount probably was a pain for a people who designed 645 to FF reducer. It also somewhat restrictive for long focal lengths. You can’t have symmetric 400 mm lens with it.
Ratio of mount diameter to sensor diagonal is only somewhat larger than for Fuji (it’s only a bit too small to fit FF), and Nikon doesn’t have aps-c MILC, only 1″ MILC which have that ratio much larger than for E-mount.
It more looks like lucky coincidence that Sony was able to reuse E-mount for fullframe.
maybe he means he wants less zoom range, smaller size like the Tamron has over Sony GiMe your money lens xD
Sony’s design has backfocus longer than 38 mm — look, the rear is empty and can work on SLR cameras too.
What they don’t say, is that these lenses aren’t really f=400 and f#=2.8.
EFL might differ by a few mm and f-stop is probably more like 2.93. If one lens is, say 2.93 and the other 2.87 this might ‘explain’ difference in weight.
btw with lenses like this, you can talk about lenses with interchangeable cameras
what about white cameras? lol. Both compaines.
I’m waiting for adapter than can accept Canon EF, Nikon F lenses and doubles as E-mount macro ring xD
CDAF isn’t consistent for moving objects.
There might be intellectual property issues.
OSPDAF points are on main sensor — but they are sparse and have lower discriminitation capacity.
funny thing is, you can use IBIS with this ‘lens’ (since it does not have OIS — but it could, lol)
This won’t give you 11 mm focal length but rather ~25. And fluffy edges will ruin everything.
maybe they can release these already existing Leica lenses under their own brand xD
Near the end of the text, there are tables “various data”.
You’re interested in 2w (total angle of view) and IH (image height, that is, half diagonal)
In this patent, some lenses are FF and some are (examples 3,5) are mft.
SL mount is much wider, so — YES. (like you can attach C-mount to m43)
Firmware update with option in menu.
would be problematic given shorter back focus of MFT lenses.
It’s not only flange distance, but also diameter that matters.
Your statement assumes diameter will be same; if so, it would be indeed difficult. But, the FF mount will have much larger diameter so no problem here.
Because you’ll get image circle about aps-c sized which would not fill FF sensor.
Note that focal reducers (or lenses having reducer as a component) might benefit from wide mount as Canikon advertised.
Um doesn’t it already exist (from Kipon?)
It can (should) be an option.
Does this share much with Leica SL?
Better availability (which is driven by more sales) does make USING system better. If you can rent/buy/sell Canikon gear/accessories locally but the other system needs to be ordered sent oversears…
Collapsible 24-70 is a wise decision: it allows for better image quality with smaller collapsed size.
nitpicking: ef-s 24/2.8 is larger than canon’s own ef-m 22/2
um sensors isn’t just image quality when fully read, but also determine AF/display when read partially… if Sonys sensors are read quicker this given an advantage. Also power consumption matters.
Global shutter per se does not imply it can take two photos with no interval between them.
Instead of megapixel race we now have this? large sensor/FF race?
Sony never made a single lens faster than f/1.4 or otherwise something special to mirrorless… (Like focal reducers). Lens lineup is a copy of DSLR lenses. FE cameras have hump.
ML isn’t Canon creation, they rather against it
28-70 is lighter than 70-200 which many photogs use on a daily basis.
Maybe IBIS unit (which Canon doesn’t have) poses a slight problem here.
People get paid for it! And bigger camera helps to get paid more.
Btw i guess 28-70/2 + smaller mirrorless combo weights less than ‘ordinary’ 24-70/2.8 + 1DX2 or its likes.
Lol, you have never run an optical CAD, did you?
Mount can be indeed problem for some lenses but not compact ones. Compact lenses would usually mean close exit pupil where narrow mount doesn’t make troubles.
> they might as well go to Fuji medium format.
which would need to have f/2.7 zoom to match this, then. (Which it does not, it has only f/4 zoom with smaller ratio).
Heck make clone of EF-M 22/2 for aps-c users and update kit zoom xD
These things are sold in much larger quantities..
It’s marketing BS.
Rumor? See Metabones site.
>Disclaimer: we are NOT licensed, approved or endorsed by Sony.
No way, the Sonys are growing in size.
Tribalism: people like to hate their outgroup.
> Canon will not be opening up the RF mount specs to third parties
Neither Sony does…
Metabones/Kipon/Techart adapters were made by reverse engineering.
Even passive adapter to E mount is impossible.
Thanks for answers.
There must be some size after reduction smaller that this, costs become linear? What is it?
How do they make wafer-sized sensors then?
They offer digital large format camera for $106000.
Per unit of sensor area, its pricing is similar to Fuji’s 44×33.
>No, I don’t think that they’re adding technology because yields are improving.
Sony A7 price was lower than crop cameras that preceded it in ~15 years before.
How is tech not improving?
Wrong. There is no direct relationship between allowable back focus and flange distance. If you look at many E-mount designs many have lots of unused space in the rear.
No, you can’t because the Canon’s diameter is greater not smaller.
Similarly samsung NX cannot accept Leica M lenses despite its flange distance slightly smaller.
Nope, nope. It’s a zoom with AF, so it’s perfectly ok for average users. (except price of course).
28-70 f/2 zoom cannot be so small.
Why? because muh physics.
Repeat after me:
28-70 f/2 zoom cannot be so small.
Why? because muh physics.
(joking of course)
All thanks to Elop. Canon does not have elops.
When inpainting (content aware fill) like Nvidia demonstrated comes for us all?
Can it copy to 2nd card data from 1st when camera is idle?
“half the aberrations” occurs automatically when a lens prescription is scaled 0.5x. The problem is alignment tolerances.
Just get a D500.
The poor Sigma needs to be retrofocus even at the longest FL. Made for mirrorless (esp BSI sensor) could be noticeably smaller.
And its 18-35 not 16-35. (everyone knows that 18 and not 16 is for noobs)
Lol. the most sold aps-c cameras are Canon EF-S which have even larger mount and even smaller sensor.
Remember, “too big” is called “ergonomic” is photographers’ speech.
Many zoom lenses are rather unsharp at the long end…
Unlike sensors/AF motors, buttons and hulls are easily made even by hobbyists. There’s only a problem, if you make these buttons there is no option (yet) to make camera accept them. Except limited remote protocols, that is.
“all else equal” — mp count of pixel pitch?
5x cost — when was that?
Interesting, what is mft vs aps-c cost ratio then?
They add “technology input” because yields improve.
ok, D850 sensor has “bad” yields, but there isn’t 45 mp aps-c camera.
Cameras quoted above were 24 mp ff vs 24 mp aps-c.
Here is optical diagram of RX1 lens. See, it couldn’t be more different from this!
It’s a patent drawing and it does not exactly match actual lens. Those cover glasses may be moved between lens and sensor arbitrarily, as they are flat — amount of aberrations they introduce does not depend on position. If you glue all of them to sensor, distance becomes longer than 1 mm.
Why it’s weird? Its thickness is not a issue for a fixed lens camera.
I’m not sure if you mean this, but there’s folk science notion that thick cover glass necessarily produces astigmatism. It does only with lenses that were not designed for it.
Not only how heavy focusing elements are, but — often overlooked — how large the movement of focusing group would be to shift focus.
>lenses that shine less than 1/2 the image diameter of FF ones, shouldn’t we be paying less than 1/4 of the price for our cameras and less than 1/2 the price for our lenses
The primary driver for lens cost is lens diameter not image circle…
MFT lenses are oversized compared to image size compared to FF ones. Nifty fifties are simple double gauss designs but MFT 25/1.8 is a retrofocus-ish lens.
Canikon also enjoy economies of scale advantage.
>the percentage of flawed sensors per each silicon disc also grows
As time goes, they shift towards using larger (and better) wafers.
Also some defects which would kill 3 micron pixel sensor would be tolerable on 6 micron pixel pitch.
>you get charged by the sensor maker 4 times the cost.
Do you really know how much they charge?
As I understand wide spectrum noise-like signals are impossible to jam.
The only terrorist groups now are happy to use suicide bombers. Maybe a school shooter-type attacker would like to use drones but then they are going to die anyway.
Civil wars would find major usage for drones, though…
Um you have difficulties understanding what I wrote.
um you having it wrong: Sony didn’t remove the mirror from SLT.
It is the smallest, but in relative terms m43 mount is huge (it can house aps-h sensor easily).
Um but the Nikon camera can do what Sonys can’t: work with f-mount lenses without bricking either camera or lens (remember Commlite adapter). And there’s lots of people with Nikon lenses.
Nikon had audacity to make 24-70/4 collapsible and a f/0.95 lens… But not Sony…
There is no paradigm shift. That is why even name “mirrorless” which is a negative trait not a positive one.
Unavailable, meaning Nikon has difficulties manufacturing it at that price point; bad for Nikon.
(Thom Hogan IIRC reported that 45 mp BSI sensor used in Nikon had poor yield compared to 42 mp used in Sonys)
Put aps-c sensor in m43 camera => “multiaspect sensor”…. Can crop squares
Because expensive phones are expected to be super thin.
f/2 and 1″ sensor would be smaller and better (in IQ) than f/0.95 and 1/2.3″.
Also 0.95 and 28mm fov are not “friends”.
f/0.95 makes no sense for a phone unless sensor supplies refuse to sell 1″ sensors at sane conditions.
The main and (almost) only problem of FF sensor is its cost, also they have slower readouts than smaller sensors.
Интернет в РФ ни в какой мере не является монополией, многие дома подключены к 2-3 провайдерам. Эти “монополии” часто еще бесплатное подключение дают.
These coatings exist but they are completely unrelated to task of keeping photographic lenses under normal conditions cool.
It is you who is offtopic.
Red herrings. Aluminium has very high thermal conductivity so it appears hot to touch even if its slightly hotter than body temperature.
About half of Sun’s radiation is in visible. So no amount of coatings solves heating, as long as it looks black, it adsorbs a half (or maybe more) of insolation.
Using e-ink display in camera would take too much courage from camera makers.
Yes, but it’s easier to make sharp f/2 lens for medium format than sharp f/1.5 lens for FF.
>So, you propose to move them *both* at the same time? That’s even worse!
So you admit you didn’t even understood idea you was going to criticize… Myth are so myths.
Btw, Sony 70-200/2.8 features TWO focusing groups moving simultaneously — almost same thing.
>for one thing, not all lenses shift their elements by the same amount
You’re inventing straw men here, nobody proposed Z-shift completely replacing internal focusing of telephotos.
> moving the sensor quickly and accurately enough
solved in IBIS units
>moving data *off* the sensor when said chip needs to move over a long rail quickly,
solved in IBIS units (btw it doesn’t need to move further than say 4 mm)
> the camera needs to somehow recognize the proper focal bounds
Can we assume that this will happen with lenses and camera of same manufacturer?
>hopelessly searching for focus; etc.
It’s a feature of CDAF systems regardless of Z-shift used or not.
The context in which in this was said to future ML system, not now.
By your logic, “E-mount cannot fit FF” wasn’t a myth because you could refer to absense of any FF E-mount at THAT DAY
Hello, hello, BSI sensor in A7R2 is already here for years…
BSI sensor with even larger pixels is available now, they don’t have problems with angular response.
FSI sensors are being phased out, so stop this, please.
Future Nikon mirrorless probably won’t even have a single FSI sensor.
Liars? Depends on the claim. Do you think Nikon F-mount can accommodate f/0.95 lenses? Please draw a design of such a lens and prove us wrong.
There’s nothing special about development of hyper fast lenses, small demand is.
E.g. ordinary slow 75-300 zoom is much more difficult for R&D — it has more lenses and more complex mechanical design.
Traditional separate PDAF sensors sits behind small secondary mirror. If more space is permitted then it can have wider coverage — after all, pellicle mirror is same same as primary mirror in SLR and twice as far as secondary mirror from the image plane.
It can’t but it doesn’t need to. The whole idea, if you didn’t read, is to delegate these quick small adjustments to moving sensor.
>Those lense are not designed for mirrorless continous autofocus system
There’s a myth that needs to be debunked itself. AF does not have to be in the lens. Sensor movement itself can do AF — Canon has a patent where small but quick sensor movements do CDAF hunts while large movements are done by lens itself.
and please stop using “lense” spelling.
Do you know who own patents (if any) for Otus and Mivlus lenses? I do not know any of them :c
Here… is an example of mirrorless advantage.
Strangely though why 35/1.4 s (but there are only two) are as large as SLR versions.
Wow! but after reading, this isn’t done out of concern of users, but for they could sell more batteries xD
Nikon V1 had 60 fps at 10 mp back in 2011! (that’s 600 mp/s against 1600 mp/s) The bottleneck has (almost) always been the sensor.
and btw, demosaicing 24 mp is computationally more difficult than converting 80 bayer to 20 mp non-bayer (or 96=>24), as Contrary old git wrote below.
You can put them on Pentax Q xD
Did you just assume author’s gender?
Politicians do not seem to have problem denying truth.
A lot of high IQ folks are IQ denialists themselves, and come with elaborate “proofs” that IQ has nothing to do with genetics.
the only existing AF nikon to sony adapter can brick camera and/or lens so there’s no danger xD
Probably because OSPDAF compromises IQ because some pixels are replaced with interpolated values. Canon didn’t any any OSPDAF in fullframes prior to dual pixel AF (which doesn’t interpolate).
40 mm is supposed to be easy made to be small. Why this is a behemoth, even with f/2 instead of f/1.8?
First iterations of canikon 400/2.8 were 5.5 – 6 kg, now 3.8 kg. So, they actually did design for them to be light.
>However, in the long run it matters as competition and commoditisation brings down prices.
Is this a reason for customer who needs camera now to choose a MILC over a DSLR?
> In any event, even if the 38mm allows the lens to be used on a DSLR in pure optical terms, where’s the rear element?
well doesn’t backfocus of N mm mean that rear element sits at N mm from image surface?
rear filter seems to sit somewhat closer than 38 mm though, air gap between last optical element and filter is rather generous (the filter is a part of optical prescription, but, being flat, it may be moved without affecting aberrations).
I don’t see why stretching backfocus by a few mm, if they needed it, would have significant effect.
It’s not like backfocus in wideangle lenses where MILC lenses have 13 mm vs. DSLR backfocus of 38 mm.
Where does it say 0.52x? I see 0.16x
Sorry, I don’t know.
if we use EVF instead of OVF, why not use it in full?
With diagonal mirror, you can go without tripod with lens body oriented vertically; and it doesn’t stick out.
>cheaper manufacturing costs
which is often not passed to customer.
>that is always going to be a big lens
Width is always going to be big. Length isn’t and might be reduced.
>combination is only about two-thirds of the weight of the Canon equivalent
True. But this lens has backfocus noticeably longer than 38 mm and therefore exact same optical design can work for a DSLR too.
They have very little over a DSLR except smaller body size. They have IBIS unlike Canikon but nothing prevents a DSLR from having IBIS too.
Having EVF is good — for ppl shooting manual focus lenses, for AF (>95% buyers) not so much.
Otherwise A7/A9 still emulate DSLR paradigm.
They are not made for e.eg. this:
They will say that weight reduction is due to Sony replacing metal/glass with plastics etc. worse build quality etc. and then point you to more popular lenses — 35/1.4 and 24-70/2.8 (which are still huge).
Umm this concept is very old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
It makes aberration correction more difficult, though.
Even if they have GS, mechanical shutter will still be retained e.g. for dark frames and because it’s cool.
Um isn’t modern technology already past Newton?
Newton erroneously concluded that all materials have same dispersion and therefore achromat lenses are impossible, that’s why he built mirror telescope. Flint glass has been invented since.
Yup, but Murphy law says it won’t attach xD
That’s a gross exaggeration.
Perfect solution fallacy.
Lens speed is not a problem; rather, E-mount does not allow telecentric illumination for corners (of 36×24)
3 pins is too few. I want 4 so I can plug phone headset in.
This forced dark frame subtraction isn’t brand specific; Sony A3000 & A5000 suffer too.
Also Pentax K-1 has electronic shutter mode despite having slow readout sensor; Sony decided that they know better than all users and only cameras with newer sensor have it.
>Also, it doesn’t touch green pixels
Isn’t it that they replace green pixels with PDAF pixel and then use nearby blue to make for missing green?
When they interpolate, this indicates that Sony seems to think that raw is not actually raw and that they know better than all users. You don’t like this. If this is let slide, then eventually Sony will do something with RAW cooking that DOES affect you negatively.
And btw, values from PDAF pixels might get some usage for photos too.
In PP a processor could infer exit pupil location & aperture of lens used, for lenses which do not transmit exif data.
They might be useful for focus stacking, fake bokeh etc etc.
This “lowest common denominator” looks very vague to me. What does it mean?
Some people would think this happened when bayer rggb was introduced and then CMOS.
Looks like the rear cap is very tall like for nikon f-mount where this is required because many lenses have protruding rear elements. Why’d Samyang copy that for e-mount where it doesn’t happen?
MFT f1.2 has a very chance of being worse due lower light transmission (that is, effective T-stop much slower than f-stop) to (FSI) sensor not effectively accepting non-perpendicular rays and losses in greater number of lens elements.
Do Chinese cameras suffer from Star Eaters or the likes?
Most buyers want big black cameras with large battery. Timelapses are a gimmick, they say.
Me? I’ll be happy if they add sensor-tilt and lighting trigger. But I understand it’s not profitable for them to do so. Probably a lot more people care about their service for pros.
They failed even more with their SmartShot series which could have been good drone cameras too if not crippled interface.
>are going to find a lot of competitors in China
That’s assuming Chinese do crap. It’s no more in 2018. Some brands are now even removing manufacturing out of China because it’s getting more expensive.
A faster lens needs to be more complex to achieve same image quality.
Because astrophotographers are a tiny minority, for each astrophotog there are 100 Barrys and for each Barry there are 100 normal photogs who shoot mainly people.
There are hundreds of thousands of OSPDAF pixels which are interpolated for ALL photos, not only long exposures, and nobody seems to care…
The backfocus is long enough to fit a mirror.
Oh, top LCD panel. Just throw the mirror back in to be consistent.
oh, folk optics here!
Casio has one cam with zoom wider than 24 mm, but sensor is only 1/1.7″
I would want 16-72/4.5 lens for aps-c that small.
New YN 50/1.4 has more complex optical formula and bigger, therefore better.
Sigmas routinely beat in IQ lenses which are 1.5-2x their price.
What is the patent number?
In patents they often specify lens to image surface (sometimes including sensor stack), whereas for commercial lenses length usually means up to flange.
So 38.3 (plus 4.4 cm) and 44 actually might the same.
They sell — except when they they don’t.
They don’t sell 1″ stacked sensor, 12 mp FF sensor, 42 mp FF BSI sensor to anyone else…
I’m talking about f/1.4 lenses. Even if telecentric they have wide angular spread.
Lol, the Otii are primes and don’t focus to 1:4 mag.
Also according to Roger Cicala, 55 Otus is 54.2 mm
offtopic: which exit pupil at f-stop you use for SNR estimation?
Looking at dxo numbers, at f/1.4 a sensor with poor angular response (small FSI pixels) might lose about 30% or more compared to sensor with good angular response.
This “focus breathing” is completely another issue, compared to plain and simple underreporting FL & aperture.
Focal length, by definition, matters when object is far, not close.
That is why microscope lenses are classified by magnification, not focal length.
w (greek letter omega) — half of FOV (diagonal), usually in degrees
Oh. I don’t really see reason why it should be…
Sometimes they go against “physics” — e.g. Tamron 100-400 is heavier than Tamron 18-400 (they have same FL & aperture at long end) because the latter is for soccer moms and the former is for Real Pros.
um this “goes completely dark” never happens at defocus — it does, however, happen when exit pupil is in “wrong” location (or too small)
(ah some people just don’t understand how OSPDAF works)
As for your question, the answer is yes.
Yes, but they’re still making them and Sony-Olympus-Fuji started making TCs for systems which never had such low res cameras.
as for FL (at inf), see “distortion” tab at dxomark — it lists true FL
Do you think it’s even possible to optimize OSPDAF sites for wide range of defocus?
>No one would bother manufacturing
By the same logic, no one would bother manufacturing teleconverters! xD
BTW, 800/5.6 is supposed to be lighter and cheaper than 400/2.8
Why it seems to be not talked about here is that regardless of display having over 900 stops, effective DR will be limited by the stray light?
Why do you need EVF to emulate OVF?
If you don’t compress DR then sun or light sources at night will blind eyes.
If you compress DR and lens has less reflections than human eye then you can see more details thru EVF than with unaided eye.
For the same reasons tiny 1/3″ sensors have 20-24 mp. The more is better! xD
But DSLRs share separate AF modules too.
isn’t crop sensor always better than teleconverter (assuming same mpx count)?
Eyepiece which changes magnification (from, say, 0.66x to 1.0x)
isn’t reproducing supposed to be done with summing sinc(x) or its substitutes?
Eyepiece doesn’t zoom. Deal breaker.
SAR addicts? xD (of which i’m example of)
Um, why would bigger battery would make more heat? Bigger battery implies its lower resistance (in Ohms) so at high current outputs losses at the battery itself are lower.
We need camera software which takes two images: with and without flash and combines them into single low-noise image which looks like there wasno flash.
by patent trolling and utilizing people’s mind viruses?
Um, but the 2-button mouse is kinda that too. Original mice had three buttons and Microsoft used two to bypass patent, and substituted that horrible “double click” for the missing button.
Apple is good at extracting money from its clients, but would they pay Sony proportionately more for sensors? xD
Also, per unit Apple market share is declining. And they use smaller sensors than other brands at same price point. (e.g. 1/3″ vs 1/2.3″)
Sony would sell magnitude more sensors to everyone else
Nope, we won’t see it. The sensor is probably 2-3x more expensive than regular sensor, IR imaging is unpopular and people are afraid it can see though clothes. Esp. this one has extended IR response. For security/medicine these “drawbacks” don’t matter.
Why’d they make 200/2.8 when they have 70-200/2.8?
Hm… single data points.
How do you tell apart Sinophilia and generic xenophilia, more high IQ people (at least publicly) display positive feelings even to low IQ countries.
somewhat offtopic: I remember an IQ denialist saying “if this stuff works, why don’t you get +30 SD IQ cats/dogs” first? Seriously, why?
Or rats/mice. 20-50x faster feedback loop than humans.
Think of Venezuela (which of course isn’t example of socialism).
It’d be true if you were talking about slower lens, 105 f/3.5. For 105 f/1.4 reduced backfocus gives an advantage.
The best teleconverter is a crop camera xD
So despite having so large front element, it has vignetting just about the same as more conventional f/1.4 lenses
Apple? Mainstream? With its about 10% (per unit) market share? They are good at extracting money from their fans but amount of people using them is rather small (except in certain countries), and steadily shrinking.
nitpicking: something going out of stock doesn’t neccessarily say that the item sells well. it alsoo might mean retailers don’t want to take risk to put thing which they can’t sell fast.
Wrong: you’d be adding vignetting NOT apodiztion this way.
first gen a7 is cheaper than some top aps-c cameras
you’d need a 18-50/2 to match the tamron on aps-c… which doesn’t exist.
18-50/2.8 doesn’t exist in e-mount either…
They tried accurate colors with A900 and it didn’t sell.
The minority wants accurate colors.
The majority wants some magick fricken awesome colors. Without any science, judging by muh feelings.
Duckling syndrome sufferers.
>whether this enhancement occurs in China or elsewhere.
China has authoritarian government. It’s good that it can go against PC but having such technology in authoritarian hands only is worrying.
Genghis Khan will get resurrected and get his rightful throne.
>and is also a little more forgiving on handheld shots
Less mp is more forgiving… if the same way leaving lens cap on while pressing shutter is more forgiving.
You can hold 42 mp camera in the same way you hold 24 mp camera, and never get worse results (usually — better).
> but probably most don’t really need it.
…and most don’t really need FF either.
> We don’t need the 24 jacked up to 36.
That is a good point, Sony would have problem having two too similarly specced cameras in the lineup.
Don’t stop here. New lenses are designed for 42 mp, so they are over-engineered for most applications! Had they been designed for your lovely 2 mp, they’d be much cheaper and simpler.
but there is one problem… R1 was a fixed lens camera, so its LCD could happily be placed against the lens. With interchangeable lenses… it’s complicated at least.
Just get a D500. Seriously.
Didn’t know that… is that why is a problem with homogenity…?
But then, their FE 20/2 is as large Samyang 20/1.8 for DSLRs xD
dn/dlambda would matter if we talked about flat prisms. However we are talking about lenses with converging power (which is proportional to n-1). K7 glass you linked to has low dn/dl because its n-1 is also low. When matched for optical power, a K7 element would have about same chromatism as ALON element. (but more spherical, field curvature and so on).
After all, there is a reason why lens designers prefer to use Abbe number.
>In general, high-index glass appears to be more challenging with respect to dispersion.
And that is why ALON is attractive: despite having high n it has also moderate Abbe number. To find better glasses in SCHOTT you need both higher n and Vd. (maybe there were some, discontinued because of environmental reasons).
>Sigma’s ART lenses may be using lower-index glass as part of their design
They use all kinds of glasses, both low and high-index… some as heavy as n=2.
>It can also be seen why Canon uses CaF
It is good for APO correction because its dispersion deviates from main line. Its high Abbe number is just a bonus. For 35 mm lens APO correction is not really needed.
AFAIK SA protocol is largely identical to Canon EF.
And so likewise Zony 35/1.4 and Samyang 35/1.4 are “example” of opposite of what you claim.
Why can’t they detect that their own lens is connected to their own MC-11 adapter and switch to E protocol using MC-11 as simple connector?
That is meant for near ultraviolet, not visible range. Sure it’s irrelevant to most people on SAR, but manufacturers of ALON needs to market it also.
Also filters are thin so loss of light occurs at boundaries. If you’re going to have refractive element then it’s going to be thick and light losses in the media itself become more significant.
The most useful focal length ever?
Probably if Andrea haven’t told us about the source, it means he can’t (e.g. to avoid the source being located and then shut)
Why? Turning AF lens into MF is easier than vice-versa.
why would be 1.7 better than 1.79?
Would ne nice to see clone of canon’s 22/2 STM. Damn why f/2.8 they they can f/2?
“Outstanding hardness, scratch resistance and high strength” also means very difficult for grinding.
By the same reason, pure SiO2 which was known long ago found only niche use.
Somewhat better than the conventional glasses, actually.
n = 1.7888, Vd = 58.20
N-LAK33 from SCHOTT catalog has only n=1.754, Vd=52.4
It begs to ask how many out of these used a 24/1.4 just because 20/1.4 wasn’t available. Also for mirrorless, 20 mm, being extreme UWA, does not mean such size handicap as it does for a SLR.
makes perfect sense, but then, how much complaints ‘sony makes toy cameras’ it would produce?
Downscaling optics is easily in principle, but then, the tolerances reduce too. Given that Sony lenses are already known for decentering issues….
Fuji has released collapsible zoom 15-45.
Yet, unfortunately, every manufacturers does it like it was impossible. So from consumer’s POV…
Oh I heard same BS from Andrew Dodd, where he explained that BSI would never come at 24 mp FF, and never bothered explain when A7M3 came.
While IC densities grow, average today’s desktop CPU has much larger die area than 8086/80286 or their contemporaries. Systems with multiple small ICs get replaced with systems with fewer large ICs, and so on.
>That’s even before you get into the issue of lens costs.
If anything, for same given level of image quality it is easier and cheaper to meet it on larger format.
Yeah, but the title of the site says “panasonic and olympus digital camera news”
um… why don’t you start a better website yourself?
why wouldn’t camera makers release proper images/3d models themselves?
No need to see racial where it’s not; he meant CULTURE not race.
This was 50 years ago. Now it’s the opposite.
The new lens is much sharper.
FE 50/1.8 and FE 70-200/4 look like they are SLR designs.
if subject isolation is the only issue then 75/2.8 cropped to aps-c is nearly identical to 105/4.
Technically yes, but what about IP/contract issues?
if Leicas wanted better sensor they’d used Sony ones; those Leica uses are much inferior. (strangely they do use Sony sensors in aps-c)
Бред это ваш комментарий. Всех не знает. Какие-то насекомые в обучающей выборке имелись, по таким и будет реконструировать.
I have already did, and supplied calculations for you, as opposed to you providing red herrings. You didn’t even bother to provide a link to video.
Knowledge is power, yes, why wouldn’t you follow your own advice and try to understand what I’ve written to you?
> to a reduced focal length at typical portrait distances.
utterly wrong, everyone who talks about it talks about closeups not portrait.
If you invite to watch videos, supply link with a timecode.
You should rather be more concerned that some of these f/2.8 lenses are actually f/2.9 and 68-69 mm instead of 70 mm even at infinity focus. DXomark, for example, lists true FL at distortion tab. Some panasonic lenses marketed as 14-150 have only 140 mm max focal length.
Hm. I don’t know it. So you can still solder 4 wires only and rotation will be handled by the host?
At least, I think USB-C requires more precise soldering.
> I’m not talking about shooting at the minimum focus distance
You think you don’t but then you cite 50 mm figure which refers to MFD not portrait distance. You’re confusing things.
Had you actually took the Tamron and shot some portraits with it, as opposed to reading folk science on the internet, you’d have known that issue is exaggerated.
There are electronically coupled rangefinders… Like Contax G.
I expected that the robot author would scream himself when asked why…
So Tony says 50 mm (https://northrup.photo/revi…, why do you say 45 mm now?
What if it was 55 mm to start with, Tony saying 50 mm, you now saying 45 mm…. a broken telephone game?
I am aware of this issue, I’m saying you’re exaggerating a lot.
All those people measuring “### mm becomes ### mm” do this at the closest focusing distance. Which is 38 cm for Tamron 24-70 G2. You don’t want to bring your portrait subject so close to the camera, do you?
Suppose “you get 50 instead of 70” at closest focus (1:5 mag). But then, at waist level portrait (1:25 mag), “you get 66 instead of 70”.
At full height portrait (1:50 mag) “you get 68 instead of 70”.
So yours “bad breathing 28-75” might actually give narrower FOV than “good” 24-70 because those extra 5 mm might be more than you lose FOV to breathing.
BTW, at 1:1 magnification focal length has to relationship to perspective; it is defined then by location of aperture stop.
It’s so frustrating to see many people confusing focal length and angle of view…
Its true FL is 38, too close to 50…
also not small/cheap (contra: samsung nx 30/2)
some their lenses already cover it, + all sigma DN lenses (there’s six of em?) + anything you adapt to m43…
for others it could be used as multiaspect sensor
You shoot portraits at 1:4 magnification? xD (where it really could be a concern)
Economy of scale. Also, when they made this old 28-75 the market was growing, now it is stagnating.
curious: how fast is it at 50 mm?
I am skeptical about 24 mm claim. More likely, there is arrangement between Sony and Tamron.
After all, for FE – travelzoom they chose 24-240 instead of more conventional 28-280.
Suppose they’d shrink this lens 1.5x times keeping proportions the same. (aps-c 18-50/2.8). It would be then ~163 grams and ~75 mm long.
the same also applied to aperture&OIS…
Also, some lenses COULD respond to focus-by-wire without camera as long as they are powered?
I want 32 mm f/1.8 for my APS-C E-mount camera. (no, not that “bird” one which has average IQ for high price, and oversized as well)
Great! But some nitpicking…
Unfortunately, it won’t expose film perforation like Holga does, losing 70% of film appeal.
There is no 2mm cover glass. So yours pricey Loxias would have corner smearing
Shutter is electronic-powered, he even took it from A7. Also it has autoexposure.
At first, I read “Franz Kafka camera”…
What Sony rather needs is it to remake 16-50 kit zoom and clone canon’s 22/2 stm.
People wishing “good” cameras pick FF anyways.
stitching 2 frames vs stitching eight?
it’s more a fashion accessory with photography capability…
PC gibberish of the photography gear world…
There’s never shortage of people for All Things Good and against All Things Bad.
Yup, better experience for action which would be done like 1-2 times in the product lifetime. How many USB-C devices have you designed, genius?
Because it has no advantage (for this device) and only would increase costs.
USB looks cool to end user and PITA for designer.
f-stop data can be calculated from values of OSPDAF pixels.
There is no obligatory requirement that front element should be bigger to reduce vignetting; the designers chose this way but it isn’t only one.
For MILC you can add more corrective elements of ~45 mm diameter in the rear instead of ~100mm.in the front.
For MILC lenses there is additional constraint that they must operate AF with worse PDAF or even simply CDAF available; it’s not “all else equals” comparison. Even Zony 35/2.8 design uses internal focusing whereas in DSLR lens designer more free to use focusing methods.
Why not compare Mitakon 50/0.95 for E-mount and canon EF-mount instead if we are cherry picking samples?
Someone from ancient Greece complained that since writing became the norm, people lost ability to memorize on their own…
The distance marking on the lens says “0.25 0.82” / that’s meters and feet from image plane to the object…
250 mm – 125 mm (lens length) – 45 (FL) = 80 mm, well below 10 cm, and that’s for 3:2, not 2:1.
Do you think that Sigma 105 f/1.4 size determined by FL and f-number? It has filter size of 105 mm instead of ~75 mm.
That’s assuming Fuji even put a priority on making it smaller.
200 f/2 isn’t a good model for 105 f/1.4. Fast apertures increase short BFD advantage, high ratio zooms decrease it.
Geometry correction/scaling does not throw pixels away..
True, but this says nothing about length (which is greater for most lenses than width).
Also, in the 105/1.4 the front element is much wider than entrance pupil.
what is f-stop at 70 mm?
on the other hand, many mounts (m43, pentax q, nikon 1) are disproportionately wide compared to image diagonal.
how LA-EA1 and LA-EA2 which needed to be replaced fit in ‘planned’ scenario?
Nikon can buy 1″ sensors from Sony (don’t Canon and Panasonic do this?),
OVF has mirror/prism in place where the patented finder has lens elements. It’d be much more space to make zoom eyepiece for OVF
is this sarcasm?
absence of OSPDAF on 12 mp isn’t a marketing whim. They cannot use same method to make PDAF pixel with such big pixel size.
This studio comparison tool: https://www.dpreview.com/re…
A7R2 is better than Nikon Df at 3200 even without any sophisticated noise reduction.
On the bottom, a 1.5 crop sensor camera from Pentax gives more image details than 16 mp ff due to more mp & pixel shift (unfortunately there isn’t a 42 mp aps-c camera)
In fact, even old 42 mp nokia cameraphone outresolves 12/16 mp ff (except corners).
> all of which could be justified if it gave some advantage
So it does. And also 24/42 sensors have OSPDAF whereas e.g. Sony A7S is limited to CDAF only.
>More MP slows down every stage of the operation
Yes it’s a true point. But A7R3 is 10 fps and A99M2 is 12 fps. Who really needs more? You can reduce mp count and get, say, 60 fps at full res. But it is videographers who need it.
>you get the same 12Mp image from a 12Mp camera and 42Mp resized to 12Mp
12mp sensor has (stronger) AA filter on top of it which blurs the image. Also image from 42 mp suffers less from debayering artifacts.Therefore 12 mp image from 42 mp sensor almost always better than image from 12 mp sensor
You’re utterly wrong abound base ISO. Check studio scene comparison at dpreview. Btw, most people who are out in daytime shoot at base ISO a lot.
>I’m saying A LOT more people would buy a ~16Mp than a 42Mp
Yup… only if had 16/42 of price, which it does not. In reality, most people buying $3000 cameras have some money for harddisks.
>Most shoot for web.
But then, most ILC users shoot aps-c and jpeg.
probably for even more people 42 mp monochrome camera would be more desirable (+1 stop of light), but they don’t make it either, they can’t satisfy everyone.
Also there is more background blur on longer FL macros even if DOF is the same — this typically considered desirable.
Knows he or not, his time is limited and he can’t triple check everything.
It’s not just me.
April 6th, 2018 at 3:05 pm
Stacked sensors don’t necessarily contain DRAM. They’re simnply made using two separately fabricated chips, one with the digital parts, one with the photodiode array. Sony’s been using these for years in everything from smartphones to the A7 mirrorless cameras, but none of these have DRAM. They showed off a DRAM stacked sensor, or three-layer stacked sensor as they’re likely to be called, last summer. But it’s not yet in a product.
>The issues about temporary charge stores have been evaluated.
Which in its own turn links to 2012 article which apparently describes a FSI sensor. (You don’t simply take FSI GS sensor and make it BSI stacked as an afterthrought).
Um, it’s you who is avoiding the original point; at least you don’t insult me like Andrew did.
> So you concede that off-sensor transfer is best done in the digital, not analogue domain to avoid noise?
I never implied it in a slightiest form, how can I concede it?
Because of the digital data can be transferred without noise, arises my my question: why they would store digital data on sensor if they can send it without noise, and adding more wires is simpler than DRAM. ‘Bionz is old’ argument doesn’t hold — they have memory buffer for 128+ uncompressed RAWs in A9. It’s not like they developed a new sensor for sticking into old legacy camera where it would make perfect sense (probably it does for some smartphones where the bus connecting the camera module to the main board is wider than the camera module itself).
oops, is there a shortage of native English speakers confusing ‘lose’ and ‘loose’?
Does it confuse gorillas and black people like google’s system?
That they don’t have small raw variant is a software issue and not a problem with the sensor per se.
They could make some small raw which packs 42 mp into 10.5 mp.
You’re not doing manual dark frame subtraction or deconvolution anyway.
Would you be happy with 1 mp sensor of, say, 54×40 size?
> the thickness of the substrate matters for structure reasons
This is one of reasons why BSI sensors are more tricky to manufacture and handle, with silicon substrate microns thick.
For stacked sensor, they’re gluing 2 dies, the top one (BSI sensor) has wiring on the bottom and the bottom one has wiring on the top. What is the distance between wiring layers? Like, zero. The bottom die can have any thickness — it’s largely irrelevant.
The way you describe it, it’s strange, where all advantages of stacked sensors are, why are they bothering to do it?
Where is it hundreds of microns? Stacked sensors are extension of BSI — wiring is at the bottom, adjacent to top layer for underlying die. (Otherwise they’d stack FSI sensors too).
In typical FSI CMOS sensor, analog signal travels column height (like 24 mm for FF sensor) so why hundreds of microns would be a problem?
Canon used off-the-chip ADCs until recent years.
>and only transferring digital data off-sensor.
Sony sensors had builtin ADCs (‘Exmor’) since 8 years or more, this hardly being a novelty
Some people maybe come, but… wouldn’t it mean admitting they have been vocally wrong all the time?
Or they can come later, when humanity would be like +5 sd from now.
Some kind of ability always existed — eugenics.
I don’t think much of attention to disadvantages exists. It’s all virtue signalling. They don’t generally care when Africa gets drained of its intellectual elite (like half of university graduates emigrate to developed countries).
Pardon for late question, why a7s2 on dxomark scores much lower than the first a7s?
of course it takes silicon estate when there’s only one die… why can’t they put intermediate storage charge on lower die?
BTW why they don’t make global shutter with stacked architecture?
Regarding our last discussion, I remembered than A6500 has modest 12 fps while sensor is at least 50% faster than A6000… (and it’s limited by shutter) They don’t push the limits…
Next Z camera E1 will have 4k at 120 fps….
why are you so stubborn?
SEL1850 didn’t ship in some countries so you might notknow it.
28-70 is plastic too.
A9 has buffer memory which can hold 128 uncompressed raws, there is no requirement to handle it as fast.
A7S processors were not able to handle 4k video but they made an option to use it with external recorder…
>this can mean that images will have a slightly higher usable dynamic range
of it can mean that images will have lower usable dynamic range if the raw converter used has highlight reconstruction (it can use non-clipped color channel to reconstruct a clipped one)
Nope, a3500 is e-mount camera and 18-50 doesn’t exist in a-mount.
look at 18-50/4-5.6 (shipped with a3500)
Oly E-M1M2, Samsung NX1.
so would you be happy to use large 16-35/2.8 to substitute much smaller 16-50/2.8?
The A9 isn’t a consumer camera in the way SAR readers define it, but it is in sense that buyers of A9 want bigger battery, bigger grip, bigger buttons… They don’t want to know exact spectral response curves or control stuck pixels. They don’t care about Star Eater.
I have had several leaf shutter vs. focal plane shutter discussions. Every time it seemed people took pride in that the bottom of the frame exposed 4 milliseconds after the top.
>So the data rates of the Nikon may be a bit lower than the A9,
A9 itself is 12-bit in burst mode… like that old Nikon.
Again — if sony made sensor which is 150 fps internally why they have not increased off-the-sensor bandwith which is much easier?
It doesn’t work the way you think it does. Yes diffraction at same f-number will be smaller. Yet f-numbers are *relative*. If you want to lessen effects of difraction, you must increase entrance pupil and it’s irrelevant what format it projects to. Large formats are better in that it’s simpler to control aberrations at slower f-numbers.
And? When diffraction limits resolution is what it SHOULD be. Right now we are limited by coarse pixel grids and/or aberrations.
eh, but aps-c is like, dead, not actively developed by Sony
Place of Sony booth is where they should put EVF.
One, which is: compact, fast enough (f/2 or better), cheap, sharp and AF.
Most of Tamron aps-c designs are sold under Sony brand.
so actually Tamron made more E lenses in cooperation with Sony than SIgma did.
Go to dpreview, open studio shot comparison and see that resolution advantage holds to even extremely high isos.
um you don’t need APO at such short focal length.
also you don’t need a group to be APO — the entire lens system needs to be
My guess that there are some patents that preclude from making a small good 35/1.4, and their owners don’t want to make one themselves.
You’re inventing rare use cases.
Why not pick shooting insects, say, at 4:1 magnitfication?
All this “ergonomics” becomes a nuisance when shooting small things.
Sure, some use cases are not covered by smartphones. But it is perfectly compatible with that Yoghurt wrote — that ILC market is shrinking because of slow innovation.
Cameraphones increase number of cameras; one camera 28/35 mm fov was common but there are now normal/tele lenses on phones.
Cameraphones ARE dedicated camera devices; almost everything inside them is shared with “dedicated cameras”, the “phone” part in a cameraphone is about a percent of its volume.
Does phone need a large li-ion battery? yes it does? Does a DSLR? yes it does.
Does phone have a wifi? yes? dslr? yes.
Does phone have a large high resolution display with good colors? DSLR?
If it’s based on Leica how would it be cheaper than Sony? Then price would be between Sony and Leica.
He says ‘the 3rd layer’ but the picture shows 2 layers.
BTW if it’s internally 150 fps sensor, they could have done instant bracketing for e.g. shutterspeed (camera does 1/100, 1/50 exposures and user decides in PP).
or focus (onecould use lenses with field curvature because camera would stack images in a fraction of second).
Hm… global shutter isn’t really needed except for scientific applications. For consumer camera 4k at 60 fps would be much more marketable.
I find difficult to believe that Nikon V1 back in 2011 did 600 mpx/sec and 20017’s Sony BIONZ cannot handle it. Nikon ones sensor was 1″ and had tradeoffs to make fast readout, so it’s clear that this is part was because of sensor, but all data going from it is digital and at that point it didn’t matter if it was comromised or not…
Halfyear before A7M3 I had discussions with Andrew Dodd saying that BSI at 24 mp ff won’t happen and insulting me and refusing to answer simple questions…
Lol almost nobody shoots BIF. Even of those who have the gear. Maybe 0.05% of those who owns a FF camera does.
I did the maths for you: 32 * 8.1^2 = 2100
Reflection from sensor is usually out of focus (unless there’s flat surface in the front) so it’s irrelevant in most cases.
Workaround: manufacturers should be honest and publish maps of these pixels instead of just interpolating them in ‘raw’
in the hell, why?
at such long focal length primes usually have front lens diameter equal to entrance pupil…
The first link describes a cameraphone sensor which is more advanced than a9’s one: it has 3-dies instead of 2. (it even refers to 2-layer as ‘conventional’: “It’s interesting to note that in fact Sony was able to achieve the same thickness as conventional 2-layer pixel/logic CIS stacked chips using this flow.”)
The second link doesn’t give any evidence that it’s digital.
The third link which is from Sony (probably the most authoritative one?) nowhere mentions that the intermediate storage is digital.
The fourth link from petapixel says “RAM”. The editor might have heard this somewhere and just repeating it.
I may be wrong, but can someone explain why they didn’t put more LVDS lines if they are the bottleneck?
It makes sense for a cameraphone sensor to have old bandwidth restriction, since it has to be connected to many “legacy” solutions. With A9, it doesn’t, it’s theirs.
Digital? I would like to see a source for this.
Do they dedicate 36×24 sized chip to store only 42 Mb of information? That’s like a waste. If it’s digital they can store more frames. Instant focus bracketing would be great.
Why they can’t add more LVDS lines if there not enough of them? Are they stupid?
My guess: the off-sensor bandwidth is not the bottleneck.
Lol why. Nikon has knowledge about their lenses. It’s not like Fotodiox did with reverse engineering both Sony and Nikon protocols and inventing a translation between them. Vice versa, Tamron and Sigma lenses have issues on CaNikon cameras even though they are “native”.
I’d bet when you nail prediction of intelligence with r>0.5 the leftists would still say it’s not causal, your machine learning algorithm just learned the same discrimination that exists.
That’s lame. It should also record wavelength and polarization of each incoming photon. Otherwise nobody buys it.
DXO measures their low light metric in isos. Why’d you need to omit it when talking about their metric?
A7S (first version) still looks somewhat better on dxo graphs at very high isos: better color depth, more dr…
does A9 read faster or just copies to intermediate storage to read in later at same speed as A7M3?
If you want bigger battery why fixed lens camera in the first place? RX series are supposed to keep size small…
They will invent a extra thin lens so tiny circle with 70 mm diameter and 1 mm thickness on back of smartphone would collect as much light as 200/2.8 conventional lens does.
probably 10-20 years later, “retro” models will feature overheating.
if CaNikon are going to introduce new mounts, they’d decrease flange distance rather than increase, why would SLR lenses stop working? At worst you’d need an adapter.
How much time will pass before someone comes and says 9 mm and 10 mm are worlds apart? xD
Isn’t it like Sony E and Fuji X have different cover glass thickness?
It just seems to me or this lens is about same size as FF nifty fifties?
Yup, and manufacturing costs for the unit are much lower for the Fuji.
profit = revenue – expenses.
Probably nobody. People want bigger grips and batteries. There’s too few people who want rangefinder to justify R&D.
Photography is about setting/finding/framing proper scene. Fiddling with P-A-S-M and buttons is just a technicality.
Of course, they are not; if they managed 20 years ago to support 2 protocols it is even easier now.
That old sony 50/1.4 isn’t good in sharpness, such lens would be bashed if released in 2018. Also it doesn’t have focus motor (which helps to save some weight).
You didn’t read! There TWO different 50/1.8 E lenses: an aps-c one, released in 2011, that has OSS and internal focus, and FF one (“FE”) which lacks OSS and is unit focusing. They are completely different internally.
Pincushion distortion reduces FOV but barrel distortion increases FOV. When you apply distortion correction you lose some image which a rectilinear lens with same FL doesn’t have in the first place.
The patent gives 126.29 length. INCLUDING space inside the camera to image surface. So essentially it is almost same length as the Fuji’s 106 mm.
They’d probably market such lens as 16-50. Why market it as 18-48 if you can as 16-50?
You can attach a focal reducer to SLR lenses and get
16-50/2 and 50-140/2 instead. The latter with OIS (which Sigma 50-100 doesn’t have).
In 20th century lens designers often picked 55 and 58 mm instead of 50 mm for SLR lenses to make easier to secure sufficiently long backfocus for flapping mirrors. Oh no, now people take this bug as a feature…
‘physics’ determines only size of front element.
Before invention of flint glass, they used to make ‘aerial’ telescope with tens of meters long to reduce chromatic aberrations.
Leica’s rangefinder lenses are small because otherwise they’d block viewfinder. Their lenses for MILC are as large as everyone’s else xD
Btw, making lenses smaller requires balancing higher order aberrations therefore they require more precise alignment => higher price.
Remember these keyboards which worked with “dumb” ps/2 to usb adapter. The device discovered it was connected to adapter and changed protocol accordingly. The adapter was only passive connector.
There must be software to generate fake RAWs
Even if you waive resolution, higher MP sensors still have greater DR at low ISOs
Also A7S doesn’t have PDAF because of low mp count.
Most of the patents with organic sensors feature photon capture with organic material but the reading with conventional CMOS circuit.
But even still, it seems to be fake xD
the rumors about A7M3 with “A9 like sensor but without stacking” were months before announcement.
“organic” itself says for fake rumor
MILC version of this lens (which “AF” suggests) doesn’t have wavery distortion.
umm where do they sell them for $35?
How much having a RAW would help? It’s not like camera stamps a cryptographic signature on it. There is “noise fingerprint” but it can be faked.
Proof for 1300D having one? Such cameras have to be cheapest, and expected to be used with (not so sharp) 18-55 kit lens, so it doesn’t need AA filter.
T6 (aka 1300D) is 18 mp, not 16 mp, and I am almost sure it doesn’t have an AA filter.
“sony a73″…. this “mark roman number” naming scheme sucks.
But then, if the target was aps-c they could shrink it significantly or make 18-75/2.8 in the same size.
Sure it is has to be…. somewhat.
But in what way which would affect production costs?
Dimensions are about the same and number of elements is probably too.
I don’t do alcohol, the last time I drank was in autumn 2016.
I used 400 mm and I still can’t stitch em.
Economies of scale. There is much more SLR users (yes that lens works with film cameras too xD) than MILC users.
(and nobody owns 35mm anyway because f/1.4 one is too huge and f/2.8 is too slow)
Haven’t you noticed people asking for a 35mm f1.8-2?
Preferably if you add some distortion to it, for me stretched faces in corners are YUCK
About 28 vs 24 mm FOV:
Can you show a scene where 24mm is perfect but 28mm is unacceptable?
Hah, Samsung did exactly that and it didn’t sell.
Actually, it makes much more sense for Sigma whose lenses are AF (so they can tweak AF motor/protocol) but not for Samyang who did this with manual lenses
Samyang released a lot of SLR lenses with tubes extended in the past.
Admin, it seems that the pic has some confusion of diameter and weight of the Tamron.
I would prefer it to be the same size, with the 22 mm and even lower price point.
Similar Tamron lens exists(ed) in SLR variant and was even lighter, there was also a Sony rebrand of it.
umm you have it backwards. narrow mount is a problem for ‘telecentric’ designs, it wouldn’t push in favor to retrofocus designs, more like in favor of symmetric designs
of course they will say ‘not usable’ until they ready to announce a such product.
it’s READ NOISE not noise-to-signal ratio.
Actually you can, if you use proper software (it’s called deconvolution).
e.g. Smart Deblur
Nitpicking: OVF won’t update magnification to match APS-C lens
He seems to pretend all the light falls at straight angle.
Ok now please explain that despite advances in technology sensor formats that became to use BSI do not come back to FSI.
ummm but Sony’s 16 mp cameras never got electronic shutter mode, Fuji’s (at least some) did. Similarly none of Sony’s had split screen focus assist.
Smearing is not problem when using lens designed for the known sensor stack thickness — its thickness is just included in aberration calculation, so all they have to do is pick one stack thickness and don’t change it.
If you adapt lens made for Sony to Leica (or film) you get the same smearing!
I guess we’d have to make an adapter for NX 30/2 ourselves xD
Not everyone shoots at exposures longer than 4 seconds. And most of those who want no PP shoot jpeg, which is the place for this Star Eater to be.
Sometimes ISO 800 picture with unsharp lens is much better than ISO 16000 picture with sharp lens.
NB to those saying “muh physics”: lens designers can improve IQ by using more aspherics, splitting a cemented doublet into separate, or adding more elements, using better (e.g. high-index) glass not necessarily making it bigger. And since FSI sensors are being phased out, there is no more reason to keep incidence angles on sensor close to straight.
There also should be written software which combines, say, f/1.4 shot (with bokeh) with a f/4 one (sharp)
in case you attach A9 to a Netwon telescope, you still can’t invert picture just as if it was a camera with a flappy mirror.
someone at SAR said that they are talking, and Sony’s smartphones are forced to use Sony Imaging’s mobile camera stack which is inferior to competition.
To keep it simple for users, Canikon updated 18-55 with stepper motors to they focus well in video & live view too.
And they improve sharpness over previous versions.
if they “improve” FL it would increase size/weight of the lens moving it to another niche.
SLT aren’t mirrorless. I know nobody who buys them for video.
It is sometimes good to have quick AF in video, but then they complain that it forces to shoot wide open.
One can say than separate AF module is a crutch before OSPDAF is perfected. In the end, on-sensors PDAF will use 100% of light to focus whereas old SLR AF uses only few percent.
This is intentional, that in such case they simply replace cheap part but the lens itself stays intact, would you rather prefer having mount still attached but the lens becoming misaligned internally in many places?
“Touchscreen gloves” already exist
Menus are simple, every mediocre programmer could write one.
Buttons are simple, they could make them even in ancient Mesopotamia.
State-of-art sensors and lenses with AF motors are not simple to make. Why would we have to buy stuff which actually MAKES a digital camera with permanently glued buttons and silly interface, and people saying the grip and buttons are most important part of camera?
The question was about one specific model 6DM2, not canon’s market share.
using the 5N I put my pinky between “grip” and tripod mount. Much more comfortable than these large grips.
for the 40% figure you can look CIPA data (unfortunately, they don’t provide info by brands). btw 40% * 55% = 22%, far from 30%
with more demand for higher resolutions photogs will be forced to do what microscopists did for a long time — focus stacking…
hm…. i looked at Flickr camera finder (which is useful proxy of how many people use cameras) and it doesn’t even list 6DM2….
Size complex lol….
EVF isn’t really an advantage and PDAF in video has nothing to do if a camera has mirror or not. Many MILC lack PDAF (by the way, 3 out of 3 all I own lack it, lol, and Sony’s 12 mp (which mp count you want) A7S lack PDAF too) and many DSLRs (Canons) have OSPDAF/DPAF
Yes, mirrorless cameras can have sensor-tilt (giving tilt effect with ALL lenses) or sensor Z-shift (which would make focusing faster),… except they don’t.
Lol the oldest F-mount lenses do not have AF at all, even a screw driven one xD
Some of the latest lenses have stepper motors and can work with CDAF.
Still they CAN make old lenses to work with mirrorless cameras.
Hah but they’re not software people. And should they? Customers want bigger batteries and bigger grips. It’s what sells.
BTW… also there should be an option to flip hort/vert (e.g. in case camera attached to Newton telescope or someanother using a diagonal mirror)
You can attach external keyboard, with, like, 110 buttons to your smartphone, connect wirelessly or even use voice control…
We don’t know what they’ll put inside. They can put pixel binning
Like where? Cellphone sensors, which do not have DR of 14 stops anyway and space constraints are a prime factor?
What would be benefit to put demosaicing/sharpening and even deconvolution on sensor?
It appears that Canikon do not want 3rd party lenses to exist, because they license their mounts to nobody (arrogant).
Lenses like 18-55 are by far the lens made in most copies. They NEED to be updated frequently.
It is very funny if you remember than Canon phased out FD mount not a long ago, even without giving users option to use an adapter and became #1.
Lenses such as f2.8 tessars don’t benefit from short flange distance, but now people want f/1.4 lenses for 50+ mp.
LOL canon M3 lacks EVF, so you should compare it to A5100 which has selfie-able LCD. BTW I agree this option should be in every camera.
LOL pretty much everyone on SAR has lots of Li-Ion batteries lying around, even if they shut cobalt shipments completely, you can always recycle old ones.
People are so lazy these times, before digital you had to change roll every 36 shots, and now you require one battery to last day of shooting.
BTW, if you use something like 150-600 with AF and OIS, it would consume more power than camera per se.
Processing on sensor? You’d want to remove all processing circuits as far as possible, since digital ICs would generate noise which can be picked by analog ones.
If they use lower MP count then it might be still new sensor, anyway. E.g. sony a7s sensor lacks PDAF and readout isn’t fast either, they might want to replace it with another one for high-end(tm) camera.
No, pure crystalline silicon is more expensive, then it needs to be made ICs on it.
Full frame would probably raise its price too high for a toy…
As I understand, they still use 2x more silicon for stacked sensors
Those assumptions are pure speculations of your own. What will you say then next Nikon comes without deconvolution? (which would inevitably add a lots of noise etc.) More probable option they meant using optimum apertures (e.g. f/5.6 rather than f/11)
On a desktop PC, they would use a video card to compute deconvolution — would be a lot faster than small chip instead in camera.
It had multiple causes and long flange must have been a contributing factor. Lots of Leica owners bought a cheap Sony camera just in case because it was compatible, but Samsungs couldn’t mount its lenses. Ditto with speed boosters.
They didn’t want to have image artifacts and other compomises that arise from OSPDAF. Nikon 1 were considered toys so it was acceptable.
Deconvolution would be in expeed6, because what?
If they want to, they can add it into raw converter now.
If anything to add in camera, that would be DFD AF.
There is no way they’re putting anything more complicated in camera than this. It took them till D850 to add simple focus stacking
FE 12-24/4 isn’t a good example because it’s extremely wideangle lens which pretty much nobody *actually* needs.
SLR zealots usually say “yes, you can make smaller lenses if they’re very wide or very slow but stuff like 35/1.4 or 24-70/2.8 has same size”
Every camera has some kind of it — it’s called “sharpening”
He obviously talks about camera bodies not lenses…
Making a stacked sensor (as in A9) is a lot more difficult than a shutter. If mechanical shutters were expensive, they’d have been ditched long time ago.
What makes you think you’d have to pay more? high mp and low mp sensors use same amount of silicon. Price for “high-end” features is determined not by amount of mp but how much the market will bear.
Do you need RAWs for FullHD or 1280×720 resolution?
RAW for…. sake of RAW itself?
So was the Sony’s choice too: the GM lens has same IQ as the Sigma but smaller size, yet better T-stop too.
That would be too good to be true.
When was it last time when a manufacturer didn’t copy FL&aperture from a DSLR lens to make a MILC lens? xD
No optical designer makes image circle larger to improve IQ. It is a misconception. All of DSLR lenses have “oversized” image circle because it’s not even possible to restrict it like MILC lenses do with their rear element.
Strangely (or more rather logically), Canikon are utterly reluctant to use masked OPSDAF in top tier products. Nikons lacks OSPDAF and Canon uses Dual pixel only which cannot give such a feature. Pentax doesn’t put OSPDAF in K-1 too…
The position of these ospdaf pixels needs to be documented instead of interpolating ‘raw’ values.
I recall Steve few years ago saying that progress on IQ & genes saw slow because they didn’t use “our” method and proper sample sizes. Do they still use GWAS and 19th century math?
Some researchers used such a method: they looked for correlation of genes with IQ, then discarded correlations with p-values greater than some threshold, and looked how these predict IQ. Also they assumed that rare variants are neutral. Of course by doing so they underestimate the result greatly….
BTW, a Japanese blog found that Tamron filed a patent for some telephoto designs
http://hi-lows-note.blog.so… (300mm F2.8, 400mm F4, and 500mm F4 for a 35mm full-frame sensor.)
It might be that Tamron is involved with this 400/2.8 as well.
I was talking about 44×33, not 36×24, btw the link doesn’t even measure 36×24: it stops at 20 mm field, slightly less than 36×24 image.
The E-mount lens is longer because E-mount flange distance is shorter. Has nothing to do with stack thickness.
Also in rangefinders lens barrel blocks OVF field so that’s why they wish to make barrel shorter and thinner.
When designing new lenses, thicker stack is actually a benefit because it eats some of aberrations that singlet element has.
No vignetting is one thing, but what about sharpness?
out of lenses listed, only 105 and 135 have FL more than twice image circle.
large aperture (f/1.4) biases in favor of shorter flange distance.
There is no simple math — optical design is part science, part art.
None of lenses announced are have such long FLs
Not necessarily. Given that both lens and adapter are from Sigma, they can detect they are attached together, disable EF protocol and behave as native E lens.
(like these usb kybd to ps/2 “converters” do)
if it was so easy, someone would offer a sub $200 FF camera… like they did for film.
not really small, except for Voight 35 1.4 which is “bad” IQ lens. And no AF. I was talking about AF 35 1.4 behemoths….
….they can’t make aps-c better, said a person who said there would be no 24 mp FF BSI sensor.
If they can make “aps-c a9” cheaper and smaller than entry level FF, why not? People who shoot e.g. birds don’t want big pixels anyway.
Bayer vs. x-trans cfa are red herrings here.
Early OPSDAF pixels used cfa masks, but modern aren’t limited to that; you don’t get any good angular discrimination capacity if the masks are near to microlenses.
20x obviously refers to transfer speed from upper to lower layer (rolling shutter), not off-the-chip transfer.
Ok, now the entry level camera has BSI sensor which can accept rays at shallow angles of incidence. Where are the small lenses?
Because you don’t have a slightest idea how much really BSI incur costs to Sony?
No, it is because of high magnification.
Angle is determined by raytrace from image to entrance pupil
Focal length is in short tele range, but aperture (f/1.4) suggests reduced backfocus would be a benefit.
Torque on the wrist is irrelevant regards to number of fingers used to grip the camera.
what you do mean by this?
Does somebody have models for 3d printing such things?
Stitching photos doesn’t depend on distortion, esp. if software has lens profile
“unique high”, “extremely high”, “very low”, “high-end”…
Make me unsee it
There is answer on the link I posted: a “multiaspect” sensor. Panasonic has did already but by very modest amount. With aps-c sensor you can e.g. crop 1:1 frame from m43 lens without losing lens image diagonal.
However, you can use printer to print a 8×10 inch from 36×24 digital. This becomes amazing too xD
um like 35/1.4 which is about size of old film 50/1.4?
23/2 which is about double of size of canon ef-m 22/2 stm (which is also much cheaper)?
Don’t forget than FF would rather need not same f-stop, but equiv f-stop.
Yes. (in fact you can slap a focal reducer on its back, and voila).
Plausible but I highly doubt that.
Money? That’s assuming they’re profitable xD
Panasonic/Matsushita is huge company so they might keep camera division for prestige or for “synergistic effect”
EVF camera has advantage what you can have larger sensor, mount lens with image smaller circle and it will switch view automatically.
Put a 36×24/aps-c lens when you with max IQ and put m43 lens when you want go small. There is no mirrorbox
The main disadvantage is cost/readout/pixel density of larger sensors
have you missed all these comments that 28 instead of 24 makes lens much smaller? :3 (through i doubt that)
Such thing can’t happen in competitive market, there is a famous story when a computer brand in 1980s announced next model too soon thus buyers didn’t buy the current one…. damn can’t find it lazy
Those Sigma f1.8 zooms are irrelevant example, as they’re made for long backfocus. The 18-35 has to be retrofocus even at its longest FL.
However I’d agree about +100%
Judging from patents, Tamron is involved in design of about HALF Sony-branded lenses E, both crop and FF.
even more, there was a case when they attached wrong badge to the lens xD (there was a video on youtube by the buyer)
There is some more problems with FBW. It still consumes power to hold focusing element in place.
There exist (maybe no longer produced) 28-75/2.8 which are lighter and EVEN made for longer flange distance. Tamron SP AF 28-75 mm f/ 2.8 XR D is 510 grams.
Remember mirrorless lenses are often designed to have stronger distortion (to be digitally corrected) so its actual FOV might be closer to rectilinear 24 mm.
Well, if it is not moire it needs to be shown on object which lacks periodic texture
LCD and EVF have different resolution. Also, sensor readout mode is very likely different too (it has been such for every Sony camera before: using in LCD mode requires less power somewhat than in EVF) : line skipping vs. full
It is. Just it requires much more complicated software. Because of set having large number of frames, it will have at least one image with “necessary” shifts.
I tried it once and something didn’t work for me. Maybe i’ll try again.
Ok, put aps-c sensor in. Many lenses already cover it xD
What an ignorant comment. For multishot to work with moving objects global shutter would need to hold 3 frames, and shift sensor instantly.
Also FF makers can (and probably will) make smaller lenses too, if they feel they need it. In past, film half-frame cameras (18×24) were outcompeted by 36×24 as lens designers made smaller lenses.
He mentioned dual pixel, which helps to make fake bokeh (because you know amount of defocus)
19 cm at wideangle only so I guess max. magnification isn’t any better than of the 24-70.
some people see this as an advantage for manual focusing, as thus they can see that image is in focus
А как же Борис Абрамович?
uuum nope… these Zeisses are primes, primes can be strictly symmetric (it’s rarely done though)
This 28-75 *has* to be retrofocus at wideangle and telephoto at long end, though…
um some have 26 mm fov since… maybe some have 24 mm, i haven’t checked.
Those FLs are heavily rounded. You can’t really depend on 75 mm being 5 mm longer than 70 mm. As Roger of Lens Rentals has noticed in comparison of 50 mm and 55 mm lenses, some 50 are actually 52 and some 55 are actually 53…
Looks BS for me. Might be true for SLRs. But for mirrorless? Pancake kit zooms usually have wider FOV than non-pancake. (e.g. canon ef-m 15-45 replaced 18-55, fuji’s 15-45 replaced 16-50)
Wasn’t it that for some time Tamron 18-200 lacked profiles whereas exact same lens but with Sony badge had them?
Lol, you can’t design a zoom lens by using “optical formula” from who primes.
E-M1II. 1II. Madness
um how 210/5.6 can stack up to 400/2.8? The latter has entrance pupil like 16x the area.
Even if obsolete, these cameras would still have some value because of Magic Lantern (that you can reprogram them for a rig which e.g. does 3d scanning)
It does look like 17 cm diameter. Use bayonet/lens caps for a comparison.
Umm nope, Canon was the first to offer FF digital camera for pros and more affordable 5D. Years before Nikon or Sony. That’s it.
Reduce image, then stretch it. Why’d it be cheaper?
I wonder if they’re usable at aps-c sensors.
These improvements are for faster readout and autofocus, they have nothing to do photon catching efficiency
No, people say “leica colors” because they’re gullible.
I’m pretty sure that multishot in A7R3 wins over 50 mp Fuji.
……but everyone knows that 18mm (27 equiv) is for noobs but serious users need 16 mm (24 equiv)?
Майкрософт вконец офигел, надо на свободное ПО переходить.
Stop saying “glass” instead of “lens”, that’s disgusting.
Which “body of evidence” you mean? The greater share of ILC market mirrorless have, the more they get closer to DSLRs — big bricks with faux pentaprisms.
In BSI sensors, designers can make tradeoffs which would have reduced light collection efficiency in a FSI one, but don’t (at same degree) in BSI. Simply put, they can make wires thicker thus reducing their resistance. Thus, greater readout speed.
People used to say such stuff when smaller sensors in 1/2.3″ cameras were in process being replaced by BSI “yes BSI benefits for 1/2.3″ sensor but not for 1/1.7″, the pixels are already large enough”
“yes BSI benefits for 1/1.7″ sensors but not 1″, the pixels are already large enough”
DXOmark wrote about ~8 years ago that 2 micron FSI CCD (in canon powershots) sensors matched performance per area of those of large sensors.
How do you explain that?
people might shoot 4k to put stills from it.
“anything over what my iphone has is a waste” — the essence of using apple products.
hm hm what if they put such AA filter in RX1R2 because it’s a fixed lens camera? But for ILC it would make sensor stack thicker and cause problems with lenses made for thin or no stack.
24 mp is too small count to drop AA filter, on a full frame camera at least.
As do CaNikon, and it works well in terms of profits to them.
Just 30 years ago, digital still cameras “never existed in the mainstream they have always been a special niche…..”
To all? Even Trump supporters and Russian hackers?
FE 50/1.8 looks very much like it is a DSLR design. I do not know however what its back focus it, but …long.
It doesn’t happend in 1/8000 of a second. Even in expensive big things like 1DX2 or D5 it takes about 1/250 of second (X-sync), 1/8000 is obtained by making slit thinner. As a result, flash cannot be used for faster shutterspeeds unless there some judicious mode for flashes.
also getting rid of mechanical shutter would allow to reduce back focus (better lenses) or fit some more (optional) filters between lens and sensor.
chances are, that it will have so much barrel distortion at wide end that actual FOV will be wider than rectilinear 24 mm.
anyway… why stop at 24 mm? why not ask a 22-70 zoom or 20-60?
Why 25 mm instead of mainsteam 24 mm? xD and 2.4 instead of what normal people use?
(sorry, failed humor attempt)
We need more of such cameras
Panasonic already sells a camera like that.
A degree in electronics obtained at SAR?
There is still a lot of use of global shutters for stills too.
It would have been much better to ditch old paradigm and rather use a interchangeable cameras with smaller sensors (e.g. 1″, also they can fit more modern stuff like global shutter into em than they can with FF sensor
Try A3000/A58 xD
Silver would probably have some builtin greenhouse effect, as opposed to matte white.
M.Zuiko 45/1.8 is actually LIGHTER than the Pentax despite the latter lacks AF motor. It’s a bit longer though but overall setup camera + lens would be shorter.
GH5S has sensor larger than 4/3″? What is it for stills?
X-Trans actually has advantage for multishot. Its multishot needs to shift only by one axis whereas bayer needs two.
I freaking hate this 16:9. I did not buy large sensor camera to use a portion of its sensor. (note that, say, A7S area for video is closer to aps-c still area than to FF stills area).
Worst of all, some of cameras with native 4:3 apply even tighter crop for 4:3 video than for 16:9 video!
Note that Disqus displays round userpics. Mine is done with a Canon Rebel. How the hell a user would compose a shot for such round area on a OVF DSLR?
Zooms often have pincushion distortion at tele end. So a manufacturer might decide to market e.g. 18-55 which has true FL=52 as FL=55. You “lose” telephoto reach this way.
“pixels per degree” is not constant per frame, and even more it is different in different directions (except center).
…….frustrated to explain….
Sony’s Star Eater is a example of camera designers deciding instead of us. Crippled remote interface is. Front converters for FE 28/2 which restrict aperture are. Having barrel distortion isn’t.
Sometimes barrel distortion can be desirable, e.g. it decreases face stretching at wideangle. And for stitched panoramas fixing distortion in-lens is a waste
It’s not as funny as you think. At low exposures, you’d get BETTER result from cropping 55/1.8 shot rather rather using 24-105 at 105 f/4. At good exposures, pixel density probably would be limit
A good prime used on high pixel density sensor (e.g. maybe 1″) can easily outresolve average zoom even zoom is longer.
It’s not a problem at all that FL might change at close focus, FL matters at infinity focus — by definition, microscopy lenses made for fixed magnification often even lack FL markings on them.
Focus breathing as opposed to focal length breathing could be a major nuisance (esp. when using side AF points), but to reduce or eliminate focus breathing lens designer has to allow FL to “breathe”…
It’s not what he asked for. It’s not possible to infer it the lens is 22 mm, or 28 mm from this picture. One would need to compare with another lens (which has “true” 24 mm) and preferably on a remote target
It’s quite useful. It you send me a free 24-100 lens, I’ll won’t hesitate to use it on aps-c sensor.
Wrong. Barrel distortion increases FOV and when you use distortion correction, FOV goes to some point between actual lens FOV and FOV what the lens with same FL and no distortion has. For some lenses you can still retain wider FOV w/o distortion if you omit 3:2 aspect ratio requirement.
Where a manufacturer can “really” cheat is to market e.g. 26-102 zoom as 24-105. Some of panasonic 14-150 zooms has only real max FL of 140.
Not in case where you have significant distortion.
Oh. In video these freaking corners with 5 stops vignetting will be cropped out! Sony does not allow to shoot video with full sensor area (besides some cine cameras).
Should he, or not, depends on use case. It’s not a security reason but rather a cosmetic issue.
Know what? You have duckling syndrome.
… meanwhile somewhere else, a webdesigner says: here we will use border-radius tag, because rectangular images are so web 1.0 and will remove these corners you are so concerned with….
It means that at wideangle, it’s field of view is wider than fov of rectilinear 24 mm lens.
Optics lessons at SAR: spherical aberration, distortion — use more such words, they sound so clever!
Probably you mean effective field of view?
<whining mode=”” on=””>Knowing Sony, it’s just happened that Opticallimits obtained a good sample,
most users would get much worse copies<whining mode=”” off=””>
or “Andrea’s clickbait site” xD
>Not at all, I grew tired of using overpriced full frame glass on crop sensors which is what Sony primarily offers.
As if the Fuji ins’t overpriced… Fuji’s 50/2 aps-c about twice more than sony’s FE 50/1.8 and about same as sony’s “zeiss” 55/1.8
well if it’s target audience is cinema makers where inflating costs & sizes is good, makes perfect sense
А зачем надо что-то делать?
Строчкой кода? Скорее уж получится так, как с Виндовс. Миллионы строчек кода и работает не лучше. Проблема с выборами — не техническая.
Again, you’re discussing a specific implementation. Have you read the link above?
But I’d want a completely another camera for shootings things afar, designed from ground up for such use case, rather than a brick with barrel sticking from it and grip as an afterthought. I’d want to use a diagonal mirror and EVF which is put afar from the sensor rather than immediately to it. See this man using Olympus Air (albeit w/o diagonal mirror). Think outside the box.
there is difference between discussing ideas and certain implementations.
The idea that mirrorless camera should be like a DSLR, but with EVF instead of OVF, is idiotic.
let’s hope it doesn’t end like Samsung NX line… (Fossum worked as an advisor for Samsung for some time)
patents are still full of sales buzz speak.
I don’t think so. If organic detector on the top already adsorbs green, then blue & red are discriminated by silicon penetration depth. To get any other sequences, you’d need either to have more than one organic detector, or accept poor color discrimination of foveon.
Fuji X-pro has a hybrid viewfinder. There is no reason why mirrorless should be restricted to EVF.
it could mean ‘difficult to engineer if you expect similar reduction in weight that is seen in primes’
Oh well, pretty much every photo “expert” knows that cramming photo detectors is a bad thing… Though, somehow, cramming even more detectors along Z-axis direction is a good thing!
Some people are angry that cameras lack something yet they can’t choose between ‘lose’ and ‘loose’ themselves….
and the 21 lim has similar FOV to zony 35 and worse equiv f-stop… for the 40/2.8, you can just use zony 35 on crop sensor/mode and get about same result.
Isn’t second native ISO of 2500 just like first A7S has?
I remember reading astrophotogs saying iso 1600 has pretty bad DR on A7S and you’re recommeneded to use higher iso settings where dual gain activates.
a6300/a6500 reads about 5.5k at 30 fps.
Do they want to?
QX is thick because it has battery in it. Which should be elsewhere.
>All you really need is a box with mounting points.
wow, you’re literally thinking inside the box.
I’m pretty sure authors of this have count of bf&gf well above average.
I do not think Sony intentionally crippling focusing with 3rd party lenses. They couldn’t even make OSPDAF work with A mount lenses for a long time.
why have ‘weather sealing’ when you can have real waterproof?
except it doesn’t work.
You don’t need to “resolve” sensor. Moreover, this is interchangeable lens camera. And later 24 mp sensors have better SNR than old 16 mp ones.
While I tend to have analog ports, there is greater benefit they don’t try vendor lock-in.
and Canon users use cameras made by a copier/printer company with cameras as a side business
iphones are less than 10% (in units) market globally… Stop talking about iphones as the center of world… While Apple has it good about making more $$$ per each unit, it’s irrelevant for Sony because Apple doesn’t buy the most expensive sensors from Sony.
Статья хороший пример того, почему моралфаги не нужны. Моралфагов не интересуют причины убийств, способы предотвращения убийств и повышения психического здоровья. Они только говорят “трава зеленая, небо голубое”… Это такой дешевый способ осознать свою причастность к тому чтобы сделать что-то лучше, ничего не делая по сути.
Интересно как автор представляет себе “не поддерживайте убийцу”? Если бы он сейчас скрывался от правосудия, это можно было бы понять, но убийца теперь труп.
Ставлю пять центов, что автор сам преспокойно оправдывает преступления, когда их совершает представитель любимого расового меньшинства — их же угнетают злые белые расисты, которые не нанимают их на нормальную работу и т.п.
Thanks, wasn’t aware it’s available now….
What for? A7R3 is simply superior. In one shot.
(ppst Russians trying to infiltrate you PC)
Distortion is one click away from correction (and often you don’t even need to “fix” it). With limited constraints, designers would have had to sacrifice corners sharpness where corners never get sharp at any f-stop.
Might be good for those who learns language by watching videos.
There seems to be no option to open entire text. So one can’t read it as fast as regular text. Kinda useless.
Is there a transcript?
“star eater issue” should not exist in the first place. For pictures with NR, these is jpeg output.
“this function is disabled” should not exist in the first place rather than camera being “helpful”.
e.g. sometimes I want to apply monochrome (“BW”) setting when framing/focusing in low light but still output color RAWs, a message saying that I should dive to menus and turn off “B&W” setting isn’t helpful.
Are 30 1.4 and 16 1.4 Art or DC? Not exactly lightweight
…isn’t it because CaNikon do not want Sigma lenses to focus properly on their cameras?….
AND a FILM camera body to insert Velvia in!
I’d rather have focus&aperture bracketing in camera and gladly take proper water sealing in the lens rather than more rings every time.
what was the lawsuit? I remember a lawsuit Nikon against Sigma but it was about OSS not AF.
“Expertise with E-mount AF” is motor that can start and stop quickly. Lens just moves where it’s told to.
I’m sorry your comment makes little sense after you remember there are 4 Sigma lenses (UPD: now 5) for aps-c mirrorless that are not released in EF-M despite being here for years. Btw, FF lenses are usable on APS-C cameras anyway, esp. telephotos.
>Sony must focus on making management of those settings as intuitive as possible.
>meaningless and extremely annoying messages when changing setting in the “wrong” mode or switching to Tab list when scrolling past the end of the page
don’t you see the latter is direct consequence of the former? Sony didn’t want you to shoot yourself in the foot.
> so why not hide them under an “Advanced” section
Yeah. So users would every time have to remember “setting X? is it in Basic or Advanced or very Advanced menu?”
They are, because this is what customers want.
They don’t want modern interface — they simply wish little changes according to their taste.
We buy Sony cameras because they contain state-of-art sensors which are very difficult to produce and very few suppliers sell similar things. No one really needs shitty menus being permanently glued to cameras
1. it’s not
2. if it was, you could then say that f/1.8 lens is too fast for FSI (you can’t have f/1.8 lens without incidence angle reaching 15 degrees (arctan(0.5/fnumber) )
it’s only ~5mm wider than F-mount
Why? With throat wider than image diagonal, they can bring chief ray angle to zero and use sensors with narrow angular response, which Sony FE doesn’t allow
“microcontrast” is a way to have opinion about a lens without having to back it up with real measurable metric.
And also if we neglect 3:2 aspect ratio requirement, then the lens effectively usable at wider FOV than 24 mm….
..Vignetting…. and then web designers will use their border-radius tag and cut your precious corners….
There is no way you’d get their DR with such low pixel count.
is it like pictures under a plastic raster lens array? Such things are quite old.
I’ve been asking about sensor PDAF maps everywhere and was bashed as “why would anyone ever need it”.
btw… Canon Dual RAW has it.
They have BSI now. They can hide pixel binning circuits on the chip.
16-bit may be a marketing gimmick as well.
Some users have 200-500/2.8. Would they need something they attach lens to, instead of attaching camera to lens?
Usually big lenses are attached to tripod/monopod, and then having small camera reduces strain on both mounts.
wish big camera?… Just get a Nikon D5 or Canon 1DX2.
Yes it is. Though, you can find examples of 18-200 being smaller than 18-135 — in the same mount.
price, real (vs. nominal) focal length & f-stop at intermediate zoom positions have to be considered, too.
… all these FLs & f-stops are heavily rounded.
e.g. one 18-135 might really max at 135/5.6, and the other can have 128/5.95 which’d allow to shrink lens but still market it as 18-135.
Corner smearing exists when using lenses not designed for it. For new designs which take cover glass into account its not a problem (but rather a benefit, albeit very small, as it eats some of field curvature & some other aberrations so there is less to compensate).
And the BSI sensors solve colorshift & digital vignetting issue.
Maybe Canon has some IP which doesn’t allow Sony to make small and good 22/2?
Interesting. How does it work electronically? probably you posted a blog entry on this?
Who ‘we’? There are already big FE cameras which one can buy. There are no small FE camera for those who want small.
All this ‘ergonomics’ becomes useless when camera is operated remotely
Which ones? Every example I’ve seen has round element under a rectangle plastic baffle.
Depends on how you define ratio. If sensor area to body weight, A7/A7R surely wins.
…in just a two seconds, you can unmount small lens from such camera and mount a large one. Large behemoths always stay large
They will never. It’s a business not a charity, and it’s a lucky coincidence that some of us like some of their cameras.
huge, expensive and image quality is only marginally better than the smallish canon. It focuses closer, though…
Too good to be true. When’s a Sony variant of EF-M 22/2 STM lens comes out? xD
How fast f-stop drops to f/5.6?
You know, manufacturers are quite dishonest about focal range of zooms, e.g. zoom marketed as -150 might actually have max FL as 140 mm, etc.
Two lenses might look similar but really one e.g. f-stop falls pretty quickly as you zoom max… and other holds f-stop till the midrange.
Should be also canon ef-m 18-150 pictured… it’s even few grams lighter that the Sony despite longer (nominal) range.
these are DSLR lenses, and long backfocus requirement requires designers use larger, more complex lens designs.
APS-C DSLR lenses have image circle reduced, but backfocus proportionally not, so actually relative to image height their backfocus is longer. Even canon ef-s backfocus reduction is very modest.
For longer FLs there is indeed little benefit from shrinking image circle. But for 35 and shorter… There is much benefit.
Couldn’t you be a bit less arrogant?
>NO. They ALREADY have compensated for the long minimum BFD by reducing image circle.
well, if there was more than a grain of truth in it… someone suggested that if Sony made FF 16-50/2.8 lens then aps-c users could use it too. But what size would it be?
anyone who actually drew something in a optical CAD knows your assertion simply not true.
aps-c, long vs short BFD, same manufacturer:
Canon EF-S 24 mm f/ 2.8 STM: 125 grams
Canon EF-M 22/2 STM: 105 grams (despite being a stop faster)
why Canon didn’t make small 22/2 for aps-c dslrs if “already compensated”?
Sigma DC A 30 mm f/ 1.4 HSM: 435 grams
Sigma DN C 30 mm f/ 1.4 DC: 265 grams
(Fujinon XF 35 mm F/ 1.4 R: 187 grams (btw how much weights Sony CZ 35/1.4??))
Sony DT 11-18 f/4.5-5.6: 360 grams
Sony E 10-18/4 OSS: 225 grams (despite beging faster and having OSS)
Samyang 16/2: 583 grams
Samyang 12/2: 260 grams (in this pair the dslr lens has much narrower FOV which eases making it a lot, making 12/2 for long backfocus would be PITA)
Samyang 8/3.5 Fisheye: 413 grams
Samyang 8/2.8 Fisheye I: 217 grams
(second generation of samyang aps-c fisheyes)
Samyang 10 mm f/ 2.8: 580 grams
Samyang 8 mm f/ 2.8: 290 grams
short BFD, FF vs. aps-c
Sony FE 24-105 mm f/ 4 G OSS: 663 grams
Sony E PZ 18-105 mm f/ 4 G OSS: 482 grams
Sony CZ FE 24-70 mm f/4 OSS: 426 grams
Sony CZ E 16-70 mm f/4 OSS: 308 grams (both lenses bashed for their IQ&sample variation)
>evidenced by Super-Duper constantly being “but but f/2.8 lens!”
evidenced by Andew Dodd constantly being “but but Sony FE 12-24/4 lens!”
>it would be considered “slow garbage” for a prime.
That’s pure arrogance and nothing else. One can still make nice photos with 90/3.6 equiv, albeit there isn’t small cheap FF one.
How would mft user with, say, 14-42 and 45/1.8, upgrade to FF, if, as you say, equivalent lenses are always smaller on FF?
What do you mean less cat pictures? There can be never too many cat pictures!
The context was ‘legacy of slavery’ and slaveowners did not have any embryo selection.
If evidence of anything, the Fuji 16-55 is evidence of your theory about BFD wrong. For aps-c, reduction in minimum BFD should be more significant than for FF because aps-c DSLRs have legacy BFD requirement inherited from larger image format, while for FF there should be “diminishing returns” because FF DSLRs have sane (~90% of image diagonal) BFD requirement. According to your theory, the Fuji 16-55 should be a lot smaller than the Canon, but it is not, it’s even heavier.
Why cant’ 16-50 for aps-c be simply 24-70 for ff with 0.66x reduction factor applied? It usually not possible for DSLRs because of their funny BFD, but we are speaking about mirrorless.
I do NOT need to “match FE 12-24/4”, or “match FE 24-70/2.8”.
Is there “good” FF equivalent for for M.Zuiko 45/1.8? It would be 90/3.6 FF but all similar lenses are much heavier.
um does it have anything to do with ‘legacy of slavery’ or silverfoxes experiment? it looks like you misplaced your comment
AF does very little to affect size of a lens. Compare e.g. Canon 85/1.2L to MItakon speedmaster 85/1.2
M mount lenses are small because large lenses would block tunnel viewfinder.
No, it uses mathematics only. I have not looked in much detail how this works — but if produces jpeg and RAW file which contains parameters for raw converter to use, it’s seems good for me.
What these ‘other distortions’ you mean?
using shift with a TS lens crops its full image circle, too, and crops from outer portion of image.
>Lock up the mirror and turn on the rear display.
if so, why not simply glue Canon TS to an adaptor?
Not even all DSLRs have liveview feature, and there are film SLRs even.
Asking for shift lenses for mirrorless camera is like asking for horseshoes for you car.
“Ignorant”? You wrote multiple comments saying that removing long back focus requirement (which Sony DT 16-50 has) provides enormous shrinking in size of lenses, and now you “forget” that point.
These “most” 16-50 solutions are required to have even disproportionally longer backfocus than fullframe SLR lenses (as image frame is smaller but backfocus stays same)
why not going to be small?
GM 24-70 is 886 grams. Applying 0.66x reduction factor, same optical scheme, we get: 866*(2/3)^3 = 262 grams.
As of why the Fuji is oversized, it is irrelevant.
The patent was filed more than year ago. If they had intention to produce it, it would be already approaching towards shelves.
Given how much A6300 costs, wouldn’t the same sensor scaled to FF cost more than 7R3 sensor?
>matches or exceeds the R2/R3 across the board
….when we compare at f/8. Surely it doesn’t match at f/1.4.
On the other hand, Asian Americans were denied ciitzenship completely (e.g. Takao Ozawa v. United States)
Foxes have several pups per litter and they were harshly selected, that would not work with humans ever (that is, would take more generations)
Frist, that’s SHIFT but not TILT.
Second, the same effect can be achieved electronically, Olympus even has a feature which displays it in real-lime in EVF.
can you explain how they going to have full spectrum correction instead of certain selected wavelengths?
>Hopefully this should turn out to be cheaper than having to design everything from 0
you’re asking actually to make a completely new lens which only shares f and f-stop with the predecessor.
FE 100 assumes camera supports CDAF, which not all A-mount cameras have. If they do same for A-mount, there will be complaints that in doesn’t work with all but latest cameras.
Tilt shift is a thing for OVF SLRs, there is no reason to stick with old paradigm.
probably you mean 16-50 instead of 24-70?
A 85 mm would not benefit much from restricting image field to aps-c.
24 mm, of the other hand, would
oh, I screwed it. They can use existing fabs to make metalenses but for wavelength where silicon is transparent, that is, longer than 1 micron
there was some achromatic example shown — it had mediocre correction at selected 3 wavelengths but quite bad for everything in between.
Would you want lens which works at 3 nanometers instead of visible light?
A Panasonic camera with Canon mount, wow!
Soon neural networks will generate porn which barely discernible from reality.
9000 abusive images? eh? if there any relationship between number of images and real harm to people?
IIRC the same point was on wikipedia years ago. It’s common wisdom
Oh thought police has arrived. What if ‘some’ use image editing software to make sick images of chilren? Ban photoshop? Ban drawing?
Medical reason? BS. Such reasons are quite rare and usually health problems cause weight loss rather than gain. Have a real condition, like diabetes type I, liver failure, pancreas failure, or simply catch Ebola or and you’re sure to lose weight.
Is USA world’s most obese country because her healthcare is bad or it’s Americans eat “junk food” in large amounts?
You’d better think what if a fat person has a real condition, then they won’t fit in a MRI unit or paramedics won’t be able to transport him to a clinic.
BTW Ken’s pages are wonderful web 1.0 relic in a world of overblown animated crap.
Note that the pic features nutrient difference. Whereas for black-white gap you’d have to assume it’s some unknown X factor which isn’t nutrition or quantity of books in household. It’s non-falsifiable.
Why it hasn’t been “solved” is because people do not wish to accept explanation. We’d also the difference readily shrinking over the time as more anti-discrimination laws are introduced.
Bad environment for children might have other consequences besides IQ, e.g. decreasing their happiness or skills to monetize their IQs.
Proportional scaling means f-stop, being relative, stays the same. Equivalence theory here is a red herring. Getting equiv f-stop would require more complex optical scheme instead of scaling.
um…. just nitpicking… often people studies have large N, but also large number of variables which barely avoids overfitting and then they run linear regression… Need to actually look into the article
Notice this 24-105 is only 663 grams. If it was downscaled 1.5x (to 16-70) it’d be only 196 grams and 69 mm long — about same as old 18-55.
Blank slatists like to speak about low-IQ low-SES children which do not reach their full potential, but never speak about high-IQ children who do not reach their full potential when surrounded by low-IQ aggressive children.
yeh but my question was about the fraction of significance of X-chromosome. I apologize but it isn’t easy to find this info
I am not that even sure if is xD
These drawings are approximate.
BTW the non-optical of the Youngnuo are very different from the Canon.
<sarcasm>damn, so complex! Have to actually research the question</sarcasm>
Agreed what monarchy doesn’t make a lot of sense.
But I don’t think the Ottoman model (with fratricide?) is better than European, it discards worst variants but what about averages?
Anyway… I’d want to have a numeric estimate…
Um… but AlphaZero was built with a priori knowledge that chess is a finite determinate game with perfect information… Physics is exactly the opposite…. what could we compare here?
Barry is special. (btw the answer is yes)
Offtopic: how important is X-chromosome for intelligence and personality traits?
In monarchies power usually passed from father to son so if there were any positive variants in father’s X which helped him to gain power/improve life of his subjects, they would be effectively lost.
You’re cherry picking here. How many 12-24 FF lenses exist at all? I could find only Sigma-12-24mm-F4-DG-HSM-A. And e.g. FE 28/2 is about same as everyone’s else 28/1.8 (which is brighter a bit).
Think about it: we could have special bracketing mode where camera does a f/1.4 shot and a f/5.6 shot, takes detail from the latter and bokeh from the former.
and we used to use 32-bit dos extenders (mainly for DOOM and the likes)
So? The most useful FL, actually.
Because the other f/1.4 lenses are typically retrofocus — that is, a longer FL with permanently attached wide converter in the front. This Nokton is more or like just basic Double Gauss.
Imagine what would be IQ like if a lens designer was given task to make SLR 35/1.4 in SAME size!
The Sony which is 117 mm/565 g and the Nikon 89 mm/465 g? Doesn’t look like “roughly same” to me. You’re cherry picking a ultrawide.
None of early Sony FE lenses are recycled SLR designs (it’s Samyang who used to do this), the only is 50/1.8 which is much later lens and is smaller than native mirrorless Zony 55/1.8 (lol).
None of mirrorless cameras are designed to accept a focal reducer, it’s just a lucky coincidence they fit, and this is where difficulty is from.
Imagine a lazy lens designer who designs aps-c lenses by taking a ff lens and slapping a reducer at them, then running optimization in CAD — don’t you thinnk they would be able to get much better/smaller result than lens+reducer combo they started with?
If you need f/1.4 from FF sensor and f/0.95 from crop, there’s nothing to cancel out, the latter just has to have better angular response. The chief ray angle (which you’re talking about ‘cancelling’) is already small in such lenses.
>We really need a low-cost FF sensor
What makes you think such sensor would be cheap?
One can simply use used 7R2.
>Interestingly, the A6300 sensor pretty much matches
Almost certainly it doesn’t when shoot at f/1.4, let alone f/0.95
>The whole “FF is huge” myth ended when we got rid of FF mirrorboxes.
Have you noticed all these people who say “FE lenses are as large as their DSLR equivalents?” I’m rather on your side here but hey, Zony 35/1.4 is freaking large and Samyang 35/1.4 as well. Yes, ultrawides are nice but very few people need anything wider than 16-35
It also looks to me that e.g. Mitakon 35/0.95 is larger than 50/1.4 + reducer whereas logically it should be reverse: a designer of f/0.95 lens has less constraints.
Do you mean that aps-c cameras to match FF need sensor with better angular response?
Not a valid argument. Some for focal length and f-stop you can cherry pick smaller and larger lenses. But there are small Canon EF-M 22/2 and Samsung NX 30/2.
wow, I even know six people who would buy it! Unfortunately, 6 customers is not enough to justify manufacturing a new lens.
Nah 12-24 and 28 could have been much smaller if made for aps-c. Agreed on 50 and 85 though.
Has someone compared these cameras at f/1.4 rather than f/8? If one needs high ISOs they will probably shoot at wide open where smaller pixel lose due to worse angular response.
The Fuji lens is oversized. If you downscale any FF 24-70/2.8 lens, you get much smaller lens. It also looks like that the Fuji zoom range is greater.
Fuji already had small 18-55/2.8-4 lens and if they made 16-50/2.8 slightly larger than that that it would eat sales of the smaller lens.
Those microseconds in AF specs (measured on perfect targets) say nothing about real-life AF , in life it matters how much it will hunt in complex situations
Donate it to the poor xD
Um, nope. Tungsten lamps are rare now. As most light sources have most of energy in visible so real improvement would be more like 20%
so you can use the lens with a tilt adapter or a speed booster.
and easier to sell.
I do no see how Sony are anti-establishment.
BTW Nikon used to have almost same median NR filtering for long exposures.
They make big 35/1.4 like it was needed to be retrofocus. Lens lineup is pretty conventional: 24-70/2.8, 70-200, etc.
They have playmemories apps, but then they don’t allow others to write apps.
Adding BSI/stacked sensors has no relationship to camera size.
If it’s open source why they target cinematographers instead of everyone?
Cinema shooters don’t need costs reduction.
This issue exists… BUT.
You are giving link to Canon 5DS which is a FSI sensor with small pixels whereas the Sony camera is BSI. Change the Canon camera to 1DX II and the Canon lens is shown better T-stop by dxo again. Change the Sony camera to A7R and T-stop gets worse.
Another issue that the canon f1.2 is actually closer to f1.3 but marketed as f1.2
So whereas your comment is correct is principle it is obsolete and now wrong since most hypothetical f1.0 users would use BSI sensors or huge pixels of A7S where this issue is minor
That depends on how define ‘REALLY WANT’.
Most E-mount lenses are focus-by-wire, meaning than focusing elements and OIS will lie in *wrong* position, and maybe as worse, you can’t change aperture.
You’re talking about non-reversed lens. With reversed A-mount lenses working distance is never going to be smaller than ~38 mm.
Not going to cost about about $600? But what would be the price charged by an engineer to a client?
Ideally it should be just 1-wire protocol for macro rings and such things and all logic handled by camera.
Is cropping better? I’d like to see a comparison.
Some manufacturers charge even more for lens hood, freaking simple lens hood.
You get about same result, that if sensor was larger….
SB would reduce spherical abberation, but lateral color might… increase a lot
Eek why they give FOV for FF DSLR, but for mirrorless they use APS-C?
Is reducing lens flare (and extension of dynamic range) totally useless?
But ok, if you don’t have use proper software to take advantage of this, then it’s useless.
someone has already mentioned that if one wants more DR then using HDR is better than pixel shift
Just wait before Iliah Borg comes in and says dynamic range of lenses is only 10 stops and higher DR sensors are not needed.
isn’t it like that FWC can be raised by increasing voltage?
Thanks, can you provide some non-secret examples of costs BSI vs. FSI?
PhotoAcute is supposed to do this, but its users report bad experience somehow…
Even if they use better separation than silicon penetration depth, there is still an issue of cramming 3 sensels at same area. I think 3 is too much and 2 layers is a good compromise.
You could have even better option — instead of masking off moving objects, undo effects of hot pixels (instead of using Star Eater), sensor dust & non-uniformity.
can you reveal the numbers for yield?
who tells about if yield is good or bad?
It is adominable because it’s too strongly retrofocus as if it was made for SLR camera — lazy designers.
Lol have I said it has to do something with race? No, most Japanese don’t speak English because of culture (e.g. how it’s taught) and by “virtue” of Japan being large country.
what else could you do, collect money to hire a hacker who would disable NR it R2?
It’s about Japan only. And most Japanese don’t really speak English, that’s why you don’t hear much of them.
Canon have brilliant 22/2 prime, Sony has abominable and expensive 24/1.8. What a normie would buy?
These people don’t come to SAR and ask for dual card slots, but they buy too.
….or maybe if you have software good enough, you don’t need pixel shift at all
I have been commenting on SAR since 2011. What are you talking about? xD
Mike “zap the gay” Pence for president!
These wine labels for me are vomit-inducing. They look ugly on any camera and exposure (and they’re not really intended to have small detail to start with)
Too bad that Sigma’s own mirrorless uses not m43 mount but “rare” one
Those f-stops are heavily rounded. This “1.2” might be “1.28” as well and “1.4” might be “1.37”
You wanted a real PRO camera not a geek toy, here you have it xD
why does screen needs to be 3″+? if there’s a good EVF with higher resolution.
probably because shutters are cheap? They have been here for decades before any image sensors.
Early studies showed so, but they were bad because of sampling bias and self-selection bias. Later studies show some difference but it’s much smaller than droupout rate, so it’s doubtful how much of it is real.
I guess only highest pixel count camera in lineup gets pixel shift mode; so it could mean there won’t be higher res camera for quite some time
Homosexuality doesn’t have major genetic component — it can’t because of strong selection pressure against.
it has no bayer filter, but due to old underlying sensor it isn’t better than more recent color camera.
Multiframe NR doesn’t need pixel shift in any way — heck almost every up-to-date smartphone has it.
Since Trump got elected, Sony added 2nd card slot and larger battery in e-mounts. Which harm are you talking about? xD
Maybe if some people didn’t call other people deplorables, racists, bigots etc. etc. Trump wouldn’t have been elected.
*Be proud of removing mirror of
*Make 17 mm and 25 mm larger than 45 mm
A9 has reduced rolling shutter for silent shooting & video
Popups caused by War on Cookies were worse
3. This Sony A7RM3 weights ~650 grams without lens. Canon 100D plus kit lens weights less!
Well, but there’s a grain of truth — diversity of digital cameras is lower.
Entry threshold into production of digital cameras is much higher
How would Sony control CMOS production?
2) it is beneficial for CMOS sensors to be rectangular rather than square (given same area) — it makes readout faster and production of slit lithography machines simpler.
If they did, there would be a lot of complaints about how it is implemented and worse than full raw. Sad.
(remember, Sony is an electronics company lol)
Obviously this was made for performance issues. I read somewhere that A9 uses code from A-mount lineup.
IIRC the playmemories hack allows to use 3rd party focus-stacking app on A7*
You are comparing prime vs. zoom. If RX100 designers had to suprass sharpness of cameraphone prime, they’d used lower magnification zoom. But zooms have reach.
RX100 has entrance pupil at tele ~ 7 mm. Which tele camera phones have, like 6/2.4 (?) = 2.5 mm ?? You’d need to put eight such cameras to match light gathering capacity.
A phone with mulitple cameras is of course good but paying one-third of Rebel’s price for one-tenth of sensor area… does not seem fair.
They should have rather updated kit zoom, it’s worst amongst all systems xD
using a TC and then asking for it to focus at F11 a bit silly.
A dedicated smaller sensor could have been better at lower price. Also remounting other camera is simpler than inserting a TC.
You said iphone quality comes near those of 1″ cameras which is a huge stretch. It’s about the same as my stretch about close-to-$133 Rebels, you don’t this stretch now…
This argument works both ways — the only way to make smaller camera in to get rid of hump and place EVF in the corner. And if you don’t like to use corner EVF with telephotos, you can strap a loupe to LCD to it’d be centered both vertically and horizontally.
Too bad Sony didn’t add sensor shift in cameras natively, so we could have AF with all lenses and quick seamless CDAF even with older AF lenses
> Sensors and cameras evolve quickly,
except they don’t. aps-c cameras still stuck at 24 mp and for last 6 years SNR became better by like about 1/2 of stop. growth becomes slower and slower.
The only reason this unlikely to happen is violation of duckling syndrome.
I don’t think you want camera thin as A5000 anyway, so what’s bad if its slightly thicker
Look at Sony R1: the space below EVF is used for buttons and LCD is parked horizontally when not in use.
Which these of “film vs digital” comparisons are blind comparisons? I guess none of them.
It has to be a blind comparison, and contrast/saturation has to be matched (at least by using “film emulation” profiles in Fuji cameras)
Hm.. my apologies for $133 typically a used one, apparently. (btw i could buy, and did buy a new a3000 with lens for less than $100 few weeks ago)
Yes I understand I was comparing entire camera module against sensor only, but then what does add to its cost so much (diamonds, CaF2?)(if it’s just opportunity pricing of Apple on its users, and OEMs on apple then it’s irrelevant to the topic).
They sell new Canon T6 with 18-55 at $449 at BH. Entire camera with cpu and 1.7″ sensor
Iphone has one 1/3″ sensor plus another 1/3.6″ sensor plus even smaller “selfies” sensor. So its like total area of all three iphone sensors is about one-tenth of the Canon. And you say end user is charged one-third of a Canon Rebel price for this.
OIC. “Usually” people upgrade camera body but keep the lenses.
> (as to improvements in OSPDAF sites I’ve seen nothing to suggest that, I’d love to see where you got that from)
You see, “our new ospdaf pixels have better angular discrimination capability” would be very bad for marketing because it is a Bad Word.
Real-life AF performance is not having “0.015 sec AF* (under ideal conditions)” but having reliable AF that wouldn’t be confused in non-trivial situations.
Don’t you think slower video AF is intentional so resulting output won’t have jerky focus hunts?
Even if command loop runs only at 60 Hz, a camera body may still give orders in fraction of tic intervals.
Also, scene can be flickering.
And probably fiddling with OSPDAF angular response is more important that number of OSPDAF sites per se.
First you say that per-area cost is larger for larger sensors, then you say $38 for a system with three(or two?) minuscule cameras. Which one should I believe?
>(implied consumer cost of US$133).
That’s getting close to retail price on Canon Rebel with a lens.
It’s confusing. I would prefer EVF centered on optical axis and LCD moved on top of camera
>Now measure the depth from the front of the UVIR glass to the start of the sensel.
eek, in some systems (e.g. NEX-5N at least) there is air gap between IR-cut and sensor per se.
>measure the angle light is taking from center and edge
How is it relevant for anything but extreme edges of image?
What all of these is of interest to a lens designer if all this sandwich can re replaced with single flat element? MFT uses very thick glass — that’s the point, MFT lenses would work as intended on other camera given that adapter contains compensating flat glass, but you can’t use glass of negative thickness for mounting other lenses on a MFT camera.
Off-the-sensor storage is cheap.The bottleneck is the sensor.
These focal plane shutters should have not existed in E-mount at all.
Nope, I often want to shoot telephoto in portrait orientation. Also at 2200 mm eq. neither position help — you’d need a separate helper finder (p&s or a phone mounted in hotshoe does that xD )
A9’s electronic shutter travels about 1/150 second. My old NEX-5N has X-sync of 1/160. Haha.
The problem with A9 sensor is cost, which suggests manufacturers to wrap it in a “Pro” black brick to use with “Pro” lenses.
I partially share you concern about color. I think that using more than 3-color CFA (e.g. with 9 or 6 color channels) would be good solution, this way these often excessive MP counts could have been put to a good use. However, some people wish camera makers put better fairy dust in them.
You are wrong about measurements. There is a measurement about color, SMI — sensitivity metameric index, that many newer cameras have worse than earlier cameras. This convinces me that your complains about color aren’t bogus. But what is “flat and unnatural”? Because you know that the imagine comes from silicon sensor and therefore declare it unnatural.
For me, reducing pixel pitch makes pictures more “natural”, because resolution now is limited by lens and air rather than pixel grid.
(sorry I didn’t have the patience to pass these imager thru proper RAW conversion — it becomes more “film” if you fiddle with NR settings).
Yeah, but have you noticed that Canon shooters use cameras with grossly inferior DR, and still manage to get paid?
A global shutter sensor made on state-of-art fab does have comparable DR to sensors canon sold until recently.
It’s MF per definition of MF: it makes photos and imaging area is… large.
I would love to try my cheap MF&LF lenses on it, but amount of DIY is frightening.
I am looking at relevant patents: the ones concerned with aberrations. Because you said that lens has to be made to consider “sensor path” so it has to be lens patents, no?
Delete? What do you mean? Even cheapest A-mount cams had screwdriver –
Sony A290, Sony A58.. (unlike Nikon who puts them only in high-end models).
Have you tried it yourself? 600 mm (on FF) would be still quite short for birding.
$38 number from above assumed linear scaling. So then the real figure should be even smaller, esp. relative to total $1200 price of top tier smartphone.
Not only numbers (it’s because I care about science). I care about qualitative feelings — I know people can be biased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
I remember Microsoft faced anti-monopoly suits, IIRC nothing really bad happened to them out of it
But it’s not centered. For being centered it should have been where back LCD (that would be quite easy to implement for manufactures, but it would violate user’s duckling syndrome)
Great! Now explain why stacked 1″ sensors, 12 mp & 42 mp FF fabbed by Sony Semiconductor do not appear in other brands’ products.
They can ditch shutter. And make back LCD smaller (A7’s one is huge compared to A6500’s)
Nope, most of the camera cost is the sensor.
for such cases you can use a screen loupe.
What is that (collapsible?) lens with big black ring (a M42 chinese helicoid?)
Isn’t it like due to different tastes in setting sharpening, Luma NR, Chroma NR in PP? I recall a case when film fan refused to participate in a blind test saying that PP settings destroy differences between digital and film.
It was coined a rule of thumb that bayer sensor needs 50-70% more spatial pixels to match resolution of foveon, so with 24×3 you’re not gaining anything (of significance) over 42 bayer but you’re having more detectors crammed and larger files.
I used pentax Q with 35mm lenses as model of how picture would look when larger pixel counts come to large sensor camera; the picture becomes more film-like.
Fuji instax is a MF. And quite high-volume one. I heard Fuji sells more or them than X series.
I mean, D850 didn’t that need more fps, that’s what D5 was in Nikon’s lineup.
Which is that electronics that allows D850 to have more fps?
If FSI cheaper to make they can continue making it
Well, $38 assumes cost scales linearly with area. Considering cost scales exponentially with area, it should be a lot smaller?
what do iphones have to do with this?
Not everyone has craze for ultra thin phones. Making them thinner shows how good engineers are but solves nothing for end user.
And it can be made as retractable or sliding sideways lens.
JP 2015-68910 is the patent for Zony 55/1.8. Entire cover glass is respented single element.
US20110273780 is the patent for E 18-55. Cover glass isn’t even mentioned.
well, Zony 55/1.8 has exit pupil distance about ~ 35 mm, exactly what perfectly symmetric 35 mm would have. Why would they even need it?
well, typically for same frame area film looks much worse (unless digital is overexposed).
Suppose Sony would follow your advice and make 42 * 3 mp sensor for a7r2 replacement. RAW files would be 3x large and readout slower by same factor.
if a7r2 because of better sensels, why’d they don’t use them in a FSI sensor?
which add-on circuitry D850 has to speed up readout? It has no intermediate RAM like A9.
3. well… it’s because they make same big black box like everyone else with 10% better SNR and 10% better AF.
(most people don’t need AF-C)
If wiggling was such a problem they’d used a breech lock. Indeed there are canon-sony adapter with breech lock on canon side. An adapter with breech lock on both sides would make less wiggle than camera mounting a native lens with bayonet.
As all m43 lenses already made for CDAF there should be no such problem as with Canon EF lenses (however I don’t know anything about m43 lens protocol — it might have pitfalls).
Are you serious about camera sensor path? Everything there is flat so only transmission spectra can really differ, and AAs are being ditched out already.
well, they can stick an aps-c sensor in m43 (there’s such JVC video camara IIRC)
the problem of old 43 was disproportionate flange distance and no fast lenses (Olympus never made anything faster than f/2)
Looking at prices for 1″ and aps-c cameras… doesn’t convince me sensor price scales quickly.
From your numbers (aps-c cost $35, 3.5x price for consumer) it should add less than $38 in price.
The lens fits too, if it’s not f/1.4-2.8 zoom.
Sony’s way of doing OSPDAF doesn’t need any advanced circuitry.
Improving ray angles may be achieved by shifting aperture stop forward too, not neccessarily by making it retrofocus.
Btw these trademarked “lens names” are bogus — they are free to put it on everything if they think it improves sales.
Here at SAR, “physics” is supposed to explain any BS
Increasing size does nothing to increase “muh heat dissipation” unless they put a fan (which they indeed do — for large camcorders)
it’s called focal reducer. for SLR lens for mirrorless they already exist. for SLR-to-SLR it would be so bulkier than whole FF SLR.
Until recently MILCs had longer blackouts than DSLRs — because in a DSLR mirror can raise just after shutter is closed and thereis a picture in OVF, it even starts to show something even when mirror is still en route whereas MILCs needed to read entire frame before they could start displaying picture again
“AF in video” more depends on the lens used (many canon’s later lenses are STM and already capable of this, Nikon calls it AF-P)
Eye AF is somewhat more difficult to be implemented on a SLR but there is no reason it can’t be.
Viewfinder can be hybrid (like Fuji’s)
You’re just talking about same DSLR without a mirror removed for sake of removing a mirror.
Nothing really cool like sensor tilt or Z-shift.
with A7R2 vs. A7R the difference is SAME third of a stop.
(??because designers of BSI sensors make compromises to keep manufacturing costs low that decrease getting better SNR — that is, thicker wiring which allows faster readout — all ADCs are outside of imaging area and it’s irrevelant BSI or not)
The question was about D850 sensor an upscaled variant of D500. Even if the performance is similar, BSI rules out this possibility.
BS. If so, you could buy a Pentax Q with 15-45/2.8 lens and pretend you have equivalent of 70-200/2.8. Moreover you can always use FF lens on a aps-c camera.
m4/3 has longer flange distance and their lenses can fit most mirrorless cams (even more so if the adapter includes ~3 mm of glass to match mft thick cover glass)
…or… am I missing the point here?
It’s quite easy to sell CaNikon lenses so users are not locked in, even adaptors already exist.
Today’s cellphones are enormous to what was 14 years ago. Why wouldn’t 1″ sensor fit? I guess 1″ sensor costs more — there isn’t even a cheap 1″ dedicated camera. Well and there already was Panasonic cellphone with 1″ sensor (CM-1)
Lose. Please stop confusing it. Heil spellcheck!
well, sometimes people wish to know about physical objects and do not have time to describe the scene/object in full details.
The Sony lens in the image is much sharper and has OIS, so it’s not 1-1 comparison. If sharpness were in Nikon favor, Sony would get bashed for this.
How is it relevant? The latter link itself lists things for putting FF lenses on bellows. Sure, it might be sometimes very good to have option of putting regular Canon lens on a tilting bellows. However… it’s niche.
On this very graph difference between f=20 and f=24 isn’t 25 degrees, but even barely a half of that.
Why use a linear plot and not a log-log one?
Digital already renders smooth gradients better because of greater SNR.
With Canon’s dual RAW you get more real “3d” (rather than imaginary) from digital sensor than from film, because each pixel sensitive to direction where light is coming from.
Yes, Merill sensors have certain advantages…. But they should be compared to 45 mp bayer sensors.
You don’t seem to get that making “1:1:1” involves three-fold increase in number of photodetectors, even if some don’t call them “pixels”.
Lens is aps-c, and considering price, the lens is more likely for budget camera owners.
um the lens is cheap because it’s in rare mount.
Isn’t reducer you linked to for A-mount?
Many of E/FE lenses under Sony brand are designed and made by Tamron already.
Could you be more specific? With digital sensors there is sometimes moire (and other demosaicing) problems, and the only practical solution is to increase resolution. Sure there is 3-layered sensor, but it requires increasing number of photo detectors three-fold, which is even worse.
(that’s because a7 looks like a real camera and a6500 like a p&s lol – sarcasm off)
Which lens + reducer are you talking about?
Awesome pic, but i didn’t know beforehand, I’d said it’s mushy “point and shoot” photo.
24mm with some distortion can have wider FOV than 20mm without it.
yes, and they can make a small f/11 lens on bellow and fit it to smartphone o.o
what do you mean by ‘rendering’?
A hall sensor? Neat. Sometimes I think it’d be cool if they used 1-wire for all such things. Then it’d much easier for 3-rd party makers
>a relatively compact lens like the 20mm A-mount version.
oops, at such focal length lens for MILC is supposed to be much smaller
FF with f/0.95 lenses has shallower DOF than medium format.
More people would rather wish manufacturers made FF sensors cheaper and more accessible, rather than putting expensive 36×36.
It seems to me for E-mount (FF), contact pins would get into the way too. That’s not saying there is also rectangular baffle at the rear lens.
And for DSLR, mirror box limits how large can be sensor.
btw, rotating sensor assembly would have been better than making the most expensive part in camera even more expensive.
and which ones aren’t fake?
such adapters exist? I mean not those ones which have iris which gives suboptimal results.
A9 is pretty big compared to first A7 cams. And A99M2 despite large body limited to same 4k fps.
having smaller sensor improves some things, but off-the-sensor bandwidth (which Andrew said is still slow) can’t be improved by having small sensor, on the reverse
Why does it ever need to be metal? In case of impact, it’d be much better if hood takes impact instead of passing it to the lens.
FF sensors with global shutter long exist, it’s just having global shutter compromises DR and/or price.
lol you can use a tilf-shift adapter with ANY mirrorless camera
Most of old MF had FAKE 16 bits, the ADC was 14-bit and even then lowest bits had only noise in them.
With 54×40, you’d need only f/2.2 to match f/1.4 of 36×24 (in terms of DOF, SNR, diffraction). these f/1.4 also have great discrepancy between f-stop and T-stop and sharpness is worse.
The only problem is the cost of that 54×40 sensor. (and maybe slow readout, too).
Eliminating spatial separation would require more photodetectors (for save given IQ) than otherwise.
This “ideal’s” main benefit is complying to the duckling syndrome (an engineer might not have it, but his clients might be) whereas it’d be better to use extra degrees of freedom for improving SNR, OSPDAF, etc. and reducing cost.
The expense of waterproof cases comes because people are stuck in old paradigm where buttons on case have mechanical couplings with buttons
Image capture devices DO NOT have a color gamut. If they have more than 3x channels, it’s usually for more accuracy, NOT gamut.
umm…. is she ‘yours’? o.o
Canons have 1.6 crop mirrorless, sure not FF but not 2 or 2.7 either.
So I when I made a test image for you, I started with f=35 mm actually but then posted a sample with f=18
You got it backwards: adding tubes/extender increases magnification and decreases working distance.
The approximate formula is: WD = 12 + F/|M|
It’s easier with 35 mm.
Also, each 35 mm prime is different from 18-55 set at 35, because they have front principal plane is different places.
I asked you a 2:1 shot with non-reversed 35 mm. Where is it?
So do you want E18-55 reversed at 35 mm? at which magnification? If anything, working distance will be longer at f=35 that f=18
However about the Novoflex — i’d say it’s bad because it lens mounted part is too thick and has no flash and/or lights.
No, this is supposed to be a lot better than Sigma’s method.
This uses organic layers to capture photons while Sigma’s is silicon only.
I’d like to see a curved sensor… but you see, main effect of curved sensor if that size of (some) lenses can be reduced. And people like large lenses. And it company makes smaller lenses, people will want to see smaller prices, so it’s not better for profits (which is what companies exist for)
(playing devil’s advocate) maybe he meant a scheme with one organic layer at the top, but with RGGB pattern, which is only “classic” in the sense that existing demosaicing software works with it.
Well as SteveGJ noted, this doesn’t work.
(if he understood you right)
And it even it worked, there would be still purists angry that the new scheme is neither bayer neither full color.
What ‘quantum leap’ admin is talking about? How big an improvement should be to be called ‘quantum leap’?
BTW, we already can have this NOW by using color splitters, which also have the advantage that on-sensor coatings can be optimized for each color channel.
Also don’t forget cramming 3 photosensitive layers has its downsides. I think 2 layers would be a good compromise.
Admittedly for a cellphone sensor… Keeping posting this link, knowing that it is irrevelant, IS nonsense.
Also this cellphone sensor can keep FOUR frames in its memory, A9 which you claim is ‘scaled up’, can’t. What would be the reason to scale area for DIGITAL storage?
and you don’t need stacked to have more fps AF.
dpreview about Panasonic GH5
The speed of sensor drive during auto focusing in photo shooting mode has been increased to 480 fps, which is 2x faster than that of the GH4
What does this ‘bandwidth’ have useful? If this is bandwidth, then interline CCDs then have even more ‘bandwidth’
Nikon Ones had 1200 fps without any stacking, it was even FSI sensor. Sure it had line skipping — but if we talking about cropping it can be avoided.
A pro? So it’s like amateurs don’t deserve having control of their cameras? xD
It can be addressed by simple firmware update.
Now go to GULAG, count.
It might be also that to make one state-or-art sensor you need IP from more than one company xD
Just because someone else has some patents, doesn’t mean they can make it on their own
Well, if it was “everybody”, you’d have no trouble finding proofs, right?
Here at SAR Andrew Dodd thinks that A9 off-the-sensor bandwidth is about the same as A99M2/A7R2 and it’s expensive to produce, unlike your POV.
You gave a link to Jim Kasson blog, where he indeed measures rolling shutter, but says nothing about off-the-sensor bandwith.
Funny -> I myself wrote “A9 with DRAM” to camera-wiki. It looks like people were confused with that newer sensor for cellphones has digital storage.
BTW, on the marketing page for the 3-layer sensor Sony itself lists reduction of rolling shutter time as pos1.
I’m not getting what people say. The idea of such adapter is obvious. AFAIK nobody has disassembled both Fotodiox/Techart units and posted a comparison.
Yes, E18-55. I don’t have any of (F)E 35/30s.
I suggest you to try getting 2:1 with retrofocus FE 35/1.4 yourself xD
Folk optics REEEEEEEEEEE
An aphyd shot on 18-55 reversed at @18mm about 2:1 (the working distance is shortest at 18 mm, obviously).
Does this look like an image to you?
The difference with tubes is that, with tubes some lenses (e.g. even moderately retrofocus) can’t get 2:1 magnification at all! — the focus plane will be INSIDE lens)
Because most lithography machines are made for flat image?
So usually then use bending.
Curvature *has* to be reproducible, and sensor-camera unit would be difficult to align.
Curved sensor allows to shrink size of some lenses. For high magnification zooms and telephotos this effect is small anyway. And “High ISO” would be still limited by diameter of lenses.
I would absolutely love to see appearance of curved sensor, but I’d not call it a game changer. Especially for fixed lens camera, many people don’t like buying a camera with a lens glued to it.
Nah, Sony wants you to buy their new lenses.
For industrial/security?? xD And place a 5x price tag on this? xD
Maybe he means smaller size and lack of that goddamn hump.
It’s not the evidence it could not be made smaller.
Also for SLR lenses designers face constraint to secure mirror clearance, and for a fixed lens camera they can tune a sensor to lens.
Why would it be game changer? It’d be more expensive and many people would say it’s not ergonomic (which is photographer’s word for size) and not black enough.
Yes, they do. Ideally you’d want a Four Thirds DSLR lens rather than FF one because e.g. in 2:1 any extra coverage of FF lens would be unused anyway
the 18-55 pictured is a zoom lens with physical zoom ring, so even without dongle you get poor man’s focusing coupled with a zoom. But no aperture, though.
The worst thing is OIS elements which require power to be in proper position.
Let’s not enter essentialist disputes.
I am going to tell a thing you already know, most advances come to smaller sensors first. What if I am wrong and A9 sensor stores already digital values? Why when they didn’t improve off-the-sensor bandwidth (which is comparable to 6-year old ZR200)
Lemme guess. You’re a Hillary supporter but when comes to the cameras you’re a conservative.
And yes, EVFs can be placed anywhere — e.g. external FDA-EV1S can be even tilted.
Have you tried it yourself? On A3000/A7 at least, the mode dial is on the right to EVF and blocks sight. And I never have seen anyone looking with their right eye over the camera while looking with left in EVF
A folk science reply to folk science comment! xD
So does the quality of a lens suffer when designers are required to make focusing element as small as possible! (which is true for most MILC lenses).
>large overly burdensome power hungry motors,
You know, 10 years ago some people said if they make a FF mirrorless, it’d need liquid nitrogen cooling.
You see, these all people with brains are busy with writing ‘muh laws of physics’ on the forums and saying because they own a camera they know how it works inside.
Camera body can itself figure, using OSPDAF pixels, the f-number and exit pupil position of the lens being used. And with more effort — even guess which lens is being used!
Techart owns any patents on this??
Do you mean Fotodiox stole the blueprints?
oh, or Sony could have put sensor Z-shift natively xD this way it could improve AF speed on other lenses too.
M-mount is quite narrow so Barry’s favorite FLs would vignette through such a stack (assuming a FF sensor).
Also Nikon F to Sony E adaptor could be stronger and had more powerful motor, due to less constraints.
I didn’t say it was empty. Did you deliberately misrepresent my point? The engineers could have found a better placement for optics and electronics which does not feature a hump. However they were told to make it so it looks like a hump, because ignorant users unwilling so accept changes like humps. In US Sony E-mounts sell especially bad before they added A7 with hump.
IIRC Sony A-mounts lacked option to type in FL; if the lens didn’t provide FL, the camera assumed 50 mm.
Why stop at this and not require Panasonic to give option to install custom software?
Bits? It’s an analog storage. No bits there.
That’s why I hate videos.
It doesn’t rule out having focus motor in lens (like having IBIS doesn’t rule out having OIS is lens).
Today’s often lens designers make big effort to make designs where focusing group is as light as possible. Need for such designs would diappear and in-lens AF motor could be a lot weaker and would not need optimization for CDAF hunts.
The problem is that we still live in DSLR paradigm with fake pentaprism humps.
In SLR camera, three planes (sensor, matte screen and AF sensor plane) had to be coincident so it was pretty impractical (they had to move entire mirrorbox)
Also while it would make lenses cheaper, but not much.
Any evidence it can hold more than one frame? I’d guess Sony wouldn’t be shy to use it in marketing materials.
Panasonics had 60 fps AF long time ago, on FSI sensors. You don’t need DRAM for this — using line skipping/pixel binning or limiting region of interest to portion of area.
Sensor to CPU bandwidth is about same as A99M2: (24 mp * 20 fps versus 42 mp * 12 fps). FPS at 4k video the same. Just because they could have improved it, doesn’t mean they did. Heck, Panasonic GH5 can write 4k video in 60 fps…
I admit stacked DRAM can have its benefits — e.g. suppose stored frame in DRAM is being slowly read at full resolution while AF reads surface at higher fps.
Nah, even early Nikon Ones had 1200 fps despite having FSI sensor.
Yongnuo sells 100 f/2 in canikon mount cheap, can’t see why can’t be done 135 f/2 for a little more
with f/1 everyone will whine how slow AF is
Just nitpicking: it doesn’t produce any photos. Its only optical component is matte black paint.
This adapter is a 3rd party-kludge which moves 700 gram lens, and it works. And people say it’s difficult for the native manufacturer to make sensor Z-shift.
This “burst rate” is restricted to copying data from upper layer to lower layer, that is, value travels only tens of microns, still resides in analog form, it still has to travel towards edge of chip, pass ADC, be transferred out of chip. If ADCs are the bottleneck, having such “burst rate” de-facto inside pixel is irrelevant.
yes, ZR200 lacks OSPDAF so it has to guess direction to move and it’s the major factor there are readout speed is secondary.
>A sensor swap is an expensive job.
So is changing lens in a fixed-lens camera. One could follow iPhone way and remove SD card slot and make battery fixed.
> but I suspect it would be bulky and tricky.
not a long time ago ALL cameras had interchangeable sensors: film.
>to come along with all sorts of changes
and likewise 120 film wasn’t replaceable with 135, however people lived with this.
In the past, there was very good reason against interchangeable sensors: CCDs were very vulnerable. Modern sensors aren’t and have lots of ICs on them and output digital data directly. Sony already HAS sensors in their lineup that are pin-compatible with previous versions.
Yeah, but attach a $45k price tag to camera — and noise at high ISO becomes a feature rather than drawback! xD
Nah, this was probably to avoid anti-trust laws, taxation or something.
This your estimate was from 2006 before Nikon or Sony FF cameras and number of FF chips was low.
Given that Sony introduces BSI in FF sensor but not APS-C doesn’t look cost increase would be significant.
A7 is absolutely larger than A6000, but compared to its sensor frame is smaller. The bottleneck was in the sensor.
Imagine you make a variable curvature sensor which can change radius of curvature between -70 and +120 and go to senior manager: let’s make an ILC system with this sensor. And they say: no, it’s useless because Smith has a lens design with R=-50 image which your sensor cannot accept, amending curvature would lose simplicity and blahblah blah. Ah your sensor cannot form sombrero shaped aspheres? It’s useless then, go back at drawing board.
[at this point I doubt if SteveGJ used an optical CAD even once]
>The natural field curvature of a simple long focal length
And they are unit focus.
By the moment we want lenses to have quick internal AF, OIS, and be shorter than their FL they aren’t simple anymore.
Now gluing an expensive sensor to fixed prime lens is a good idea?
Is restricting users to afocal converters better than giving an option to use most lenses albeit with a converter? BTW Canon did worse with FD lenses and Minolta MD.
>I would lay odds we will not see such a camera appearing.
The main problem is in making such sensor at low cost, not that desperate need for variable curvature. We don’t see much curved sensors with fixed lens either.
My old casio ZR200 has similar readout speed (can do 30 fps * 16 mp). Yet it does have quite slow AF.
And faster readout wouldn’t help at all in lowlight where AF has the most problems.
Stacked sensor reduces rolling shutter and not much else. It’s a major feature for video shooters.
And also RX10 IV is black like A9. Concidence?
Appeal to authority (who has entire reason to tell marketing lies) is a very weak point.
Still too expensive for f/2.8.
I’m not convinced until you show me samples from shrinking pixel size and improvement. I agree about aps-c sensor pixel size, but 1″ not sure.
I’m talking about 1000 fps here.
Sorry, mea cupla. Still doesn’t prove your point. R-G difference despite being small would be amplified by brain.
You don’t know yet still write “physics” to “prove” your point. Many animals have like f/0.9 eyes in same sized eye as human’s. There’s also brain, skull which make increase in size difficult and too invasive.
Yes probably IQ wide open wouldn’t be ‘good’, but it’s still better
and Donald Trump will make anime real…
Isn’t it like A7S2 has even longer rolling shutter than either of these cameras?
That would screw Sony more than Nikon
They’ll put faulty Leica units in Zenit hull. So it could cost less, you know. xD
Why would it require increasing size of eyeballs?
eeek these three-layered sensors require even more “sensels” to get same resolution.
What is the point of video, then?
Need for focus stacking can be reduced in light field cameras.
More realistic, correcting for chromatism (about 2 diopters) seems to be closer to reach
Um having smaller pixels can reduce need for LONG lenses (focal length) but it doesn’t help with lens diameter.
it’s already possible, but this would compromise IQ or properly exposed scenes with low DR and a lot of people would be offended by this.
BTW “low light” of human eye is primarily information processing
The latter can be done (and should) without any external gear kludges whatsoever, just CaNikon don’t provide good APIs for this
if anything, the both lenses in the video are focus-by-write. lol
#3 I don’t think these cinema guys want costs reduction.
Focus bracketing (and even auto stacking) already exists in some cameras.
e.g. sometimes A-mount lens costs much less than comparable lens in E-mount
It isn’t like buying more batteries or higher capacity SD cards, timelapse is better to have natively (if it is done well) and external unit is yet another point of possible failure.
I’d rather prefer to see a focal reducer to turn 70-200/4 to 50-150/2.8 rather than separate lens xD
uuum, I guess the lens’ main drawbacks don’t include its FL.
oh wait…. color gamut has NOTHING do to with image capture devices whatsoever.
but of many MF backs tested at dxomark, many got rather mediocre metameric index score.
well, the aps-c sensor is larger than 1″ so it effectively compensates for higher f-number.
one could buy 70-300 that ends at f/5.6 not f/6.3 and has VR and still be well under $1700.
RG blindness is more common in males due to having 1 copy of gene for ‘R’ and ‘G’ receptors (in X chromosome) whereas females have 2. Has nothing to do with amount of overlap.
Not necessarily. Eek, erase microlenses from any stock sensor and here are yours ISO 35.
Sony already had a camera with best color — A900. It didn’t sell well xD
Same old Bayer CFA with minimal improvements. Which kind of pictures would be possible with this ‘technology’ that are impossible without it?
and fourth type of receptors — rods xD
With D850 you have choice to make IQ somewhat better by using proper ISO setting. Is having choice better or worse?
Some old Sony CCDs had no analog gain at all, so yes, they were ISO-invariant, but is this good?
Looks like results are not normalized to area
Cutting down fps does little to cut costs. Better AF is due to new BSI sensor which is the most expensive piece in this camera.
He’s probably talking about these “0.03 sec AF” in marketing materials with “asterisk: with lens in wide angle position already focused on subject”, NOT real use-case
I think it’s possible to make an aftermarket rangefinder for E-mount with M39/M lenses.
I wonder if they could do this on aps-c sensor where you could have put a lens with corresponding small image circle (e.g. a C-mount one)
Nikon D3400 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm and 70-300mm Lenses
You Pay: $596.95
(the 70-300 lacks VR, though)
For aps-c sensor (with prime lens xD), they could have done a mp bump… but this is 1″ sensor. Are you sure these 1″ cameras need an increase in mp?
it’s sensor was smaller than aps-c, and the lens slower.
Entrance pupil at telephoto pales in comparison to the RX10M4. (without any ‘eq’ parts)
R1 = 71.5/4.8 = 14.9 mm
RX10M4 = 220/4 = 55 mm
R1 gets credit for being unorthodox though…
They needed for CaNikon and Leica add touchscreens in their flagship models to do the same. Much innovation.
A9 is not for wildlife, Barry confirmed xD
> is at least neutral between those who have left and right
it’s like saying “all people are equally poor under socialism”
In CCD, it is possible to shift content by 1 pixel (the problem is, bayer filter gets in the way).
And a mirror box and rangefinder just in case you want to try it too…
I’d bet there were some drawbacks (for imaging applications) that she didn’t tell.
E-mount lenses have typically short backfocus (often as short as 13 mm) so any practical teleconverter is ruled out.
I recall someone saying taking apart that Sony KW camera and discovering FLAT sensor inside. (well, it might be flat protective glass over a curved sensor, but I don’t know).
and this 16/2.8 was very bad decision… M43 had 20/1.7, Canon had 22/2, Samsung had 30/2 — much better!
E16 has very little distortion. But I’d prefer it to have lots but be sharper.
>You have an odd idea
Yes, I know that only approved by the Party groups are “minorities”, when not, they are freaks, trash and deplorables.
>has been covered by many specialist sites
Kind of… Most of them even missed the point that curvature has to be reproducible… Which introduces a lot of problems irrelevant if lens is fixed or interchangeable.
>Once you start amending the designs to produce
That’s BS. Suppose your favorite design has image curvature radius of -100. Would amending it to use some existing sensor, with, say -90 curvature be more difficult that for flat sensor?
In any way, a set of primes 24, 35, 50, and 85 designed for common curvature radius image would be a lot smaller than similar set of primes designed for flat sensor.
So basically you’re asking for almost A9 for lower price.
I had lengthy disscutions here a SAR about this.
AFAIK stacked memory doesn’t affect readout per se, it just provides intermediate storage.
I don’t think readout rate is a problem of AF.
Angular discrimination capability of OSPDAF pixels is the problem.
It is more difficult to make larger sensor with same readout speed (even if mp count the same)
There is speculation that A9 sensor being BSI and stacked, is super expensive, then Sony would have to pick something cheaper for A7M3
It takes a lot of space for (small) camera like A7. And A6000 is a crop camera which makes it easier to fit in higher fps shutter.
You can buy USB battery for $10-20 in closest retail, already charged. Is this really that critical?
Sounds silly. Did they say which Sony product featured Canon-made sensor?
However I’d be much pleased to know if it was true.
btw. you estimated back in 2006 that FF sensor costs 10x to produce compared to aps-c sensor. what do you think the ratio is now?
Follow Hi Lows – link.
The patent number (JP) is
Maybe if you took effort to read the patent, you’d have known.
Eeek, such camera already exists. It’s called A9.
The Hubble telescope is a lens with interchangeable cameras, not the reverse!
Eeek the mirror lens has much smaller aperture, even more if you factor in central obstruction.
Isn’t it just another SLR lens with elongated tube?
No, I’m lazy. This was only to illustrate that image sensors don’t have to be perfect.
I know that GNU GPL doesn’t forbid selling, but it also allows others to share or resell at lower price etc. etc. Examples I asked is about determining if applicant is ‘worthy’, not selling.
LEDs and photo sensors are *opposite* things.
I think that cramming 3 layers is too much. The middle layer gets sandwiched and noise increases for all three. 2 layers would have been perfect
No, they’re not using silicon absorption like foveon does.
He implies that 24-70 f/4 on FF produces similar DOF & SNR as 16-50/2.8 on aps-c (equivalent aperture concept).
I guess focal plane shutter (FF sized) won’t fit.
I’d like to have a camera with polarizer splitter where image from one lens gets split to two sensors xD
Well, and few people need FF sensor as well.
Even if they don’t need more resolution, they could like less prone to overheating camera, touchscreen, better AF / fps. Or joystick xD
Btw ‘100500’ idiom is unlikely to be understood by people who don’t speak Russian
You’d have to use A7S in crop mode for this. Sure it costs a lot for a crop camera, but low volume products are always pricey! And… thick pixels means none can be used for OSPDAF.
not even cross-type OSPDAF?
Of course, I did notice that the designs are for flat image (‘I’ on the figure). Why didn’t you mention it earlier in your response to carnevali? I was referring exclusively to your single statement.
How is teleconverter a value-add and not a kludge? It is inferior compared to using higher resolution sensor (unless TC is specially designed for the main lens). Changing field curvature can be done with less elements than a TC.
>If you want to place a bet
Of course not. I’d rather take a bet against A.Dodd about Sony A7III sensor though xD
>and other oddities against all common sense.
This means I’m a minority and you’re oppressing me, stop doing this.
People like staying in their outdated paradigms. Some even call cmos sensors ‘ccd’ (check ebay listings) because, well, it’s used to be ccd.
For EVF/CDAF they *have* to optimize sensor for faster readout, so having a lot of video-related stuff is inevitable. And few pieces of 1 mm thick chips for video compression which eat less space than 3.5 mm jack.
Not putting video => less people buying this model => no economy of scale => they have to raise price to get profit.
Voight 40/1.4 is quite compact.
patent claims are usually filed 1.5 years before they get published.
There are large outrigger canoes which can fit up to 50 men.
Maybe because Sony needs to sell that hyuge 24/1.8
Examples please? I remember cases when they ask a fee for sending, but it’s known and they accept everyone.
No. Bayer specifies regular pattern which all software is aware of and uses algorithms specially tailored for this. Dead pixels are deviation from this structure. Esp. bad if their locations are unknown to software.
I do not know if a pixel can detect frequency and if ever term ‘pixel’ would be appropriate for such sensor. Andrew Dodd’s point included that Sony cannot afford having dead pixels.
Why would one wish to adapt heavy lenses made for flat sensor when there are native small and sharp lenses which utilize its advantages? And, of course it’s possible to make an focal-reducer-like adapter — not good for Sony who have lots of short backfocus FE lenses, but not Nikon.
I still think about transpanting Canon 22/2 to E-mount xD
or a mini black hole?
there’s major gap between f/0.9 and f/1.4
Polynesians crosses Pacific long before Columbus but were unable to dominate Americas or even Australia.
BS. “Open” also has no NDA and no process to determine if ‘applicant’ is worthy.
Overstated? Wooden swords were STILL in use in Americas.
I think HIV would not existed in Africa if European didn’t came.
Nikon Ones in 2011 did 60 fps at full-res in an entry-level camera. Casio ZR200 did 30 fps at 16 mp. And now it is difficult for Sony do implement similar speeds in $30k camera….?
Lol those are like 60+ years old designs.
They work only for AF, for still shot they are dead. They could be used if RAW converters were more sophisticated and cameras wrote them in RAW file (instead of crudely interpolated values)
Electronic protocol, NOT the optics.
Well then why there isn’t a Raspberry Pi camera module with anything larger than 1/4″ and guys at NickonHacker reverse engineer working with IMX071 sensor? Well of course there is way that a company can order them somehow, but it’s not like smartphone modules which are available at aliexpress for almost everything.
No, it’s righteous aura which emanates from Barry… lenses are just tools…
These f-stops are usually heavily rounded, in reality difference between marketer’s 5.6 and honest 6.3 might be homeopatic.
Barry isn’t such person, he got consent from every animal he filmed!
It’s PITA to do reverse engineering. But if someone published an open source implementation (I think it exists for Canon) it would be much more probable.
Well, EU regulations are stricter on new equipment too! xD
A very ignorant comment, it’s Meyer-Gortilz who buys from KMZ and not the reverse (the Sominum is a rebranded Helios-40-2)
Have you ever thought EU regulations forbid this? They require much more seller’s responsibility than in USA
They need to sell more than one piece to make profit.
M42 cannot mount Canon EF lenses, Nikon F lenses, everything….. Defeats advantages of mirrorless.
Lol, A7S is already night vision xD
He also seems to imply that a BSI sensor has same exact topology, doping, voltage as FSI sensor with same pixel size, just with reversed and shaved one side off.
My claim, exactly, is that “a FF sensor is 10-20 more expensive to make than aps-c one” was correct about year 2005 or so, but it is NOW an urban myth.
Image sensors unlike RAM do not have to be perfect, as long as dead pixels don’t form clusters.
And you say nonsense like
>few if any of their customers will accept a sensor with significant “dead pixels”
there’s hundreds of thousands OSPDAF pixels — effectively dead pixels. I saw nobody complaining about RAW converters not being aware of these feature. Not only, that, Sony adds Star Eater.
Every time Nikon used Aptina, OV, Renesas to make a sensor they were infreior…
And how they would Sony get it cheap — by increasing yield. And the Andrew’s main point that over years, Sony did nothing to improve yield.
Nope. Canon’s 16-35 *has* to be retrofocus even in its telephoto position (allowable backfocus is about 37-38 mm), so this which where E-mount lens engineers have more advantage than with 24-70.
Nikon had very similar star eater issue, but it was fixed YEARS ago. That is why you don’t hear about it now.
Key word: can. Most reporters/wildlife shooters still strongly prefer having state of art AF. If there is no market for manual focus cameras then it’s little relevant for KMZ if it’s faster or not.
The very link says “However, a part of expenses related to distribution of the Basic Specifications will be charged to the applicant.”
It’s “free” only compared to what CaNikon do.
Stop this “E-mount is open” BS
These parts don’t include FF sensors.
ohhh… with Microsoft they would spy on their users
Yes, the Canon has cheaper lens . But why would Canon put an expensive BSI sensor into a cam which is so heavily stripped to reduce costs? Well, maybe because BSI isn’t expensive anymore. Textbooks are always lagging behind technology.
I have *never* made such claim, you’re using a strawman here. And still you don’t have any actual figures on what Sony sensor yields or costs are in fact are.
Your claims don’t pass sanity check. It’s a “miracle” but Sony is profitable. Why is Nikon asking Sony to make its best sensors then.
Sony A7 retails at about what Canon 300D retailed back in “2005-2007 or so”
The factory air is 35,000 times less diverse than typical city air. It can’t be stressed how much diversity is important nowadays. Keep a eye on them before they commit next Nanking.
I checked on bhphotovideo — dated rx100 with 1″ fsi sensor sells for $448 and more newer powershot g9x with 1″ bsi sensor sells for $399. now where again bsi sensors are more expensive?
Still not as abominable as using Roman numerals. RX100II, RX100III, RX100IV
I’m not saying that manufacturers made a mistake. If their customers have irrational prejudice against distortion (like many people love fake pentaprism humps), it makes sense to make such things.
Science is about numbers and “fundamentally expensive” is for liberal arts majors. It reminds asking people claiming E-mount was “open” to send a spec of it which they never did but continued to claim E-mount was open.
If this RX0 compared to A9 stacked sensor (with more MP) then it’s about 1/11 of its price. still not cheap.
I think there might be a market for cheap 1″ (even non-stacked ones) — i’d love to have such camera in my phone.
according to your logic, A3000 doesn’t matter because it’s a failed product in the market (like you said about Samsung NX1/NX500) — they don’t make a profit selling at this price.
does RX0 have full-neutronium shell of like?
RX100 does also have a fast zoom lens and and a EVF which seem to be a lot more complex than rugged construction.
Like the QX1 were…. oh wait. Knowing Sony, they can spoil everything. (whine whine)
why would an action cam need to be rectilinear, nobody’s going to shoot architecture with that thing. Agreed about pessimism on Sony’s protocols through.
also… why this rx0 is priced so high, almost as FF sony a7 if “muh yield is low”?
1″ sensor is only 1/7 of FF area and there isn’t a single 1″ cam for 1/7 of A7’s price.
No. it’s just it seems to somewhat expensive for $700 1″ camera to have f/4 prime.
no, but they could have put a f/2 prime easily.
you forgot QX30 xD
A9 sensor isn’t just BSI, it’s stacked BSI. And area still 2.3x greater.
Probably yes, in Sony’s “open” (according to idiots) system Sony determines which lenses others can and can not produce.
He was speaking about f/1.4 lenses, 1.8 is much closer to 2.0
well don’t you think manufacturer can tweak design to account for thicker cover glass? The differences needed are very minor.
because Samyang do not have fairy dust that Zeiss put in their lenses?
no, the MF version is totally different inside.
Дарвин одобряет :3
if costs of sensors will come down. even flat FF sensors are expensive enough for now, and curved will cost even more.
Many pros buy more camera bodies to put a lens to each and avoid changing lenses and dust.
btw, “difficult” here means it difficult to to zoom lens for curved sensor if you require reduction in size (as seen in primes).
dxomark and photonstophotos use diffirent criteria: the former uses “engineering DR” and the latter uses “photographic DR”
Well, maybe big pixels of D5 are more resistant to cosmic rays… it’s not an issue as sea level, but each time you take long flight you get a bunch of new dead pixels.
Those RAWs were processed with some “zero” settings. (btw dxomark confirms a7s is superior in some ways). if processed with “optimal” settings for each camera, difference would be much smaller.
Don’t use anything that uses AC and transistors: Tesla and Shockley were racists. So you can avoid guilt by association.
(i don’t have any MF cameras)
photolithography often uses multiple steps so it sometimes produces non-uniformity artifacts, but it still uses contiguous wires, unlike separate sensors butted together.
I’m aware of it but never heard it used in consumer photography (versus medicine, science, military etc.)
Just because Nikon has it doesn’t mean others can buy it.
why then it’d be A7R3 and not A9R?
I want polarizer in-body. Cause I’m sick of of screw mounted filters xD For MFT or 1″ camera you could have a lot of small filters without making body significantly larger.
6) some medicine against megalomania
heck why. my casio from 2011 could do 30 fps (albeit it had 16 mp).
I wonder if there’s a fee/deal in their contract that allows Nikon to claim they have designed the sensor.
Yes I know this, but this doesn’t stop me from wishing to see what this sensors sees. btw…. those aren’t bayer pixels but complete rgb so it’s about 360k bayer pixels?
I found some estimates from 2006 saying that a FF sensor costs about 10x to make as aps-c sensor. But that’s 11 years ago. Since today’s A7 retails for about same as EOS 300D then… something changed.
The proper reference point here is not A7RM2 but Nikon D810.
You noted than 42mp FF sensor still has larger pixel than A6300 (which is FSI)
>Repeat after me:
What are you going to prove with this?
Get just A9 instead xD
They existed, but they has substandard SNR, much worse per-area than contemporary FF sensors.
Yes, they should, and they should too put mirror back. :3
Most users will be more limited by their creative skills anyway, not battery (and it can work from USB power, anyway)
Really? D500 sensor is FSI and has lousy min iso DR. And not a Sony one. It if was the same sensor, D500 would have had blazing fast fps
seems BS to me. It’s A7RM2 that has “teeenyyy” battery. D810/D850 have large battery enough.
Congrats Andrew Dodd with wrong prediction.
BSI sensor, not stacked, no increase in price.
I don’t. Using naked google chrome with no blockers.
with dualRaw you have more postprocessing options.
I want to see the output of 180k exposure sensor. That’s so many pixels so it makes usable image on its own xD
that’s Australian, not USD
How can it shoot 16:9 video from 3:2 sensor without cropping??
Well, blame those who are building EUSSR. Nikon or their partners have nothing to do with it.
Eek, people outside 1st world have difficulty to afford such camera and you complain about this small increase in taxes.
I wonder when they cram digital signatures on the sensor so one can prove photo wasn’t shopped.
That’s a culture, not a race.
They were Somalian refugees working in Sweden for Sony, right? xD
Still I don’t see how this would work.
And probably the new one has better coatings (if the old one even had any)
But they are valued for their rarity only.
it will be available in mutiple mounts. FE version just same with longer tube
Leica M9 doesn’t.
Shorter, in which mount? After you add adapter it’s no longer. (p.s.: being shorter)
Yeah, but the Biotar 58 is surely one.
remember TechArt AF adaptor can turn any lens into AF.
Someone suggested that it is actually a money laundering scheme.
Looks like you confuse CFA (means ‘color filter array’) and cover glass.
My question was about MLK only.
You can replace cover glass yourself (or send to Kolarivision). Or there’s another method which involved placing very weak positive lens (about 1-2 diopter) in front of the lens
Leica’s CFA in M9 is very thin (probably to make impact of moire smaller on AA-less sensor)
If you want really affordable, hope for rangefinder attachment for Sonys. Short FL allows to cram rangefinder coupling in.
To some degree, yes, but why would they subsidize digicams? They do only stuff related to military.
Anyways, electronics will be (if ever) made is SE Asia.
BTW there is Tesla Motors in USA is heavily subsidized too xD
It appears to be so, but you can’t judge person on a single quote.
Also, the quote says “some day”, and they promised AA will be a temporary measure
No way. US is busy fighting Islamophobia, transphobia and crimethink.
if you want it to be cheaper, it makes more sense for a CMOS sensor *and* video.
Did MLK oppose affirmative action?
E 16/2.8 has no distortion but corners are never sharp. It’s better to have distortion but sharp corners.
They also need a better kit lens xD
and too, you can speculate Sony will add Dual Pixel (when Canon licenses it or patent expires) and makes OSPDAF a lot better
BS. 16 mm f/1.4 can have front element as small as 16/1.4 = 11 mm. There are such “special” lenses for peeking in holes where aperture is located near 1st element of even before it. Of course this design is not used in conventional lenses because aperture in the middle provides better aberration control for same dimensional constrainst.
As for more realistic example, Canon FD 24/2 has front filter thread 52 mm. Slap a 0.66x reducer to the end of it — it becames a 16/1.4 and slightly longer than Zony 55/1.8.
Please stop pretending you answered the question.
Just 20 years ago it was “fundamental” that CMOS image sensors utterly inferior to CCD, and every textbook mentioned it, but it is no more.
The question again: how much would cost 30 pcs of 1/2.3″ sensors vs one full-frame? If making FF sensors is difficult, why nobody tiles 6×6 or 18×12 pieces for a FF sensor?
Engineering is about numbers.
To be fair, refresh rate isn’t same as EVF lag.
Sony don’t have to ship their items into every location of the world, they are not a charity. There is more problem with Russian goverment, we need to change it so not only prices go down, but more lenses will be produced in Russia.
For $5 you can’t even buy a broken E-mount camera for parts xD
I repeat the question: how much would 30 pcs of 1/2.3″ sensor cost vs. one FF one?
not it’s not. With film you have to pay for each click.
It’s still 9000% better than buying tobacco or alcohol.
this list contract vs. frequency, while photographers used to see MTF charts which list contrast vs field position.
btw the lens does compensates for field curvature, at 75 mm (less than twice the image diagonal) absence of comp for curvature would be terrible.
Nope. Nope. The axes are different.
Making focus closer don’t require shorter FL.
it’s only certain focusing schemes that would benefit from shorter FL (such as where negative rear group moves posterior for close focus).
Larger sensors don’t have better QE xD
And there’s a lot cameraphones now with 1/2.3″ sensor of even larger
30 years old lens (made for other camera with other frame size) and 6 years old camera vs. modern camera + modern lens specifically designed for this camera.
A stitched panorama from small sensor beats single frame from large sensor easily.
look at the link
Nokia 808 has more resolution than 5DM3 and beats Oly E-PL2 easily.
I’m keeping asking because I wish to learn. But every of your “answers” in an insult.
I repeat the question how much would 30 pcs of 1/2.3″ sensors cost vs. one FF?
sometimes cameraphone with f/2.2 prime will make better picture than compact camera with f/3.5 lens.
hello, hello! EU doesn’t have 1st amendment.
MUH FEELINGS. the only thing people care these days.
how so you measure ‘performance’, is this about making client willing to pay when they see a photographer?
Oic you upvoted “big sensors are expensive” comment which retells what has became an urban myth.
So, a question: how much making costs of one FF sensor against 30 pieces (for equivalent area) of 1/2.3″ sensors?
A “pro” lens such as 70-200/2.8 has max entrance pupil ~ 70 mm. Physics doesn’t limit lens length, only width.
Cool, I was looking for something to make such style (Kazuki Takamatsu) art: http://wevux.com/wp-content… automatically.
Had some way? Nay. No. Nada.
We can be glad they even allow to use non-Sony lenses on their cameras.
Even if true, it only applies to sensors and not lenses.
I see such figures have been posted over all previous 15 years. There indeed was major difficulty in making FF sensors but I think it has been solved by now. And.
Smaller sensors *have* do be manufactured with smaller feature size (to keep same mp count and QE)
I read that there are astronomy cameras where huge sensor is assembled from mosaic of smaller sensors. Did they use 1/2.3″ sensors for mosaic because it’s cheaper? No, they used someting like 36×36.
And what about power usage? Would 30 1/2.3″ sensors use as much power as FF one?
I love computational photography but I don’t see this happen.
They already killed most of cheaper cameras.
and having two good primes (28 mm and 80 mm eq) is better than having one bad 3x zoom.
it started with NEX-3/5 about 270 grams. Now A6500 weights 453 grams, more than 1.5x, comparable to Canon 100D
raw for sake of having raw? btw, some cameraphones have it.
I don’t see how multiple small sensors and lenses of equivalent area will be cheaper than a FF one.
Or arrogant enthusiasts made it die, because even 400 g camera is so teeeeny-teeeeny
There’s already too much in common in a6300 & a5100.
Who cares, lol. They’re profitable! Now what do you think of Justin Bieber and Beyonce?
Sony was bashed for having large sample variation, when user asked to exchange a decentered lens and they did, for another decentered one.
Buying from “big boys” isn’t a magic bullet too.
These “all” 16-50/2.8 lenses are for DSLRs with backfocus disproportionately long relative to frame size (the frame is smaller but backfocus kept same as for full-frame SLR). There is only a single example from MILC (the Fuji) and it has more zoom range.
It can be smaller. SAL1650 on its own larger than some FF 24-70/2.8 because it’s more retrofocus. What if you simple small FF 24-70/2.8 and downscale it 1.55x, an option that SAL1650 designers did not have?
Haven’t two noticed than no1. no2. CaNikon don’t have much APS-C lenses either? xD
Wait, is $600 for Fuji’s 50/2 a fraction of cost of FE system?
Yes, but they’d need better kit lens anyway.
A6500 is not 300g, but more like 453g. 16-50/2.8 doesn’t have to be larger than 16-70/4
well if one buys lens from garage sales for $20, they don’t worry about MTF, but for $400…
why? As if there were no overpriced lenses without Kickstarter.
I removed google as my default search engine about 3 months ago.
why? e.g. movable sensor. The complexity is in the lens mount, E and A were not designed with this in mind.
Ah, but would you like to spend in building such society and sheltering refugees from leftism? xD
It’s a belief. Religion.
I think mount for curved sensor will use flange concentric to sensor and not flat xD
They should have added 1-wire protocol for attaching little things. xD
he’s addicted, so am I
IIRC Sony was the third brand in DSLR for a long time
what did they do wrong (besides late introduction of FF digital camera?)
they already have “long exposure NR”: on/off.
isn’t first a7r supposed to lose much of efficiency at f/1.4?
Anything you will save on adapter will be added to the lens barrel. And if you would want to put the lens on Sony FF camera, the M mount (it’s narrow) will add vignetting
Sensor outputs digital data. For RAM/CPU original pixel size is irrelevant.
The Oly is much superior lens and was designed for thick MFT 4 mm cover glass, the Biotar remake probably for 1 mm, no comparison here
No reason for M-mount.
You can buy it in CaNikon mount and have option to use a focal reducer too, or tilt adapter.
Oh. Don’t they have that magical fairy dust that Zeiss have?
Yeah, but this is aftermarket. Designed for be operated by hand, it’s not that convenient.
and z-shift and tilt are not here.
A9 is as big as crop DSLR. and more than earlier film SLRs.
> Or the blackout-free EVF.
only pretty recent. all earlier ML had much worse blackout than even 1980s SLRs.
Yes…. But..MILC is just a DSLR with mirror shaved off. And most of R&D goes into compensating for what was lost with it.
We don’t have in-body interchangable filters, sensor tilt or Z-shift which would make a real advantage for mirrorless design. They have BSI (which helps make lenses smaller) now but still no small lenses.
the only good thing that with IBIS manual focusing on longer lenses is easier.
(heh and this “180 flip screens are for soccer moms” BS… )
Heh but this is not passed to customer, and CaNikon enjoy economies of scale.
No, they need to 20 fps to pick Trump’s worst facial expressions xD
>form factor doomed
Olympus, Panasonic and Sony, and Fuji, all have mirrorless cameras with fake pentaprism.
Eeek, obesity epidemic
most of today’s ‘Sonnars’ have no common with old design (except 50/1.5 ZM), they just use name because it’s cool
the patent has, but trademark has not. p.s. disregard this
You might consider Helios 40-2 — it’s almost the same shit (85 f/1.5) exists in EF,F,M42 mount.
Because Meyer Optik pays them for providing a trademark?
canon 200-400 with TC 1.4x sharper than without?
what do you mean?
CPL mounted close to sensor doesn’t need to be have as good quality as the front-mounted one.
Why you think it won’t accept TC? It seems you can stack native Canon TC on this adapter.
the point those lenses can be used on almost any camera body; canon or sony. It’s not like you would lose anything like using PDAF lens on a CDAF camera. Moreover, you can use these old 1959 lenses on a Sony camera and have AF & IBIS xD which none Nikon bodies can do.
FT has enough room for such filter to slide out when you don’t need it xD
You have none. Magnar obviously meant EVF-only system like modern SLT A-mount: EVF with old mount. BTW Sony is more conservative than Nikon in that even lower end bodies (A58, A68) have screwdriver whereas only higher end Nikons have it.
These should be builtin-in in camera body. That’s where FT has an advantage over larger sensors
1959 lenses have no AF and are irrelevant
what is they replace plain matte screen with AMOLED imager? xD
video. playback of stills when back LCD is blinded.
maybe night vision in dark xD
I’m not saying bigger pixels. I mean pixels with different collection area which saturate at different levels. (like Fuji’s S5)
>Changing sensors would make the camera very expensive,
Why? How changing sensor that different from changing lenses? Just 20 years ago most people used interchangeable sensor cameras — 35 mm film was the sensor.
There was a problem with CCD sensors that they were vulnerable to static discharges but almost nobody uses CCD these days.
on the other side, the kit lens doesn’t have f4 at f=50 at all xD
name at least one AF E-mount lens faster than f1.4… for under $200 preferably xD
a cheap 50/3.5 Industar shows very visible improvement when using Pentax Q (on the lft) as a model of high mp sensor.
Picture on the right is from nex-5n and has been upscaled to make output same size
DXO tests will show >60 mp when there are sensors more than 60 mp. (like 80-100 range).
I’d still wish to have a interchangeable sensor camera with GS sensor module even if low DR. and it’s possible to use different sized pixels for more DR rather than large FWC.
Sony A9’s 1/150 is close to focal plane shutter of 1/300 but very far from leaf shutter 1/4000
How many? Sony sensors have one ADC per each column, isn’t that enough?
well since Sony made stacked sensor in A9, it seems we’re almost there
I’m trying to make you think.
The chain is as strong as its weakest link, and improving ADC is the signal from the pixel doesn’t have 16 bits is a waste.
Those 44×33 CMOS sensors have larger pixels than A7R2. Some older sensors didn’t even have true 16 bits, it was only for marketing purposes.
If pixels are extremely small, then one can go with 1 bit (if a photon has hit the pixel, or not).
Sure. But it doesn’t mean that adding 2 bits will improve anything.
A7R2 is BSI and catches light better, thefore pixel well fills faster. However, readout from this well is worse than D810.
Sure, better at high ISO… where DR is limited by readout noise, not ADC.
ahhh stops this “16 bit raw”. Sony A7R2 has worse DR than Nikon D810 despite having same 14 bits. Having 2 more bits to carry noise won’t make any better.
Nope. You’d need 1000 mp camera + lens “resolving” 1000 mp. BTW it’s easy to design lens which has just enough resolution to crop, but only in center.
> 50mp camera that resolves better than another camera with 100mp
How? Applying magic dust on it?
>RESOLVING POWER without putting a higher demand on the lenses
Pixel shift “demands” from lenses even more than “high mp” does. If anything, you need sharpening for pixel shift image to match output from native high mp sensor.
Pixel shift is more like poor’s man high MP count.
If it doesn’t stack macros then it’s irrevelant if its AF or not xD
J-plat pla doesn’t allow linking, this is intentional.
So links so European Patent Office are preferred. or google.
And round format is even better, but not efficient cost-wise so most people will have to at least try to compose right
Fuji Instax sells well, and it is medium format! even larger than teeeeny 6×45
But then, sensor curvature is very modest…
Cameras don’t have backfocus, lenses do. FF DSLRs typically require BF>37 mm to avoid hitting mirror, crop about >32mm, but still all Nikon DX lenses have BF not shorter than FF lenses
You don’t have always to make 100 mp files with 100 mp camera. Just as having f/1.4 lens doesn’t obliges you to shoot at f/1.4.
And I want more pixels just every time I see a bird xD
Square isn’t good, they used it in film cameras just because rotation was complicated. For EVF-digital system you can freely rotate sensor. No need to mimic old limitations.
For telephotos curved sensor doesn’t make major weight reduction. For telephotos better refractive materials and/or diffractive optics does benefit.
In case of smartphone sensors, it’s more Sony needing customers than the reverse.
>Smart phone is the only possible way
I have M12 mount 16 f/1.2 and it’s pretty small xD
yup, tests by illiterate users “i feel it” are surely better.
It’s not just about making a camera, but making with acceptable specs at acceptable manufacturing cost. Curved sensors would require new tooling which not yet established. Lenses for curved sensors can be made on exact same present-day tooling.
I’d think they would use flange which is concentric to image sensor rather than flat, so any fiddle wouldn’t make tilt effect
A lens like 50/1.2 might became smaller by 2-3 times xD
“Impossible” what a load of BS. Sony has already patented a zoom lens for curved lenses (for RX100-like camera). The crux is that *the benefit* of curving sensor is quite small for zooms, because typical zoom has positive and negative elements which cancel out curvature.
They *will* still have to correct for field curvature even
it is your answer what is not needed. Even more people don’t need an A7 because DSLR works well for them.
maybe because Sony is electronics giant and Olympus is camera maker? Oh, wait… o.o
Still no touchscreen xD
It adds curvature if exit pupil is close to sensor (like in rangefinder wideangles). Telescopes have quite remote exit pupil and therefore the effect is negnigible. Frontside filters must has large diameter, thicker (so they wouldn’t bend) and made for much higher tolerancies. They don’t introduce aberrations if they’re flat, but they are not perfectly flat. Suppose you’re using a front mounted filter with 1000 mm lens vs. rear filter which is 13 mm from image plane. Therefore spherical aberration due to non-flatness added by front-mounted filter would be (1000/13)^2 = 6000 times more in front-mounted filter. Even 200 mm lens image quality might suffer from cheap flat filter
For SOME situations EVF in an advantage. For others its just increased power consumption.
Stepper motor decelerates as mirror travels towards its destination. If its increases why Canon puts it in later models and they have less shake than predecessors?
Doesn’t EF-M mount have identical protocol to EF?
Maybe just Sigma doesn’t feel need to make lenses in EF-M, like they don’t release some lenses in A mount despite A mount is quite familiar for them.
it’s not open source, it’s under NDA. conditions of access are itself under NDA. there are idiots who keep repeating that “e-mount is open source” crap all over and over again.
unlikely. Canikon have so few aps-c lenses, they want you to switch to FF.
Dual pixel or not, it’s still OSPDAF and its pixels are teeeeeennyyy. Haven’t you posted many comments explaining that OSPDAF is always worse than separarte AF sensor?
vibration is effectively removed by changing to stepper motor from spring, wider AF coverage doesn’t require removing mirror (if anything its MILCs are troubled with handling different exit pupil locations), and EVF is rarely an advantage unless you’re shooting in IR of BW.
A9 is cheaper than D5 but the lenses are more expensive, and cost of ownership = buy price minus resale price
e.g. US2010073776 by Fujinon corp is a patent for Hasselblad 35-90 mm f/ 4-5.6 HCD; but it was it past, not sure who designed new Hassy MILC.
p.s. did you mean Sonys rebranded by Hassy (e.g. Lunar etc.)
GH5 is so large so it could have mirror as well. A6500, cant.
an optical element in such proximity to sensor doesn’t have to as good precision as those which go in front of lens. and unlike front mounted filters, the reflections would not be in focus, it’s a win-win situation.
you can have GRADIENT ND filters like this, field flatteners, field curveners, etc etc. which you cannot in DSLR (between mirror and lens)
e-mount has about ~4 mm spare distance between shutter and rear of the lens. So most, maybe all, of native e-mount lenses will work.
ok, I’m not saying Cosina has to hold patents for this, but who does?
“the drawings do not matter. even if zeiss buys designs they add their magic dust and quality control” xD
Hasseblad buys from Fujifilm.
oh, sorry probably I confused it with 25/2 Batis xD
anyway it was listed here:
GREAT! this is where MILC has advantages over DSLR lol
It’s a trademark not a company. And I haven’t seen any patents.
if anything, cooperation between Sony and Tamron is much closer. Tamron E 18-200 and Sony E18-200LE are made on the same factory and sometimes get wrong badges attached to them.
which Japanese makes other ‘Zeiss’ lenses?
It’s kinda 1.5 years old news. It’s just the same patent application we already seen got approved and published in US patent office.
oh, I forgot about that fake pentaprism. I don’t want to use “throw mirror out” for the sake of throwing mirror out camera anyway.
by area. if you do 1/4 crop from a m43 sensor you’re using only 1/16 of its area.
Teleconverters are the antithesis or mirrorless EVF system.
>However, it isn’t applicable because I was just talking about prime lenses.
weird.Too much essentialism in your words. Isn’t 12-24/4 sharp enough at 12 mm? Lensflare? Too big? Too expensive? etc. etc. there must be some reason to pick a prime other than “just being a prime”
compare Sony FE 50/1.8 to Loxia 50/2. Does AF take much space?
if this is by 12 year old, this guy is probably a gifted one
what’s wrong with FE 12-24/4?
Smartphone market is by orders of magnitude larger and more competitive. Smartphones don’t have large lenses collections.
Olympus has ‘keystone compensation’ working in liveview so one can compose with it. There is no real reason why it can’t be there in other (50/42 mp cameras)
there are lots of lensless shift adapters for m43 already….)
17mm vs 35mm ????
Having aps-c in m43 could be a selling point in its own xD There’s already JVC super35 camera in m43 mount. Even aps-h can fit.
Probably not the same sensor. D810 has EFCS and lower ISO than A7r sensor.
The Ф-like crossed circle mark shows position of focal plane in Sony camera. They could move that back around 2 cm
Nikon has good OSPDAF in NIkon 1 back in 2011 when Sony had no OSPDAF at all. Maybe Nikon doesn’t want to compromise IQ in DSLRs by adding OSPDAF to them.
A99 mark 2 Not the mark 1 which is 5 years old.
It took Sony to see Leicas and Canon touchscreen in a FF camera to add one in theirs…
Pentax Q can tether?????
isn’t the flipping mirror more like 80-70 years old?
>(the Sigma SD Quatro) and does it sell very well?
Did Sigma’s DSLRs sell well? I never have seen them “in the wild”. However, I agree Sigma MILC would have done better with other (preferably m43) mount.
>with old DSLR mount will be very thick
sure… but… Sony A9 is quite thick anyway, as large as old film SLRs.
>Canon might want to use the M mount
M-mount is a bad thing, quite narrow for a full-frame.
Canon EF mount has a wide throat and they can make “invasive” lenses if they want to, and EF is fully electronic.
>It is NOT TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE
if is not possible to fit FF in E-mount
E-mount cannot have IBIS
keep up that crap coming….. you can’t prove it.
b) subject to change in future. There is no “law of physics” which prevents OSPDAF from handling these lenses well.
Also there is an option to move the sensor
Nikon squeezed ‘better’ because readout speed (for liveview) for DSLR wasn’t that important, not because of some fairy dust they add to Sony sensor. Plus, maybe higher voltage for D810 sensor
Believe? Any proofs? xD
This camera is 4x zoom.
btw is there a single modern camera with lens corrected for underwater use?
they are NOT needed. Vinyl discs are sold too but nobody actually needs them.
it was 3 years old and I thought it got crack in glass, otherwise I’d not do this. Don’t see any bravery in here.
happened with me once, I thought glass was broken and decided to convert the camera to IR, then I found it was dust.
Why didn’t they went Sigma way of putting IR cut off filter between mirror and bayonet?
Nikon p900 lens maxes out as 357 (real) mm, f/5.6
there is indeed such problem. symmetric wideangles (from rangefinders) really do produce vignetting and colorshift when used on digital sensors. lenses for digital are usually non-symmetric.
manufacturers sometimes publish specs and this value is called ‘angular response’
larger pixels, or BSI pixels, or simply newer pixels have better angular response.
Such things should go with a diagonal mirror so
Because Germany must support rapefugees, Spain, Greece xD
if has the benefit over bayer that each row and each column has all three filters, which might be advantageous for noise suppression (e.g. banding noise) and line-skipping modes.
why so much prejudice against plastic? for small things where thermal expansion is not an issue it is actually better. Have you checked that E 20 doesn’t have plastic lens elements too?
Look at MS-Optical Apoqualia-g 28mm f2 xD (albeit this costs more)
video is lossy compressed. unless you’re shooting raw video, camera’s electonic IS can do better. And many people would prefer having it done without additional PP.
well… how much sensor area regular video crops out? 4:3 video (640×480) on my pentax Q is terrible cropped despite being native aspect ratio of the sensor.
yeah, that was i thinking of, but IBIS probably too.
a9 electronic readout time is 1/150, only marginally slower than mechanic x-sync of first a7r and nearly as fast as those of a6500 (1/160). Can’t a7r and a6500 users use flash?
It’s a bit large for bodycap lens and does not have builtin-lens cap
Nah, I used a Rekam camera with crop 10 sensor and f/3.2 lens and A4 sheet was quite blurry if focus was set to infinity. (it had 2 focus settings)
f4 would be four-thirds equivalent f2 or for smartphone with 1/2.7″ it’d be f/0.55 xD
I think it’s surely slower than f/5.6, the front element is obviously negative.
Those monster lenses at 3x price of the camera might have their own AF system as well xD
unfortunately A6500 goesn’t give FF lenses their native FOV
IBIS requires space. Focal plane shutter too. They’d have to ditch something to keep it small.
Ahhh these strap ears sticking out. Not what you would like for smallest camera. Also prevents you from putting it on flat surface in portrait orientation.
looks like you’re confusing lens distortion with “perspective distortion”. 28 mm is wide FOV, and it just that. You might want to add some barrel distortion to reduce face stretching on the sides.
By the same logic, you could say that f/7.5 vs f/6.3 is similarly negligible difference. But somehow I think you won’t xD
You are referring to Dual Pixel AF. Since 5DM4 Canon added option to use this tech not only for AF, but for regular stills too, thus, like doubling pixel count and giving more PP capabilities (you can even reduce lens aberrations and lens flare!)
found this: http://www.estiasis.com/tot…
looks very similar, indeed fz 200/300 lens
I’d rather prefer camera with two: 50-400 and 17-50 lenses which can make stereo when both set at 50 mm xD
20 mm (equivalent) / 4.6 mm (physical) = 4.3 crop-factor => 1/1.6″ sensor
why not 14-200? xD
Andrea why you won’t share publication number with us?
btw there WAS 24x zoom at f/2.8 (FZ-200)
EF’s 44 mm of flange distance are enough to fit an entire lens. In past some 135 compacts had even like 4x zooms that long.
Sony had an obstacle or poor angular response (of non-BSI sensors) and lack of PDAF to make smaller lenses.
eeek, a chunk of silicon which just “captures light” is a very complex and expensive device
then they would complain about not having 10 (or 12) bit, 4:2:2, something etc etc.
I thought it allows to mount either Canon, Nikon and someone’s else lenses to E mount xD
ah, still good but lacks tilt xD
Nah, virtually alll achromats have focus in green closer than either blue and red/IR. You’ll have you pick exotic glass if you need to focus IR closer. You have too thick IR filter put on top of sensor of your camera; this is equivalent of decreasing flange focal distance
which wavelength is this? o.o
maybe it’s rather due to thick IR filter you use
why would anyone need to put a strongly retrofocus fisheye on macro rings…
what is working distance for fisheye marco? o.o
completely unrelated issue.
You’re comparing one lens on 42 mp fullframe vs other on 24 mp aps-c and a lousy one — e.g. dxomark sharpness score is usually higher on a5000 & a3000 than a6000.
proper comparison: e.g.
where did I see — lensrentals, photozone.
>and Kenko Pro 300 teleconverter
attach focal reducer, and then a teleconverter… Nice. Because, you never know…
>Seem to be going quite hard on the monochrome sensors lately.
sorry I’m not English native, what does that mean? Sony putting much effort in making monochrome sensors?
Everywhere I seen measurements 50FE is even worse than Canon’s 6-element EF 50/1.8 which has no aspherics at all o.o weird.
Well, i;’d be excited if they started selling it to everyone including hobbyists xD
Fuji x100 has a prime with rather modest 35 mm FOV. And its entrance pupil is very close to its front, thus making it easier.
Nah, this is probably sensor from Mk 2.
(it takes a while for them to begin to sell yesterday’s cutting edge sensors to everyone)
Global reset here is just a EFCS counterpart for leaf shutter.
why didn’t the dog destroy LCD?
And at that point interchangleable lenses are much better.
have you ever seen any tele adapter for 18-50 zoom lens?
why stop at f/1.2?
well what if this 6DM2 would not have dpaf due to cost reduction savings, maybe sensors with dpaf more difficult to manufacture?
26 mp sensor with dual raw looks to be better than 24 mp without one.
I’d want to buy 40-150 to use on my Sony camera aaaah
Sure, dust can still enter inside, but the option still has some effect and protects from fingerprints and scratches too (lol)
On the other side, Sony’s ultrasonic dust removal having very low efficacy didn’t prevent them from including it.
option? you mean option? it’s a Sony :p
The simplest way is to use LENR. camera takes dark frame with shutter closed, this way works on almost every camera.
Well, I’d need to get 22mp+ camera first, I’m still using a 16 mp one xD
Sure it’s bad in 50-300 range, but e.g. 16-50/2.8 does not have such focal lengths at all
so? does it involve modding? it decreases resale value.
It doesn’t need to be as sharp as prime, it competes with 18-200, 55-250 and the likes
are you sure A-mount cameras can mount nikon F lenses?
Just nitpicking. A9 is not a SLR. And Ursa is a crop camera and can’t mount as many lenses either.
Leicas are fashion accessories with bonus photo capability. F/2.8 zoom has more cost/size than a simple one
since forever: nex-7 doesn’t have touchscreen, but cheaper 5n does.
well… Canon has several times more users than Sony, it helps.
Oops, sorry xD But does DXO consider color noise (which dpreview raw actually displays)
Look into any patents, which specify real f-stops and not marketed ones.
Or e.g. dxo results for panasonic 14-150 which is listed at having real FL at tele=140
None of Sony’s pancakes are unit focus. And you’re forgetting that whole unit for 27/2 would be a fraction of weight of 50/1.8, and needs to move by less distance.
when will we have filters to make our aps-c photos look like 645? xD
isn’t it like DXO measures only green channel?
And Nikon’s top reporter cams have little overlap in their color channels to avoid amplification of color noise when applying color conversion matrix.
Note that of course, IRL these cams should use different NR settings.
well, still could probably mean the Canon has better FWC
Not necessarily. And modern ILCE have PDAF so it isn’t major problem as it was with early ones.
kind of… but there’s no FF analogue for collapsible 14-42 and small 45/1.8
some decidated af points are vertical only, they are supposed to be supplemented by horizontoal ospdaf
what do you mean? 500/8 has AF restrictions? sorry i don’t know
I’d like to see you shooting BIF with that xD
what about 16-50/2.8 without which, as every pro will assure you, camera is useless? xD
even if there are FF lenses with “proper” FL, aps-c only lenses could be smaller and cheaper (except telephotos)
pancake 27/2 xD
no, marketed focal distances and f-stops are almost always rounded values
well, it’s like ILCE cameras participate in obesity epidemics too. The first A7 were somewhat “small”. Sony has design of FF camera in 5N-like body (now they can throw out focal plane shutter).
this ‘app’ is supposed to be called ‘raw image format’….
this setting is supposed to affect only jpeg files.
lol it has nothing to do with IR filter; it is spatial median filtering.
I guess Sony would be reluctant to provide cameras for drones because of privacy fears even if this wasn’t DPRK.
lolwhat? Would Sony even consider an order of less than 1,000 units?
Sensors that Sony sell to “everyone” are a generation or two behind.
They used A-mount cameras instead of E-mount because E-mount cameras were designed to be toys, and that’s am saying while being mirrorless fanboy. QX1 could be a perfect drone cam but it doesn’t have wired control etc etc.
It’s much more interesting to read than links to videos “hey if you turn on Clear Image Zoom you get more magnification in macro”
DPRK removed all references to communism from their constitution, years ago.
If anything it looks more like absolute monarchy than anything else.
That’s am not defending communist ideology which doesn’t work.
The fact itself has Sony Semiconductor “holds back” best sensors for Sony Imaging makes the entire point “separate” moot. Companies often do such things to e.g. evade taxes and other reasons unrelated to product itself. Sure, there is perceived value, but there is manufacturing costs too.
Sigma 30/2.8 is longer and heavier than this 35/2.8 despite being a crop lens not FF xD
There’s Loxia 35/2 lol which they can make clone of xD
NX 30/2 is a unit focusing lens which makes it slow, especially considering their early cameras had no PDAF. Otherwise I agree with you.
It’s possible to make NX-E adapter, what do you think about it?
Well, most of “f/2.8” primes are actually slower, more like f/2.9 or f/2.95. Does it apply to them? xD
but this is an APS (film) 26-52 mm lens, does it cover FF?
I don’t know answers, and that’s why i am asking. However you don’t have time to answer them but you have time to write insults and answer other questions.
I didn’t even knew 10 nm process didn’t even enter mainstream.
Why is 2.33″ “extremely high density”? They used to be FSI for years. I remember discussions years ago “yes, 1/2.3″ does benefit from BSI, but 1/1.7″ not. Later then: 1/1.7″ does benefit from BSI but 1” does not.
Samsung did not sell well because of prejudice “samsung makes phones and vacuum cleaners”.
What do you mean by “high price”? Illuminating Resource writes:
>The Samsung NX500 went on sale in March 2015 for the rather affordable price of US$799.99 with the 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS Power Zoom lens.
If the sensor was expensive to make, like with Sigma SD1 they would put higher price.
Canon is the market leader despite inferior sensors and Leica is profitable with vastly backward sensors sold at high prices.
A6300 sensor is also 2.3x smaller than A7RM2 which would overheat is made as A6300, resulting in slow fps and/or cameras overheating resulting in
FF is more expensive, stacked or not.
isn’t it like global shutter decreases DR rather than increasing cost?
AF operates on small region of interest, so fast readout isn’t necessary.
you’re forgetting A99M2 has dedicated AF unit *plus* OSPDAF
What is the reason to remove mirror is the resulting camera looks and acts exactly like dslr? Live histogram in viewfinder? You don’t really need to remove mirror to have this.
Oh, a white male problem
and more important, E-shutter in just 1/150 s. Fast enough so they can go away with focal plane shutter at all and save size/cost
If it’s same sensor as A9 how would they keep price low enough? Some people say BSI stacked sensor is very expensive to make.
Put a Nikon sticker on it?
Why can’t they give an option for user to manually restore any previous version?
but, using powerbank itself might reduce heat generation, so you should have compared internal recoding + usb powerbank too.
Only one color, no diversity. Black camera privilege must be abolished.
I was joking! All Sony cameras grew in size. They should leave at least some small in lineup. Back in film times, we had to change roll each 36 shots, now a battery — even for each 3 hours, still good. (and you can plug pwoer input via USB)
A9 battery is still too small. Should be, like, 2.5x times bigger.
1) No interchangeable lenses
2) Only 220 mm FL. The first version had even only 73 mm.
so that’s even less telephoto reach than using a6000 + 100-400
well the Sigma is wideangle, but, then, it’s only 2x zoom instead of 3x ^.^
Doesn’t make sense anyway. From sales point of view there is no sense to make cheap camera with better AF&IQ than A9. Your problem can be solved by software update which will downscale on the fly.
it was sarcasm. A7R2 has already IQ better than A9.
E.g. instant teleconverter. You aren’t obliged to use 200 mp files; 200 mp sensor will produce better 24 mp files than a 24 mp sensor. If you have surplus pixels you don’t need to run complex demosaic algorithms.
And I want 52/1.6 lens… because 55/1.8 is too narrow and 50/1.4 is too wide. That’s what I’m hoping for.
They just reduce clock frequency if overheating happens. Or sometimes they fail without a warning xD
Nah, laptops use x86 instruction set which adds complexity plus they use lots of generic rather than specialized circuits (it takes several times more energy to compute job on generic hardware), camera’s cpus are quite weak otherwise, and total energy stored in a battery is about 10 times less than for a laptop.
Ah. Sorry I don’t keep an eye to this.
Well, Sony can replace the battery xD with heatsink in its bottom xD
Tamron 16-300 has 16 elements xD
Sigma 8-16 has 15.
what happened to Samsung? You mean exploding li-ion cells? that’s completely another issue, cause it’s dangerous.
Of course you can’t, you aren’t a camera engineer?
After Internet came, software is never “perfect”.
They can add line skipping, EVF frame rate reduction as T goes high, or lower T threshold.
Stupid black paint, absorbs sunlight.
the camera used was first A7S which had another threshold for median NR.
are you playing “pretend I haven’t noticed the boobies” game? xD
Well, Barry is, he believes Russian hackers stole election from Hillary.
If he meant ЛЭТИ F-92 lens, it was produced since ~1977 and is now long out of production.
Not even fire of Orodruin?
Happy Ramadan! The British “conservatives” are going to take liberties of encryption away from lawful people rather than do something with kabooms.
key word: ‘mine’
Yes. I think it would be wise to make cam with small 1″ sensor so user could use it already of (re)attaching TC. xD
(playing devil’s advocate) the A-mount is dead and if you think otherwise you must be a Trump supporter!
I surely did not mean any of “HSS” crap.
Heck, Sony doesn’t allow to use flash with E-shutter? x-sync of 1/150 is quick enough for many cases, let user decide if they wish it.
Are Dow Jones and USD value falling? I haven’t noticed.
I guess you are super happy with politicians not believing in genetics.
Mine old 5N has 1/160, early 135 cams had 1/25 xD
Note that if it had that weird Fuji X-Trans CFA, horizontal banding would be much easier to filter out xD
How could they nearly double QE in such a short time?
Oh, I guess if you write “crank iso” on dpreview sample scene you don’t know how sensors work, at all.
The Oly’s 1300 vs. Pana 800 is a bit fishy
Everybody has a right*) *) when they vote for “correct” party. Deplorables, on the other hand, should be grateful then not in prison at all.
Hey I have Pentax Q here, that would give even 4x more magnification that this!
Doesn’t he live in a snow desert named Russia? xD
nah, Americans are much better position because they have 1st, 2nd amendment and no pervasive history of socialism, not because of person leading.
Putin won’t become better because of insults thrown at him, but you surely will alienate some people who don’t like useless swearing (which you didn’t even spell properly).
I remember Europeans having much problem with adoption of a new crop, potato, and tomatoes took even longer. It not all that recent.
No. You don’t come complaining after tennis match that you won more points but lost because of set system. If every point mattered, the play would be different from moment zero.
For Mike “a megavolt a day keeps a gay away” Pence? xD
Russian hackers did it (me, specifically)
Sony sells FF sensors to Nikon and Pentax already… Whether it has mirror or not, irrelevant.
Make APS-C sensor in m43 mount xD
yeah, it’s slightly better perf-per-size, but falls in perf-per-price o.o
Yes, m43 sensors are better per-area… But… If Olympus made them they would fall under same constraint (btw anyway they buy from Sony lol)
FF sensor are often worse per-area than smaller because with FF sensors they are pressed hard to get good yield ratios and can’t update fabs that often.
Simply defish it, better than waiting forever for the perfect lens.
you can put 17-50/2.8 on a focal reducer O.O
True. But still too short for birding.
I already provided a counterexample for your statement. (canon 50/1.8 STM)
Stop your folk science.
Many of MILC lenses produced were unit focusing lenses
“Others” are SLR lenses that secure back focus >= 37 mm. They can work with SLR cameras and you can attach focal reducer to them and get 23 mm f/1.0. The FE doesn’t have such options, and it should be much smaller because it does not have retrofocus constraint
price/IQ is poor, and size given that it doesn’t need to be retrofocus is huge.
what “everybody” needs is a smartphone.
If you crop 35 fov to 28 fov, you have e.g. 42 mp => 27 mp. Still a lot. Not that major difference.
it’s easier to make sharp f/2.8 lens than a f/1.4 one. Also the 100 STF has narrower FOV, making it easier too. And it’s longer.
even if you consider cropping 42 mp to 18 mp that only extends 1.5x, 240*1.5 still shorter than even 400 and that’s not considering IQ or noise.
Many of Zony or Zeiss FE lenses (entire Batis line) are designed by Tamron at least partially. (They hold patents to optical formulas)
aren’t D750 and A7R2 supposed to same SAME glass stack thickness?
Also, baffles can cut OUTER portions of rays (like improperly made lens hood) while allowing inner portions to hit sensor at shallow angle
You misunderstand. Exit pupil diameter is infinity if lens is image-telecentric. xD exp.Diameter = exp.Position / f-stop. So typical 50/1.4 have exit pupil position about 80 mm, thus ~50 mm exit pupil.
But covers only 1″ sensor…. xD
nah 110 mm f/1.1
Aaaah folk science.
Replacing manual focus by fly-by-wire is the easiest part, it is throwing out, not adding. Some MILC lenses are unit focusing lenses, still.
Counterexample to your statement: Canon replaced their EF 50/1.8 II with STM version keeping the same optical formula.
and others needs to pick Trump’s worst facial expressions xD
Narrow throat would be affecting designs with remote exit pupil (e.g. telephoto) rather than close exit pupil (~wideangle). Also it’s possible adapter gets in the way, cutting corners even more (there are lots of adapters with oversized baffles)
They can replace motor while keeping optical part same.
“thick cover glass” is a red herring. In happens when you adapt lens design from film rangefinder, not SLR.
Their 30/1.4, 30/2.8 and 19/2.8 aren’t that small. (compare e.g. 30/1.4 to Fuji’s 35/1.4 and to Samsung’s 30/2)
The 35/2.8 is a fraction smaller than 35/1.4 Nokton xD
No. Material should be white in visible and black in thermal IR to efficiently lose heat. You get built-in greenhouse effect with silver, actually.
or use usb power input
EF mount lol. If it has EF mount why don’t you add a mirror in.
If it had m43 mount one could mount much more lenses
Nah. Sony doesn’t update 4 year old cameras
Pros are supposed to have 2 bodies anyway xD
Simple solution: paint camera white.
Digitals killed film
it’s bad comparison because you can avoid using Sony alltogether in favor of another brand but you can’t remove wannabe kabooms out of your country.
A99M2 doesn’t eat stars? Proof? All Sonys have median NR >= 30 secs
Global warming anyone?
CaNikon users simply don’t consider overheating of still camera in video as major drawback.
No, clients are usually willing to pay more if photog’s camera is large and impressive.
I have two types of cheap “consumer” bulbs, one pulsates, the other doesn’t.
Writing (1-x/y)^2 again doesn’t help.
I specifically asked you about 1/2.3″ sensors and you returned topic back to FF sensors.
Samsung NX500 (some kind of BSI) isn’t that expensive (indicative cost on dxomark 800 usd) and had 40% improvement over NX300. and has higher data output than Sony’s later a6300 sensor and cross-type PDAF.
>immediately ask why the A6300/A6500 aren’t BSI despite being nine months newer
because FF is priority.
they make only 24 mp aps-c sensors whereas 12,24,36,42 FF sensors.
> I’m guessing we wouldn’t see 28nm product until 2019ish
aren’t smaller sensors using it, or even thinner process, already?
When I answer what appears to me as honest question and you answer with “blah blah blah” and straw men…
I never said IQ is everything. Some high IQ people have procrastination, depression of even schizophrenia.
Of course. 200 mm is telephoto. The same filter wouldn’t have been a problem on a 21 mm lens xD
with ospdaf pixels it’s problematic to have good angular discrimination capability, so “left looking” and “right looking” pixels response curves overlap too much.
Plus, without Dual pixe, using only masked microlenses, means the grid will be quite sparse.
But, of course this does not mean this won’t be solved.
it’s not just OLED but reading the sensor too, and it consumes more power.
If you flap mirror only one time per 30 seconds (like CIPA test specifies?) then it indeed consumes less energy drain reading + displaying
of course, because your country gives much wellfare to those who doesn’t make cameras, rather opposite.
you mean “f-mount camera with EVF”? because otherwise where were a many of DSLR shaped nikons with EVF.
Somehow I suspect this will be the same 42 mp sensor, with 46 and 42 being “total” and “used” pixel count
well, probably at fps lower than 60 (e.g. like A9’s lame 20) they could shoot and AF at the same time.
You could attach a focal reducer to make sensor effectively larger.
I make drama because I don’t what I want. xD
As I pointed out, it is quite possible to have 20 fps with mirrors, slapping or not.
Compare Canon E-M5 and 100D. The MILC is even slightly heavier (!)
IBIS affects price.
yeah, it is different because it would expose your argument as invalid otherwise….
Even with focus locked? O.O
How then lenses designed for film manage work on digital? xD
Cinema cameras did have 24 fps & OVF long, long time ago with rotary mirror shutters.
For me, a revolution would be having filters (IR, polarizer) in-camera and sensor tilt unit. Sensor tilt unit would allow you to shoot at f/1.8 with TWO or THREE faces in focus instead of just one.
What is the point of getting rid of mirror shutter if you camera gains no advantages, doesn’t become waterproof, and doesn’t become small?
Heck… Nikon 1 did 60 fps in fullres back in 2011!
or note that it can just REMEMBER where the focus was, without any PDAF xD
um A9 can do 20 fps, A99M2 only 12 fps.
oops… adapted lens only 10 fps? maybe they will change it in later firmware
A lens focuses where it is told to.
(heck, there are even screwdriven lenses where protocols not necessary at all)
all focus point selection is body only
(just for sake of argument) can people complain about e.g. Leicas quality/price ratio without using them?xD
ok here is my portion of negative: this is rather conventional camera with 30% better SNR and 20% more MP (10% linear res) over Nikon D5. It’s all due to sensor with can be put in any SLR too.
well… actually there’s a grain of truth in his words. .. some manufacturers don’t even allow AE & focus confirm with adapted lenses
a crop lens? xD
The price for A9 is for two card slots and larger battery xD.
Well I agree: for such price A9 should have had three card slots.
Nah, if I was smart, I’d had convinced Sony to hire me xD
explicitly in form of a-mount vs e-mount?? Link please.
It’s more than 1/3 of sensor area, 43% to be exact.
A6300 doesn’t have IBIS.
similarly, they put Sonnar trademark (licensed from Zeiss) on anything they like
but, a6500 sensor area is slightly more than 1/3 of a9 sensor area….
yes… “E-mount cannot fit IBIS”, “E-mount cannot fit fullframe”, “OSPDAF will never focus old lenses” etc etc….
Tungsten light STILL pulsates and the smaller lamp is, the less inertia it has.
Anyways A7R2 and A6500 under same light show visible banding.
However… I agree the test isn’t perfect. Lamp oscilloscope is better for such situations xD
35/1.4 for mirrorless cam doesn’t have to be big and heavy.
That’s probably mechanical shutter x-sync.
what is a9 electronic shutter x-sync, finally?
on the other side, some of them buy anything because it had blue badge on it.
eh, it depends at which f/stop which ‘resolving’ occurs. A lens can be sharp stopped down and blurry wide, but for portrait lens open aperture is what matters more.
Stop confusing ‘loose’ and ‘lose’!
Underexposure and push in PP and you will not need to salvage highlights.
In %current_year% you can have a neural network which will make the colors that you wish even from greyscale image.
yes it sacrifices SNR in shadows, but you still have more SNR than with film.
Yes they will. But more people want cleaner 3200 ISO and more resolution rather than high DR at min ISO.
Otherwise… I agree with you completely, and I’d think of using more complex CFA which interleaves thick narrow-band RGGB filters with thin CMYW. That way we could not only have better DR but better color also.
Ad hominem reasoning and attaching labels doesn’t encourage useful discussion.
It is an open secret in US than rich blacks commit more crime than poor whites.
The correlation between poverty and crime isn’t causal. If it was, we’d be giving money to murderers instead of imprisoning them. — Note that we DO give money to sick people who need treatment, and it works.
Money, if anything, helps AVOID getting punishment by hiring lawyers, giving bribes, and moving to another country. What you need to compare is dumb kids of rich people versus smart kids of poor people. Or comparing people who won in lottery vs. people who lost in lottery. Rich people usually provide their children with better genes and behaviors, which are more important than money, and dumb kids are very prone to spend their inherited money quickly.
>Remember also that African Americans are not representative of all blacks.
Sure, AAs have IQs about 18 points higher than African Africans… because of diseases and malnutrition in Africa.
>just like we have relatively peaceful (low crime levels) countries with predominantly black people like Senegal and Botswana.
Look at this:
Senegal 8.1 Botswana 15.4, very high.
I never said that biology was a single factor.
How police works and trust between police and population is important. If population doesn’t report criminals, police doesn’t catch them, this encourages more latent criminals do commit crime.
>OK. So why were the South Koreans (SKs) not prosperous then if their IQ was phenomenal?
Large governments (and in China, Japan too) putting state monopoly on everything, restricting trade and movement of people. Maybe you can blame complex writing system too (which Koreans phased out later), which is a burden on social mobility and makes book printing with methods available in 15-19 centuries difficult. (they invented printing much earlier than Europeans but it didn’t make major impact because of their writing system).
>the fortunes of blacks definitely will change at some point, IQ or no IQ.
It’s like Christians say “God will help you at some point, just keep believing”. Not science.
well? maybe genetic engineering will develop, so everyone can have children with high IQs and the concept of heredity itself becomes history like film cameras.
Setting D-lighting on (or DRO in Sony’s parlance) gives smaller physical exposure to avoid ‘lost is lost’.
The obsession for f/1.4 produces larger lenses with worse IQ.
f/2.8 primes (ooooh no, f/2.8 is reserved for zooms) could be cheap, sharp and small. And have faster AF too.
Yes, with metering on the innards you’ll lose highlights on D810. Doesn’t D-lighting work here?
I was paying attention, but you answered some OTHER questions, not which I asked.
Why “assume 28 nm” process when the state of art is 10 nm?
Why would Sony (note Samsung makes 1/2.3″ sensors too) has to wait single process be “obsolete”?
Will 1/2.3″ sensors switch back to FSI once 10 nm widespread?
Btw you didn’t answer. If thinner process makes BSI unnecessary then why 1/2.3″ use BSI instead of switching to…. e.g. 10 nm process?
Well there’s ways to circumvent it (Canon Dual RAW does, for some part, a related thing)
As for this shot, I guess Nikon D810 would have produced better IQ for this scene.
Well, sure, it would be nice feature to have. But we can have it with silicon sensors, too, but we don’t because the market demands low light performance rather than retain highlights. Canon has the largest marketshare despite inferior DR or their sensors.
what so potentially new with organic sensors?
I’d want such lens with a diagonal mirror xD
Then NO. Making pixel larger requires better amplifier/ADC. say, if d810 uses 14 bits, 9 mp camera would have needed 16 bits ADC to reach.
Also, high mp camera can effectively use response non-uniformity (or, like, different sized pixels in fuji cameras)
You are confusing pixel of sensor and pixel of output image. If the former mattered we would have had sensors with one very large pixel.
a99m2 can shoot as 12 fps but a7r2 can not. maybe there is slight differences between sensors
…and look on VM 35/1.4, 40/1.2 lenses…. Where FF mirrorless + f/1.4 lens smaller than FF DSLR without lens.
“all they managed” is to increase sales in a shrinking market.
It’s not. It’s folk science.
EF-M mount does practically that.
Glue Sigma MC-11 to Sony A9. Bingo!
EF mount is full-electronic and large enough. And they can make, like EF-SS lenses with protruding rear elements to use short backfcocus.
same length, half weight == proof that they put fake plastics instead of real glass in it :3
well, some people actually expect Sony to make *NEW* designs
Heck, I’d want such lens too, and Barry mentioned at least one other. That makes at least two! xD
(but I have no money — wellfare is minuscule in Russia haha)
p.s. screw it, i misunderstood the sentence.
if the lens is image-space telecentric, then adding a filter doesn’t add curvature or astigmatism
there’s a patent from KM which uses element movements to counter filters between lens and sensor.
Light field cameras (of which Dual Pixel AF is a variant) can correct some curvature and astigmatism xD
True…. for prime lenses xD
which software you use and cannot get rid of distortion?
37 mm is just enough for many SLRs.
38 mm is extremely common.
True, but actually, an average SAR reader buys more stuff than average Alpha camera owner. And admin doesn’t have means to poll in other way
Sony have 1″ stacked sensor with 1200 fps. Much more usability for E-mount camera…
“doing what you want” would still be illegal xD
But has anybody actually published what picture from exposure sensor looks like? Might be not usable for tracking.
Many people actually think blocking progress is the solution, sometimes passing prohibition even before.
E.g. GINA in USA.
Heck even simply unauthorized DNA analysis is illegal is some countries.
“crop factor” is a scalar value and cannot be square or not xD
iirc most OLEDs never become fully transparent, at most they transmit about 1/2 of light.
>I would prefer to know a racist
Some people that were considered “good” earlier could be considered “racist” by modern standards. How does it fit that there is some objective measure?
>Please go into all the specifics of how useful it
Most evident: which neighborhood to avoid if you want avoid being robbed/killed. Richards Dawkins in “Ancestor’s Tale” wrote about use of race taxonomy.
You seem to be confusing IQs with economic prosperity. They are related but very different.
As for blacks, we cannot say “not having the best time”. Their low achivement is not attributable to some government, economy, geography, climate or language for ALL documented history.
why so cheap? why not neutronium or unobtanium?
Like those in cars?
you can 3d print lens hood xD simplest component ever
and a speculative one xD
but pixels may saturate at different levels
20 mp 1″ would only allow 1:2 crop, like 2x zoom whereas this camera has 4x zoom
Fast lenses are completely different issue, because SW cannot raise SNR and for bokeh only certain subset can be changed.
What software cannot replace for TS lenses (except physical feelings?).
SW cannot replace tilt but tilt does not require lenses to be larger, sensor can be tilted (and tilt usually anyway more often used for ‘miniature’ effect’ rather than turning plane of focus).
Yeah… can’t know it all. Some still use film to do multiexposure, because stacking of digital images is a no-no for them even if it produces same result.
What in the end you have? A system which has all drawbacks of a DSLR without a benefit of having OVF. Sonys have little better sensor but it’s not related to mirror any way.
Too similar to f/2.8 xD
With liquid inside so users could fill anything they wished xD
‘Perspective control’ can be done in software so you get with ANY lens. What they don’t have yet, so that one could compose with PC effect applied in EVF and RAW parameters attached accordingly.
Having TS for mirrorless camera is EMULATION of DSLR paradigm.
There is no real need to make larger lenses, which are essentially medium format lenses, to get TS effect.
Making TS lenses for mirrorless is as clever as making it emulate mirror slap sound.
FS5 has it near sensor where it can’t affect IQ much. I don’t think it can work in full aperture.
those ’50’ and ’55’ usually fall in between.
Still no focusing control.
Heck, why remotes for cheap TVs 20 years were more complex than remotes for expensive cameras today?
Cool. Didn’t know it. Unfortunately there’s not much info on the net…
well why not? it can be super compact, sharp and cheap xD
TS. For a mirrorless system. Let’s add a mirror OVF too.
a mirrorless camera can do this without making lens bulkier.
Elon operates on subsidies (as does NASA) whereas Sony should be profitable.
Sony now has BSI sensors with good angular response.
Nah the 40 mm fov is due to print best looking distance not actual fov of human eye
f1.8 is too mainstream for cheap lenses; they might think you’re a noob if using f/1.8 lens xD
is there any material with sufficient properties?
haha same as stf on f2.8 lens? xD
For 0.5x would be pretty useful to have glass with n=2. Unfortunately they have low Abbe numbers.
btw…. it is possible to use difractive optics… but that would raise cost a lot.
Happened to me twice on NEX-5N, shutter still done thousand of actuations since xD
BTW it should be prevented in software… quite easy to do if there are electronic contacts.
That, of course, depends on exact scene being shot and PP used.
Also merill sensors have a lot more pixels crammed in… “50% more bayer” as you say is actually HALF pixels that of Foveon x3.
yeah, but BSI sensor with smaller pixels is a replacement for FSI sensor with larger monochrome pixels.
Same SNR + can prevent lateral color + some LoCA which would otherwise be blur on monochrome sensor.
Why can’t we have interchangeable sensors? In CCD times, CCD sensors were extremely vulnerable to static discharges especially when not connected to the circuit. Now nobody uses CCD sensors anymore, and all Sony sensors have ADC-s built-in.
with E-M1M2 60 fps you don’t that need focal plane shutter….
I wonder who will be the first to make 0.5x focal reducer o.o
Don’t buy them if you don’t want to!
Why do they use so narrow rectangular baffles? So users could enjoy clipped bokeh just as if it had mirror box?
please join them.
What is the rolling shutter readout time of A9. That’s what I want to know.
How would a F1 car or a helicopter look when shoot with rolling shutter of 1/20 second?
well they said
“E mount cannot fit fullframe sensor”
“full frame mirrorless camera will never happen”
“IBIS on E-mount will never happen”
“BSI full-frame sensor will never happen”
“there will never be a99 mark 2”
yes global shutter done old way decreases DR, but about same degree as crappy Canon ADCs which millions of professional photographers used and still use rather than high DR Sony sensors.
I agree with $2k range being hot, but….
what any of this has to do with costs of making BSI sensor vs costs of making FSI sensor with thinner features?
I have no interest in what he wants.
I have interest in the “proof” that global shutter not needed anymore.
btw I often use “x-sync” as shorthand for “rolling shutter readout time” so it’s related for video too.
I am angry because you pretend to have more knowledge than me and answer my questions with “LOL”
It’s always the best solution — any crappy photo converted to BW becomes so much better and one can pretend that those who disagree simply do not have deep understanding enough xD
2) I often do so (because my cam is modded), and It’s quite wearying, and heck, I miss some shots this way.
We can now use neural networks to make good colors from BW images. They are also can be used to improve camera color.
No need to stick to ways from the past.
Ok can you say what is x-sync for A9 electronic shutter?
how far from 1/4000 s?
by that logic, we don’t need photography at all because people lived without it.
Or at least that mirrorless cams are not needed at all because, well just because!
BSI raises cost, but we don’t have a slightest idea how much.
a6500 sensor has little common with nex-7 sensor but pixel count.
>(the a6300 is around $300 more than the a6000)
and a7r2 is around $300 more expensive than the a7s2….
You can’t deduce costs from prices — they’ll happily sell you a lens hood for $100 or lens cap for $30
yes, vast majority of photos are not printed… but they are zoomed in on smartphone and studied in small detail, like eyelashes on a full portrait photo.
Ok i was generallly wrong about a stop. it’s 1/3 of it, see above
at min iso, print: 1.2 dB difference. That’s 1/3 of a stop.
dxo: 1″ bsi vs fsi
at 100 iso, 1.0 dB. that’s even slightly less than for FF.
But if you have sensor from one, but very larger pixel, you will kill diffraction completely! xD
E-1 (2003) was only 5 MP. GX-8 (2015) is 20 MP. Doubles each 6 years. ~4.3 years to increase 20=>33
Totally irrelevant graph. You need to compare real pictures from different pixels with same lens.
Nitpicking. A7R2 wins about one stop over A7R. xD that is, lot lot lot more than rx100m2 over rx100m1
‘difficult’ is idiomatic Japanese excuse of not doing anything xD
Now tell me making full frame IBIS, & BSI stacked sensor was easy.
It doesn’t have anything to do if there’s an official adapter or not. It’s about lots of technical stuff.
is Anders Burstein same as Andrei Burkov?
would you want to be the programmer to add support for 2 wifi cards and rule out errors when there’s 2 at once? xD
Every manufacturers has certain silly limitations.
but 150-600 is too mainstream and too close to 100-400 which they already have xD
It can be possible (see even e.g. Canon patent on improving CDAF via sensor movement (which can move faster than a heavy lens) — I wish Sony would do such a thing) in some situations xD
what are the laws in US?
it’s not real-life samples, it’s simulation! and definitely not 12 vs 14.
Most of these “16 bit” MF were fakes and actually 14 bit and had poor SNR enough that they didn’t even deserve 14 bits. Some photogs liked it, well, because of the same reason people think $5000 wine is better than $100 wine.
The cost of replacement part is irrelevant in this case.
E-mount protocol is not going to be open despite it has no cost to them.
And Sony doesn’t sell its sensors to hobbyists etc etc.
Heck they even don’t sell some sensors to major brands.
Hey is it possible to see this flaw in X-ray scan?
Motorized sensor tilt, removable IR filter, focus stacking
Somehow you chose the smallest difference of 12 bit vs 14 bit.
in terms of megabytes per second, D5 is only marginally faster
‘pdaf’ depends on constrast too.
Some people say “classifying people to races is not useful”. I say “Dividing people to racists and non-racists is not useful”.
I might agree that making racial classifications into law is not beneficial. Recognizing differences is.
>doesn’t serve mankind
OK, and how has your favorite demographic helped mankind? Voodoo magic doesn’t count (and doesn’t work).
>I cannot make sense of your last two paragraphs so I’ll let them slide..
Ah, you’re so “open minded” so you just let slide what you don’t know how to counter. However, my mistake, since I incorrectly used “en masse” (nor English or French my native languages)
If anyone decides to hold onto genetic denialism because of “I cannot make sense” then I’ll think that they are simply happy to have some reason to be in a position they’d prefer to be in any way.
Ok i try again: I’d reconsider my position on race and IQ if i see blacks designing and making modern electronics in large quantities (like South Korea has now a major share of market despite being backward country 70 years ago). However you see major brands don’t even manufacture things in black countries (like they do in impoverished SE Asia).
so if i believe in karma and people should receive according to what they have done? xDD
oh where you were when where was a real genocide in Rwanda? xD
Make a 1 gigapixel sensor and use as 100 * 10 mp light field camera so users could chose bokeh in PP xD
what does mean “in fact”? Do you know patent covering the lens?
Many Sony lenses are designed by Tamron, in some cases lens gets Sony badge after a time it was sold under Tamron badge.
Canon’s monster is different, more complex and has removable IR cut filter.
To be comprehensive, one should put these cams in a ball and let it roll xD
…and yours is the language to advocate thoughtcrime persecution and censorship xD
Welcome to 21th century! eh. why can’t we have all nice things and print entire camera shell with buttons?
btw it’s not clear about shapeways.com where it will print and how long deliver. I’d want to choose printer in my country so the item won’t have to pass though customs.
This is how Barry ‘liberal’.
oops xD still on big side.
are you sure 90/2.8 G not Tamron designed either? xD
how do you know it is violence?
77 mm filter for such slow lens. Now tell me ‘physics’.
there’s going to be no shortage of people who would fail to do this and say Canikon is better.
sometimes i wish someting BAD to people who repeat mantra ‘sony is electronics company, nikon is optical’. (no real utility for real cameras)
when MILC appeared, everybody kept talking about how cheap and reliable mirrors and shutters were xD
The bottleneck was the sensor. D800 has higher FPS in crop mode.
Why Bieber and Beyonce have so many fans?
A7S sensor has a lot better high ISO than first 5D which is also 12 mp. “legacy”?
in terms of megapixels per second, D5 isn’t much faster than D810. It has very little to do with costs. Nikon Ones from 2011 were able shoot at 60 fps already.
They charge for D5 more because they can.
Focus bracketing can’t replace light field cameras, 1/20 of second is a lot for insects.
well, the myth is for 1/2.3″ cameras, not for FF…. “optimal” mp count for 1/2.3″ is 6 mp. with same pixel size, FF would have had ~200 mp. There is room to grow xD
well, your pictures won’t become better because battery is now 2x larger
Sony, make something with doesn’t exist in DSLRs
At such focal length, you begin to wonder if telescope serves better (actually central obstruction would rather *HELP* OSPDAF to focus rather than not).
‘switch’ implies selling used gear and resale value for canikon gear is quite good
if you’re asking author of rawdigger’s name, he’s Alex Tutubalin
in just another thread I pointed to the same thing about A9’s shutter…. small camera size is additional constraint.
AFAIK the 50/0.95 was the only MILC lens scheduled, no aps-c promised.
How do they measure it? Effective t-stop will be influenced by camera sensor as well (small pixels FSI sensors being worse) as lens transmission.
I have doubts that these lenses’ production would be profitable at all.
well in case Canon vs. Nikon switch can be made quite fast xD
Maybe the Oly wants to focus as fast as possible and if it can be persuaded not to,accuracy improves?
median income of … in which country? xD
in poorer countries it might be like 100% of their annual income
with electronic shutter then can make mirrorless, shutterless, completely waterproof camera xD
well in theory they could replace a $1 controller than making a new lens xD
For user’s pleasure xD
It’s about $6k xD
But E-M1M2 has 60 fps and all cross-type OSPDAF points….
Sony uses no fluorite. BTW any practical difference for lenses is a small change in focal length whereas camera may shut off when overheat.
Then why the camera body is black, it’s much more prone to overheating o.o
It’s a mixed race lens. Are you against interracial marriage?
I missed it, link please about nikon trolling sony?
why do you need FF camera in the first place if you’re going to use TC on it and it has same mp count as aps-c one?
they could have made cheaper and better aps-c sensor for this use case.
Barry is not, he has permission from every animal he shot.
but high f-ratio is another issue. even if there is a lot of light, there might be not enough discriminating capability so “left looking” and “right looking” pixels see the same picture and unable to tell position.
Samsung Galaxy NX is basically phone and camera glued together in one body xD
>On top of this, Sony doesn’t have any of the tricks other semiconductor manufacturers have for increasing yield
Sony is the leader of image sensors manufacturing.
>Oh, a defect killed one of the cores of your quad-core CPU? Sell it as a dual-core or tri-core CPU
Why do you keep throwing in digital ICs which are completely offtopic to this?
>Sony can’t sell an FF die as an APS-C sensor
Well… stacked sensor opens an opportunity here xD
>and few if any of their customers will accept a sensor with significant “dead pixels”
there are lots of dead pixels, and more appear every time you take a flight. They are interpolated so user doesn’t see anything. Sony gets PAID, already, for cameras where median NR cannot be turned off. There’s more OSPDAF pixels than dead ones and very few people are worrying about it.
>even the masters of semiconductor manufacturing (Intel) haven’t gotten their defect rates
because they don’t want to make BSI image sensors in the first place? You again keep pretending that BSI sensors have exact same wiring as FSI at same pixel size.
>Just a couple of fairly simple voice coil actuators with little to no springs involved
This is why IBIS systems are fairly recent when we had flipping mirrors and
curtain shutters for… like 50 years and 100?
Some things may look simple but actually very difficult to produce.
>We also have plenty of examples of IBIS appearing in very low-cost cameras
That’s hilarious. By that logic, RAW support is costly because it’s very rare in low-end cameras, B&W no-cfa sensor is more difficult to manufacture than bayer CFA, and Ethernet port is expensive because D5 has it but A5100 does not. And EVF display is more expensive than back LCD screen — because, uh um, “basic physics” apparently works for manufacturing displays in reverse than it does for sensors!
>we have no examples of high-framerate FF shutters appearing in low-cost cameras.
Either the slow sensor readout, or the cost of film was preventing this in low-cost cameras.
A9 is more expensive because it competes in a category where camera are expensive. *Some* of $1200 price delta is due to sensor, but we don’t know how much.
By the same logic, A7S sensor was significantly more expensive than A7R sensor? (A7S did not have 4k viideo codec)
And by the same logic, LA-EA1 had something expensive in it because its price was like price of AF lens…
and brown sugar which retails at 3-10x of white sugar….
You keep talking about defects and yield without providing any numbers.
>180nm BSI is a temporary stopgap on the way to 45nm FSI reaching maturity
Oh, good, at least some *prediction* here. Will you eat your hat when they launch BSI at aps-c and MFT sensors? I will eat mine if Sony abolishes BSI at FF.
>So BSI won’t get you to 100%.
Doesn’t need to, because of bayer CFA and OSPDAF (requires microlens anyway).
>there’s the need to reset the shutter.
what happens during shutter reset? capacitor charging? 1.5 kg cameras like D5 can do it faster.
>With BSI – now BOTH sides of the chip are critical.
I’d be very surprised to know that both sides have equal weight in yield. Isn’t it like defect which can produce few dead pixels on illuminated side could brick entire sensor if it happens on the wiring side?
You also say like BSI sensor has exact same wiring as FSI.
>The Nikon and Canon solutions also have to constantly flip that mirror up/down rapidly
and Sony has IBIS which is 10x of the complexity.
>make it more different from traditional DSLR. It is pure marketing.
They make it black like a traditional DSLR.
They make viewfinder hump like a DSLR
They didn’t put touchscreen (until very late) because DSLR didn’t have it
They make almost exact lens lineup (with retrofocus 35/1.4)
If this is to make it… different from DSLR, I don’t see it.
correlations which I don’t like are spurious.
correlations which I like are causal.
btw… you can meet many psychiatric inpatients with normal or high IQs. IQ has very little to do with social health.
“race” is much much better defined than “health” and is a very strong predictor of IQ
True, but irrelevant. If you combat racism by lying and demagoguery… it can backfire.
There are too many definitions of ‘racist’. (nowadays some people proclaim colorblind liberals are racist just to lesser degree than KKK). So… a “racist” is a person who is likely to be called racist.
How can you speak for open-minded people if you do not know to it is to be open-minded?
I can change my opinion if presented multiple modern electronics designed and made by these people… Who en masse not even worth to assemble it rather
You, would not change your opinion unless majority tells you so.
“racists” are the minority, you don’t know how to be in a minority.
Barry disapproves this comment
>Everyone I’ve talked to who is familiar with semiconductor
Probably Sony doesn’t report them newer improvements unless Sony has to patent it. And if those were Sony employees, they’d been under NDA.
I don’t think Sony messes with finances to cover up costs of BSI manufacturing, rather, you should question your assumptions.
>Remember how much that 45nm FSI sensor got delayed
Yes. But also I remember you talking like going to thinner manufacturing process is dirt cheap and BSI expensive.
>Note that the A6300 has HIGHER pixel density than the A7R2
You’re omitting the fact that in larger sensor signal has to travel in less time for larger distance, so equal wiring condition does not apply.
>had to put significant investment in developing a high-speed precision mechanical shutter.
they had similar shutters for decades. BTW D5 X-sync: 1/250s. Sony A9 X-sync: 1/250s. How is the Nikon one faster than Sonys? Also Sony has to face constraint they cannot use 1.5kg bulk of camera do reduce shock. If these “precision” shutters were expensive, we’d used leaf shutters which are cheap and reliable.
What. Is. The. ES. readout. time (x-sync)?
You confused me with that “blocking all but”
> No need to spend huge amounts of money setting
We don’t know these “huge” amounts other than wild guesses “because BSI was expensive 10 years ago, it must be, forever”.
Somehow Sony didn’t use 45 nm FSI process for A7R2.
And today’s A9 (stacked!) sells for less than Canikon FSI cameras.
Interchangeable grips? Why should be $2000 hardware glued to $5 chunk of plastic? Unlike electronic, ANY craftsman may make a grip with buttons. The only problem would be connecting these buttons to camera.
This camera is guaranteed to have better SNR than older Canikons, e-shutter or not.
Youngnuo makes a 35 f/2, and a cheap one xD
Well, but to be fair, Sony still uses FSI for all 4/3″, aps-c and most of FF sensors.
>So for 36MP FF and 180nm, wiring is blocking all but around 40% of your pixel site area. (1-0.33)^2
Get your numbers straight. The correct one is 1-(1-0.33)^2 = 55%
And it gets worse if microlens cannot collect all the light (for large apertures and close exit pupils).
according to dxo a7s/a7s2 only has better snr/dr over a7r2 above 6400 and retards miserably in color sensitivity until 12800
The TOS doesn’t say it’s a SJW safespace
It has ethernet, they should have installed a website telling about a new camera on it with ability for guests to control it xD
I’d want sensor sensitive to polarization so you could apply polarizer in PP xD
I’d want a small 18-129 zoom and large sensor with similar density as this TZ90 so I had same telephoto reach with large sensor camera. xD
ok, valid point xD
It’s mass (cheap) production that is difficult, btw even if they just scale lens up, they’ll need to redesign everything but optics.
My first thought: it’s a rebranded Zony lens.
And still no cross-type OSPDAF?
I guess better high ISO performance will be more significant to many people than any of listed in the post.
there are dark pixels at the edges which are used to calibrate for dark current/ADC noise. not for ibis
>Sony stresses it’s not even largely about physical differences between mirrorless and DSLR anymore, but the capabilities of mirrorless that give it advantages over DSLRs
ok where is my sensor tilt unit?
The mirror is compatible with 20 fps. There are cinema cams which do 24 fps with rotating mirrors.
where’s zoom eyepiece?
what having stacked sensor has to do with mirrorless?
it seems to be intentional humorous error
So? It’s not even like the advantage is more than 1 stop. Difference between f/1.4 and f/5.6 is 4 stops.
A7R2 also offers better AF than A72/A7S2, better SNR/DR, and 4k video unlike A72
I wonder if 100-400 at FF sensor produces same IQ as 70-200 on crop 2 sensor…
Where all these ‘BSI is useless’ experts?
but 50 + SB has additional value over the 35 because it can be split and used in parts xD
10,000 photographers vs. one hard-coded parameter in camera software. How much it does cost Sony to change one line of source code?
designing 50/1.2 + SB is an additional constraint over 35/0.9
You could design 35/0.9 by stacking 50/1.2 and SB in optical CAD and optimizing later, and you’re guaranteed to get better result than with separarte 50/1.2 + SB
but are “racists are dumb” and “Christians are homophobic” OK?
Shockley didn’t kill anyone, he was just arrogant and said things people didn’t like. So goes for other “racists” in general.
In practice, rapists and murderers are whitewashed as long as they vote Democrat.
btw…. Many early TV sets used a lens to magnify their small screen xD
Because in reality such lenses tend to be, like, f/1.28 and f/1.45 xD
or you can slap $100 SB on a $200 A3000 xD
Plus, you’d need a mount adapter for A7 anyway.
But in theory native 35/0.9 should be smaller, cheaper and sharper than speed-boosted 50/1.2….
Sony cameras overheat, but don’t explode. So I guess this won’t work.
It drives me nuts when I see word ‘body’ referring to camera’s software….. :c
There was a loophole with some Nikons to get rid of some NR by turning camera off when it was taking dark frame. So you never know xD
well… if the only difference between ‘for astrophoto’ and ‘not for’ is one ugly hard-coded parameter… this is a bad news.
It’s not the best. It wins in QE over Canons but Canon have much much lower dark current.
BTW Sony! You have IBIS. Make pixel shift mode so hot and stuck pixels take different positions between exposures. This by itself can give workaround for getting dark subtraction when there is no enough time to take dark frames.
(No, let’s just pretend we just have camera which looks and acts exactly like film camera with little bonus of histogram and focus peaking in viewfinder)
I like pictures with hot pixels. For those who likes median NR there is an option in the menus. BTW even better: there is JPEG!
And removing IR cut filter is super easy.
Most people live in cloudy light polluted cities anyway and rarely get opportunity to see sky in its full beauty.
Wild guess: in some bracketing mode, star eater might be activated much later.
e.g. 3.2s + 3EV gives you 25 seconds. (however for my old camera bracketing doesn’t even work for such exposures, SAD!)
Why does it matter so much if camera has a mirror or not? Today Sony uses very little advantages of EVF-only no-mirror camera.
IIRC Sony published some statistics that showed that about 40% buyers of A7 cameras were pros. Esp of 12 mp version for video.
There should be some kind of insurance! xD
My current cheap 3mp phone produces far better pictures in lowlight than my first 3mp digital camera because it has longer exposures and higher ISOs.
Nokia 808 has 1/1.2″ sensor, Panasonic CM-1 has 1″.
This Samsung has 10x zoom, such zooms are rarely used on FF cameras.
A lot of people care about market share of their brand, because cost of ownership is associated with it.
why are you comparing A7R2 to D750 and not D810?
The sensor in the phone in question is smaller than FF, but do not lie by saying ‘2×2’, is much larger. and there exist phones with 13×9 mm sensors. Given how large phones have grown in recent 10 years, they could have fit a FF sensor if not cost reasons. inb4 “the lens”: the lens does not have to be large if it isn’t f/1.4 and does not reserve backfocus for flapping mirror. Something like 24 mm f/9 could be as small as current smartphone lenses.
what ‘POS’ means?
The implied point is “racists are all bad people”, and btw, is ad hominem in either case. As for me personally, I, unlike your favorite demographics, returned an expensive cellphone to its owner and stole no bike.
BS. By that logic 25/0.95 for MFT should be smaller than FF 50/1.8 “because it has to cover much bigger sensor” and “50 vs 25”
BTW there is a Pentax K lens 77/1.8 which covers FF and even slightly shorter than Oly 75/1.8
lol, I was sure that Samsung and Hanwha are the same thing. Looks like i was wrong.
He won’t, at best he will retell some folk optics.
Also, rangefinder lenses have to be smaller, or else they’d block view in viewfinder.
It’s heavy because customers pay more if photographer has heavy gear xD
There is tech. For example, DO works well for making telephotos smaller.
75/1.8 = 41
135/2.8 = 48
Entrance pupil not much wider.
It’s just compactness wasn’t the design goal.
Suppose Sigma is 33% cheaper than Sony. But looking from the other side…. Sony is 50% more expensive than Sigma. xD
You are saying as if users for whom A290 or A55 is the first SLR they have owned do not exist.
The funniest thing is, Android *WAS* originally intended for digital cameras and only after Google bought it they adapted it to smartphones.
why not open source code so folks can add DFD AF to early nex cameras, focus stacking, and so on?
well… to me, sensor with stacked RAM is miracle already xD
what’s with lenses? there are 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 or do you mean 100-400?
Most A-mount users just like E-mount have only 18-55 xD
why 4096 pixels wide? A7S for example does only 3840 pixels wide.
Its not that much. 1:3 crop leaves only 8 mp out of 70 mp. And that’s if the lens has surplus resolution.
>video mode crops a little bit of edges due to the aspect ratio.
it doesn’t need to :3
well… what if it has stop better SNR than D5, 1.4x more fps, +EVF works in lowlight, some advanced OSPDAF
D750 is ~300 usd more. And if one doesn’t need IBIS, may go for first A7 which almost twice more cheap than D750.
first: users did observe colorshift on 24 mp sensors with rangefinder lenses. Heck, even 18 mp Leica M9 had colorshift.
second: “we never had it, so never will”? If they’re gonna catch D5/D500 they do need some improvements.
if D5 has half a stop worse SNR than 42 mp sensor, isn’t it like it does need?
>not enough to justify its cost
So, what are the costs for 45nm FSI process or 250nm BSI process?
Cost? For $6k camera? So they used advanced process for $3k camera and obsolete one for $6k camera? Makes perfect sense (not).
>especially if someone has access to a 45nm copper SOI process.
ok, Sony had it, why didn’t they use it for 42 mp sensor?
Isn’t 4k 8.3 mp? Then 8.3*1.55^2 = 20. Why 24?
810 enjoys from economies of scale and does not have 5x IBIS unit.
Where’s evidence BSI raises costs ATM?
What is the cost of A7RM2 sensor? What is the cost of D810 sensor? Just because BSI was expensive 10 years ago doesn’t mean it is now.
35/1.4 has quite short backfocus… so why would it be recycled SLR design…
I don’t need to compare random designs. I can open a design in optical CAD and see how it improves if image circle is shrunk. Not to mention shrinking open some new options for design. For example an element which would give TIR if image field was extended.
I’d like to have a compact 22/2 like Canon’s one for my aps-c camera. Wouldn’t be 22/2 for FF a lot larger?
I would agree however that 70-300 wouldn’t benefit much from shrinking image circle.
It seems you’re comparing 100 mp with TC and 100 mp without TC whereas my point was comparing 50 mp with TC and 100 mp without TC.
It is possible however, to change between 50 mp 645 sensor and 50 mp FF sensor (or aps-c one)… but it takes time and invites dust. And need to carry two bodies at once.
Just admit you’re pixelphobic.
First — again — a claim not supported by evidence
Second — why? how is OSPDAF esp. if it is Dual Pixel, different from cramming more transistors in?
Third — does A7RM2 sensor uses 45 nm process? If Nikon’s 20 mp one is done by 250nm why it’s not cheaper then? Why would Nikon use inferior process for their flagship if it did matter? By your own logic, the fact that 250 nm process used shouldn’t matter — because pixel density is so low.
that’s just same pixel density as 24 mp aps-c.
…and there are focal length where a lens needs to be retrofocus if it covers FF but not aps-c…. xD
They have made “zeiss” 35/1.4 retrofocus anyway.
you’re conflating two different things: mp count and sensor size.
100 mp 645 sensor is more useful than 25 mp 645 sensor just like 24 mp aps-c one is more useful than 6 mp aps-c one.
….like Sony A7RM2 price is 100 usd more than Nikon D810 and significantly cheaper than Canon 5DS?
…trending higher not because of shrinking market because BSI more expensive to make?
if BSI more expensive, why FSI is dying out? Instead of making small expensive BSI chip, they could have made larger cheap FSI chip, offsetting lower effectiveness by virtue of FSI one being larger.
…or he could be referring to that thicker wiring could be used with BSI (to keep same QE as FSI) thus raising yield.
Just because one of ways to make BSI sensor is to bond with extra bulk and then grind doesn’t make it can’t be done the other way. The video you’re referring is 5 years old, and nobody tells their secrets. What Sony did with BSI stacked sensor is amazing. Must be they solved these issues somehow.
First, the cam in question is MILC so wider angular response is very welcome. (A7S more prone to colorshift than even A7RM2)
Second…. OSPDAF is needed, preferably more advanced forms (because loss of 1 imaging pixel is more noticeable on low mp sensor)
Third… MILC sensor needs to have better readout speed because shutter can’t open until reading is complete unlike DSLR where mirror returns while sensor is still busy reading frame.
And you can switch to BSI and make wiring thicker at the same time xD
A7RM2 is <20mp in aps-c mode, but larger sensor needs to have thicker wires for same pixel size than the smaller.
also… according to dxo A7RM2 has better SNR than Nikon D5…. “not needed for 20 mp”.
Duh, only in the simplest ones which are not very effective.
DualPixel AF adds even more.
isn’t it like EM1-M2 got a brand new sensor a half stop better? If not Sony, someone else will provide with sensors.
But I guess he was referring to lenses and other accessories.
Hm…. I remember that BSI sensors more prone to getting non-uniform response… just make jpeg engines to take account for this and call this “extended colour” xD
Aren’t you confusing silicone with silicon? xD
BSI uses much less silicon (thinner) xD
well I guess “BSI is expensive” is heading towards the dustbin of history…. Like, it used to be “CMOS provide infreior IQ to CCD”
Nope. Type 1.8″ = aps-c
FF = type 2.7″
3.6″ = 44mm x 33 mm
Vidicon inches of image diagonal.
four-thirds is 1.333″ type (lol)
Having more mp is a teleconverter of zero weight and perfect optical quality.
The lens starts at 18 mm and not 16 mm therefore utterly useless, only for soccer moms :3
Well I guess it’s only hard to correct if you do this using trial and error. Isn’t it like, that most RAW converters already have profile for this lens?
distortion is the silliest complaint for a E-mount lens.
E 16/2.8 has no distortion but corners are never sharp xD
as sensors with more mp and better jpeg engines improve, impact of lens distortion becomes smaller and smaller.
No Magic Lantern still?
Sorry today’s cameras are just very specialized computers xD
Duh virtually all components take either lower or higher voltage anyway and none are connected directly to the battery.
not really long, and not really high mp, only 36 :3
That would be too much to ask for. One CPU for camera-specific things and one CPU for (more or like) stock Android is more realistic.
you can have both. camera writes interleaved during burst and finalizes copies when idle.
this “similar” method might happen inferior as well…
Stacked BSI with RAM because it sounds cool? Sony would rather need to improve OSPDAF (e.g., dual pixel, cross-type points)
These 100-400 are almost same weight/size as of 70-200/2.8 that reporters use routinely.
Not good for shooting birds.
well if Sony licensed Dual Pixel AF they might go as well with 12 mp.
Now if you could predict transgenderism from MRT scans, that would be ‘fascinating’.
Sure, transgenders have right to undergo surgery, but don’t make others pretend it “worked” and don’t demand insurance for this.
So by the same logic, 4/3 designers provided space for aps-c sensors and pentax q designers provided place for 1″ sensor….
because of buttons access?… ideally such case should have separate button electronically connected.
Facebooks owners are fairly “progressive”.
Now I wonder how good the lens is on a FF.
The NIkon mount is stackable on the Canon xD
$5000 wine tastes better than $100 wine, even is they come from the same barrel…
Recent Oly E-M1M2 has great dxo low iso score (~1400) which suggests it has better efficiency for catching light than ff sensors (which should have had ~5600 then)
D810 might make a better camera overall, but this has nothing to do with sensor xD
Leica SL mount is noticeably wider, it was clearly designed with FF in mind.
The first generation of adapters LA-EA1,2 were crop-only which suggests they did not project it to be FF.
…I haven’t seen a D5 user IRL at all xD The last time I was pointed to “high ISO advantage of big pixels” was the photo from F1 done via Nikon + TC
Who Nikon makes these TCs for? I don’t think for D3400 users.
There are always people who want to sell $1 thing for $10.
Well the sensor in Nikon bodies is similar but not same
What exacttly do you mean by ‘darned clean data’? D810 has more DR at low ISO but the 42 mp sensor completely wipes up floor with it on higher ISOs (and in frame rate too).
Why does it have so complex internal baffles? I’d rather prefer to have opening as large as possible to make sure baffles won’t clip any light paths.
aren’t Irix and Samyang the same company? There was a rumour Samyang is going to make AF lenses in Canon mount too.
nor Leica… who would wish BSI sensor the most.
36 better than 42 in lab tests because the loss of interpolated AF pixels in 42, or D810 giving better camera experience overall?
D5 users never need TC?
hm. does ‘standard zoom’ include f/2.8 and f/4 ones? or only 3.5-5.6 one?
BS. adding three more seats in a car increases its mass and cost for each unit. Whereas cost of software is fixed.
the only difference between two is that crippled software.
Speed and resolution are inversely correlated.
other color rendering, BW (gets more sensitivity too), non-bayer masks,
Also, global shutter — which unfortunately reduces DR — so you have to pick one — wide DR or global shutter.
Or you can have sensor with pixels of different size for extra wide DR.
The only Sony waterproof cams are small sensored compacts. Others at best are “weathersealed” which is inferior to other brands. Fixed lens RX1 would have make a great option for being waterproof.
“why change”? it’s like asking if you have zooms why have primes?
You can slap Canon 24-70/2.8 on a speedbooster and get 17-49/2 xD stop faster.
Brand matters. And it’s not benefits of mirror, but more mature market, second-hand gear, ability to repair, rent, lower cost or ownership, and collection of already owned lenses.
no, luxury items with lenses in them are niche.
Also the QX1 did not find much use as drone camera because its software is crippled.
dxo almost always reports Nikons with similar sensor as having more DR at min ISO than Sony cams
battery technology is almost at plateau. But consumption of electronics (to do same job) becomes less and less.
well… it’s still better than typical ‘good’ 135 film and a lot better than ‘consumer’ 135 film was.
That depends on what you mean by “country”. Countries are labels and are only as good as well they useful to people associated with. Or if you mean ruling elites in US and Russia, they do indeed have different interests and they try to convince people they have different interests. People neither in Russia nor US do not have interest in flooding their countries with Muslims, their liberties taken from them and more absurd regulations. When American government takes one liberty from its citizens, Russian government looks at this at takes two or three from theirs.
Your “values” are a social construct and their only utility is as those of having share in Ponzi scheme. You get social points for parroting these “values” as long as those who coined them have power in society.
Digital cameras, on contrast, have some objective utility. So I would advocate for more immigration from Vietnam, Korea Japan (who make cameras) rather those who rape and blow things it.
Your values are killing society where they circulate.
Sony’s weathersealnig in the name only. Real waterproof.
Touchscreen is only in a6500, FF cameras lack it.
interchable sensors, sensor tilt unit, sensor move AF, removable filters (IR, UV), zoom eyepiece, fully articulated screen, global shutter etc. etc.
I’m sorry, but 7 upvotes to Barry’s repost of unrelated tweet from seemingly hijacked account made me angry.
Mine comment does relate to cameras.
Agreed with the 1, the 2 and 3 are BS.
what increasing data requirements?
nex-7 was 24 mp six year before and today’s a6500 is still 24 mp.
>Batteries in support of those have to go somewhere.
Modern Sony cameras can take power via USB. You can connect your camera to power generator. xD
Having good cameraphones decreases number of FF sales, so it is a competition.
There’s much less difference between IQ of modern cameraphone and modern FF than between modern 20 mp cameraphone and 1 mp cameraphone 15 years ago.
Because this day we are obsessed by the special snowflake’s feelings, inventing more genders, triggers and protected groups and not technology.
>And each step takes us further down the wrong path
Oh. Just think about it:
4.confiscation of property belonging to whites
5.attacks by mobs supported by those in power
see what the Leftists and SJW take road to?
From now on, use only cameras made in EU and Muslim countries.
>And he truly believes that all of our problems are caused by a few groups of people….
That’s strawman. What if I say the Dems believe that the problems are caused by few groups — the deplorables, the police, the rich.
Teaching Muslims not to blow things up is hatred, but teaching men not to rape is “progressive”.
And also Hitler ate sugar (like most of us). And like you, Hitler liked animals.
I was referring to your statement “should be in jail”. Insuitability is not a felony. Whether he is fit or not — there’s democratic elections to decide xD
In dictatorships they often don’t allow people to run in elections because, um, being “unfit”.
We Russians have Putin as ruler for 17 years, and he’s going on. You Americans should thank God you can elect another president.
why doesn’t this screenshot come in a single picture?
Sounds great, but when was the last time Zeiss or Cosina released any camera of significance?
>One is of course the resolution, and another is the sensitivity, and third is the speed.
In short: clueless about what to do.
Let’s just make the same camera with marginally improved sensor…
Thailand: Can workers assembling A7RM2 afford to buy one?
USA: Oscars are too white. How do I lose weight?
Medical tourism, IVF screening, embryo selection can still be a benefit for you it you can’t even shut down genetics denialists.
They will say that these machine learning algorithms we use to predict IQ from genes just learned to take discrimination in account.
YI could have had competitive advantage by allowing open source software… (chances are, their contract with Pana/Oly prohibits this).
Because it increases site traffic xD
“Physics physics”…. That’s why for decades, MF sensors had worse high ISO that full-frame ones?
Damn it. Better show what happens if this focal reducer is placed on macro bellows and used as main lens xD
You chose to be offended…. Like Muslims chose to be offended by Charlie Hebdo. However you *know* your cause is just and their isn’t…
And what? Some sheep f****rs denied entry in US? How does this compare to taking a human life.
Many conservatives feel that Trump will make Republicans non-electable for a long time, and next Democratic nominee will win in a landslide. How is their guess worse that yours?
I thought my country was Snow Nigeria with nukes. And now it turns out we faked elections in 1st economy of the world! Can I be proud of my country?
>He has proved himself as no better than the people he attacks.
>That’s what it is to be a humanist, and of that I’m proud.
That is, how your humanism is your achievement? You live in society which encourages these values which you simply repeat over and over. You haven’t invented a written language, the wheel, the internet, and so on. When there was a REAL genocide in Rwanda, you didn’t take weapons and went to protect the victims. Neither you want to join US police to improve treatment of blacks (because hey, a criminal might shoot you). You just earn Social Justice points easy way, without paying any cost.
>What has he contributed to society?
I don’t know about him, but there are many people who you might call racist who made major contibutions
Peter Galton (dactiloscopy, statistics)
Ronald Fischer (statistics, biology)
Nikola Tesla (AC)
William Shockley (transistor)
James Watson (DNA structure)
And there are many times when a person didn’t invent something just because it has been already invented by person’s neighbors.
…and… what average Democrat voter on student loans and phD in Gender Studies has contributed to society?
>thus raising the average IQ, in all probability, of America if whites were discriminated against in favour of Asians.
Asian Americans have higher median income, less likely to be stopped by police and live longer than White Americans. So they already got most of what they deserve, save maybe underrepresenation in goverment.
>then surely we should just do away with the poor.
‘We’ already do. US (and many countries) doesn’t even give tourist visas for people who don’t have enough money. Many countries offer quick naturalization for rich people.
>He should be far more vehemently protesting against men if safety and violence is important to him, if he really feels strongly about it.
Our species needs males to function. Suppose a country wiped all males, then 1.many women will be unhappy and 2.the country would be instantly conquered by neighbor. Low IQ people are not neccessary and analogic scenario does not have such consequences. Or, if a country instead of wiping males restricted male population to 10% then being permitted to give birth to son would be grandeur privilege and cause of fight amongst women.
Plus, it’s very likely if he has a child, he would prefer to leave them unguarded near women and not men, so he does discriminate against males.
>We could divide people up on any number of abilities or skill sets
the other abilities either strongly correlate with IQ, or don’t correlate with anything useful and much more volatile than IQ, or apply only in some environments.
* You don’t need 2nd amendment because government never becomes tyrannic
* Trump is new Hitler
Your statement is denigrating towards these millions of people who were were killed in war and death camps, this does not compare to just having lost an election.
are you an idiot (no, just brainwashed)? Trump simply wants Mexican immigrants obey US laws like for immigrants from other countries.
EU cuckolds accept Muslim refugees but reject Ukrainian ones. Diversity and opportunity only for groups chosen by Cathedral…
you mean humorous joke said in a private conversation?
Election hijack? What are you smoking?
Folk science. You get same amount of light in this use case, because the lens is same and you are only using TC to stretch same amount of light on larger sensor. Also TC will lose few percent of light on reflections and vignetting.
A7Sii has lower read noise per area.
Remember how faster Sony OSPDAF started to work after Sony-Aptina patent exchange. It’s not all pixel size.
For smaller sensor, the lens could just have been more like f=500 f/4…. quite moderate xD
Folk science strikes again!
Extenders make sense for SLRs which have OVF. With mirrorless just using smaller sensor is better.
It’s 4.5x! Do you know many 4.5x lenses with long working distance?
8/3.5 is a SLR design.
whaaaa I want a macro with apodization filters. so OOF won’t ruin focus stacking
Reversed, would make great portrait lens for Pentax Q.
30/1.4 DN has physical FL = 30 and 35-equiv of 45 mm.
Only theoretically.xD probably nobody would make it for a small market.
It’s possible to make a focal reducer that inserts into rear part of FE70200F4 xD
Sigma 30/1.4 exists and it’s a lot cheaper than the Fuji. Otherwise the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is minor.
Do you mean having iris in-camera, of a dial to drive iris in the lens?
If the former, then such cameras actually existed, and it was a bad idea.
Shhhh, if Sony hears you they will release another 50, 18-110, and 18-200.
Lol, technology advances killed typists as a skilled profession. Photography itself ate a major portion from artists.
Cameraphone is not restricted to having one small sensor. What about synthesized aperture?
200/2.8 has entrance pupil of 71 mm. About width of cameraphone. There’s
Because its software is crippled.
Sony rather needs to replace 16-50 pancake with sharper one. (maybe rebrand some Samsung lenses xD)
‘NEX’ is a very bad name, it causes confusion with ‘next’ for every person who doesn’t keep an eye on camera market.
FD doesn’t fit modern DSLRs
As for the second one, do we really need to know “true” no-tilt position? if lens is decentered itself, plus adapter then tilt unit may compensate both
but you can’t shoot planes or birds with smartphone
Why can’t they find another test scene? Wine/oil bottles are extremely boring.
I hate 35 mm on aps-c. For aps-c DSLRs they have the excuse making 35 mm instead of 30 mm makes lens less retrofocus, simpler and cheaper. But not for mirrorless.
Yongnuo makes cheap fullframe lenses in CaNikon mounts (35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8)
There is nothing magical and expensive in large image circle.
Moreover, same design for smaller image circle requires tighter manufacturing tolerancies.
Heck, Fuji instax is a MF camera and lens covers ever more than FF.
Of course Sony don’t want adapted lenses to work as well as native, and even less invest too much effort in it.
BIG? Ok sony where’s your 90mm f/0.9 ?
With improvements in sensors (light field cameras) you’ll have better quality even with meniscus lenses xD
Why no cheap stills m43 camera with aps-c sensor? xD
Things that 95% of people need more: pancake 22/2, and sharper pancake zoom
Is 17-70 a new lens? I suspect it isn’t. Unlike some Four Thirds lenses were specifially made to have support for CDAF
for their own lens they always can implement method where lens founds out it’s mounted via adapters and just disables it, so it doesn’t hold ground.
it’s a clickbait site xD
hm Angry Birds were produced by Sony pictures, right? but it’s anti-PC story
I’d prefer a woman with face and eyes
I guess he is just addicted to it xD
>mass producing a new processor for 28mp cellphone cameras
with 28 mm equiv FOV? LOL not situable for wildlife
Flange distance is not an optical property. Many M-mount lenses have protruding rear elements so backfocus is the same as E-lenses have.
It looks like the only changes to design were to account to Sony FE’s thicker sensor stack.
1)It’s not that drastical. Compare Loxia 50/2 and any “nifty fifty”.
2)you can use TechArtAF adapter and M-mount version of the lens.
Hm, many aps-c macro lenses cover FF when focused close.
1.AF at worst only increases diameter of the lens (e.g. compare Mitakon 85/1.2 and Canon 85/1.2)
2.AF does not have to be in lens xD there are screw driven lenses, TechArt AF adapter, or cameras where sensor/film moves to focus.
A speedbooster with 4 or 5 elements is simpler than usual 50/1.8 which has also a motor and iris. It’d be cheaper if it was made in large amounts.
A7S has cropped mode. Don’t write BS.
Hm… AFAIK in video mode, the area of FF sensor used is closer to APS-C stills area, not FF stills area. Correct?
It’s full-manual lens.
what does this have to do with canon’s 17-55 except FL and aperture?
The front element has always to be larger than FL divided by f-stop, regardless of format. And don’t forget that this lens is a macro — and such macros are actually zooms xD
Zeiss has nothing to do with “ZA” lenses but blue sticker.
but E-mounts had touchscreens in 5N,5R,5T,5100
5DS sensor does not have PDAF, it has smaller pixel pitch than 5DM4 which is significantly later camera.
well for a-e there are Sony adapters xD
Sigma has MC-11. or you just with adapter to be put permanently on the lens?
unfortunately doesn’t work for birds, and still inferior to having sensor with more resolution
proof for the former?
1.More MP replace teleconverters without adding aberrations and reflections.
2.Sharp lens and scene producing moire
Does 36 mp nikon 810 have worse DR than 20 mp nikon d5?
Please stop whining and educate yourself about sources of noise in digital cameras.
Photon shot noise is the highest — the light is noisy itself..
With BSI they can do 100+ mp on a FF sensor.
Much better! In Japan there are people who design and produce cameras, at sensible prices!
> one of those Sony or Olympus devices
“one of those devices” is already a full camera albeit without display. Sony’s one has old 20 mp sensor without PDAF, so it’s not like image quality will be same as a6500. and it doesn’t shoot 4k. and no ibis. And it’s not cheaper than camera with display and buttons. — because LCD is one cheapest components.. but this “module” has cpu, memory, battery, card slot
“the rest of the body” is actually quite easy to implement by most hobbyists.
DXOmark ‘low light’ score is a good proxy for difference between SLT and MILC xD
oh I’m afraid they won’t respond to every curious fanboy xD
How do you explain it? Is it mirrors that costly to make even if Nikon makes 3x more units and has economies of scale?
Nikon 1 requires much longer backfocus so lenses cannot be reused
the X1D has larger sensor, but no focal plane shutter or IBIS. What is to be impressed at? Well maybe only relative to flapping mirror SLRs.
NX mount is narrow, FF can fit but it’s no good.
If you follow this link later you
>>There will not be any license fees required for the license. However, a part of expenses related to distribution of the Basic Specifications will be charged to the applicant.
And that is for “basic specifications” only.
Metabones actually reverse engineered E-mount protocol.
>>Disclaimer: we are NOT licensed, approved or endorsed by Sony or Canon.
Have you forgotten that Techart adapter can ruin E-mount camera? Is this because they have complete spec, isn’t it?
well i thought (wishful thinking) that Nikon has already set up production for the lens. Setting up mass production is the most expensive part
their mirrorless 30/2.8, 19/2.8, 60/2.8 exist in ‘ART’ versions.
It doesn’t have to be huge.
Guys don’t you think Sony or Pana can buy/license that 18-50 lens from Nikon and slap it to their existing camera?
i have trouble believing these numbers are real.
they do require licensing and NDA, stop that myth
Nikon 1s not pocketable and have lenses 2 stops slower.
lose. it’s written lose.
They too. And so Samsung used to (but idk if it was a Sony or their sensor)
LOL. how would they be able to reuse fixed collapsible lenses?
T-S lens for mirrorless digital system is like asking to add flapping mirror OVF.
add-on EVF doesn’t count. For NEX-5N add-on EVF costs now more than the camera itsself xD
And add-on EVF is quite fragile compared to builtin one
I still don’t get comparison to Canon’s 85/1.8. If the Canon has lesser diameter and length and seems to have similar amount of glass, how come it’s heavier?
what is this about, then?
and your thoughts?
It should be that Velvia green color that makes me vomit.
24 mp crop camera with zoom lens outresolves A7S with prime xD
With only 12 mp, the loss of imaging pixels to masked PDAF pixels would be quite noticeable.
Yes. It’s finally time for sensors with one, but very big pixel. It is better.
what do you mean 42mp exceed 50 mp with “ease”? The Sony is better in SNR and DR, but you can’t do anything with resolution, except pixel shift superresolution which Sony does not offer.
What is the Strehl number of this lens?
Duh, they already did sell FF cameras w/o EVF — the first generation of RX1.
And they can opt out focal plane shutter at all.
>The a6500 is already almost as big as the A7 II, just with a shifted, smaller EVF.
And it means a lot. You can’t bump in hump if there’s no hump. I remember when I once hugged my former GH I hit her with flash on NEX-5N.
I’d bet the new high end E mount camera will be really boring, except that 2nd card slot, bigger girp, bigger everything
uuum x-sync 1/120 is still slower than focal plane shutter and very far from 1/4000 which leaf shutters do.
Nope. To reach 1:1 you need extension equal to FL. For 0.5x, half FL. Close focus distance does not come into equation.
Why would it be impossible? It would just need some software changes. Standard PDAF would underestimate amount of movement needed to bring image in focus but still point in right direction.
Nikon did f1.2 and it was the limit. Sony E can easily do f/0.8 and up to f/0.5 (although you risk burning sensor with sun image lol)
>It would be an alternative to close the aperture during exposure, that would give the same effect…
Good point, I thought about it too, it might be useful, but it won’t have same effect. Diffraction effects will be completely different (APD filter makes diffraction rings lower). And not with focal plane shutter. And camera makers are too conservative.
Duh I like to shoot at 4x
He owns Sony gear.
And I own old NEX-5N and bash Sony happily xD
what for you need e-ND on superteles? BTW all e-mount lenses have long enough backfocus so you can fit even three filters there, pushing backfocus to SLR-ish 38 mm is not required.
Show this to all “muh laws of physics cannot make smaller” crowd.
Oh. I forgot these “85” and “1.8” are *approximate* values.
So you have little more space between camera grip and lens to fit your fingers.
When there are 2 motors they have to CDAF-optimize only one of them. One can be long throw and slower, other one short throw and faster. So I guess it’s more for speed.
And now I want a macro lens with switchable APD filter.
>Toss a short extension tube on there
I guess you have to toss about 50 mm to get 1:1 magnification, that’s not “short”.
Ok. Where are proofs that CaNikon bought designs from Tamron?
So… what do we get *in result* then with this mini-BIONZ? 1200 fps, global shutter? Just moving digital processing circuits closer to pixels for its own sake is bad because heat and noise generated by digital circuits will interfere with both pixels and ADCs.
The point is, there is no law of physics which makes it impossible.
Difficult? Yes. But everything is difficult in a digital camera! BSI sensor with DRAM? Difficult. Piezoelectronic motors? Difficult. AF? Difficult. Mirror slapping at 14 fps? Difficult. And so on.
And they had large pixel pitch. But this is for smartphones with ~1.2 micron pixel pitch. And it has good low light unlike sensors used by Sigma.
No idea. But I don’t think Sony will overtake Canon’s share.
And I don’t see how having aperture ring would make my photos any better.
Doublet means 2 elements of glass, often cemented or thinly spaced.
I’m afraid they don’t teach physics at SAR. Mostly folklore. Have you seen electronically switchable 3d glasses? They work. Material switches between transparent and opaque.
Nikon’s bayonet is narrow so f1.2 is problematic (and Nikon has smaller marketshare than Canon, haven’t you noticed?). Many Canon shooters use 50/1.2, 85/1.2 its not just collector’s item. It helps to build brand reputation even if beginners don’t use it.
I guess it doesn’t make sense to attach 2 motors if there only’s 1 element that moves during AF (it is with most E lenses, not even a doublet)
Many aps-c e-mount lenses are actually Tamron designs, judging from patents.
Cucumbers are 95% water. So if you can walk on cucumbers, you are 95% Jesus.
Well actually Barry has a point. I can add to it that Canon launched f1.0 lens very early in EF mount history, and that’s SLR lens, electronic contacts even overlap rear element.
E mount still doesn’t have a single f1.2 AF lens.
Well it still could be possible to implement it, albeit difficult (that is replacing with identical element w/o APD)
Petition Sony to add DFD AF to your camera xD
Since when technology stays the same?
Ah, and since when point&shoot cameras have these heavy interchangeable lenses? They are for real, DSLR cameras.
Yes. But imagine if the filter was switchable if you want to turn it off.
Effectively depth of field won’t be like f2.8 but something in between f2.8 and f5.6
I wonder, how Canon users manage to get job done, and get paid, without aperture ring on lenses?
Hurray! Another 85 mm lens. We already have enough of those, don’t we?
The whole point of SAR.
Are you saying the lefties like pink? I like pink and i’m not a leftie.
They allow hate speech when it’s directed at PC designated scapegoats.
remember, real photographers shoot film…
duh, just slap a focal reducer on this Sigma xD
old 4/3 has disproportionately large flange distance so they couldn’t make lenses small.
The Otus, compared to its FL/frame size is much smaller than the Zuiko. It the Otus is downscaled 0.5x times to become 27 mm lens covering MFT frame, it will weight 970/2^3 = 121 grams! More than THREE times less than the Zuiko. The Zuiko weights nearly as much as Canon’s full-frame 50/1.2L which does have AF.
50mm of FF has same FOV as 25mm of MFT. Therefore for MFT the “simplest” FL is about 20-25 xD
E-mount is not that wide, that 36×24 barely fits is already a lucky coincidence.
>OIS and IBIS systems are both mechanically constrained to move in only one plane.
as with tilt, it’s 2 degrees of freedom (or 3) so what’s the difference?
>will have to be done electronically with a very accurate sensor reading the current position.
With OSPDAF points over all the area and CDAF-capable lens, is it that difficult? Ordinary CDAF hunt sweep also can reveal tilt.
>The correct question to ask is “do users of adapters complain that their adapter is not exactly straight
This is actually argument in favor of having auto-tilt, as this will allow to cancel any skew present in adapter.
Ok, you proved me wrong xD
But it must be you have designed many sensors and know what type of fab Sony will use to produce next sensor?
Barry are you serious? Window glass *in front* of lens is quite another stuff unlike optical. Glass elements working at full aperture have to have greater quality than closer-to-image-plane elements. And that’s not even mentioning window glass is not made for photography at all…
Maybe. But I know no Sony lenses designed by Olympus. Yet there were multiple examples of Oly lenses designed by Sigma (at least, patent on optics).
popular demand? then why don’t we start a kickstarter campaign? xD
well it could also mean that, say, a store has got 4 orders and has only 3 items in stock xD demand is more than supply but both are small
This is about mouse clicks, NOT the actual number of cameras sold.
>Adapted long lenses do not fast focus on E mount,
Well this doesn’t have to be if the lens is new and made by Sony. Imagine lens actually supports E-mount protocol and detects its mounted through adapter; then it switches off the adapter so it functions just a relay, not a protocol translator.
Unlikely, given that Olympus itself buys designs from Sigma xD
low volume items aren’t produced continuously, they assemble line, do a batch and then disassemble.
It’s up to user to decide if it’s usable. For timelapses it would suffice xD
why does he want backlit buttons for astrophoto? Astrophographers are supposed to use laptop tethered to camera anyways xD and a Canon one because Sony’s dark current is more…
what about RX100 m3-m5? xD
watch “The Car Built for Homer” for simple explanation why it is wrong
Such kind of folk engineering is actually logical conclusion of SAR and gear discussions xD
How is Hassy a longtime partner of Sony? Fuji was the main Japanese supplier for Hasselblad. Those rebadged Sony clones don’t count really.
Is there any evidence of contrary? The same folk wisdom said OSPDAF won’t work with legacy lenses at all.
Barry number two xD
still those high ISOs might be useful in some times, e.g. to check focus quickly in the dark.
Barry is special xD
“conventional” DSLRs today have metering sensor which is just that, and while its under megapixel, it rivals resolution of of early digital cameras.
what about A3500? xD
This might mean electronic coupled rangefinder where user mechanically adjusts rangefinder and AF motor moves lens to focus on where user points to.
a 200-500 girlfriend?
Something opposite: tiny 28/2 lens for full-frame. MS Optics Apoqualia-g 28 f/2
they produced rangefinders
terribly difficult? how do you know? is it terribly difficult to design OIS or IBIS system which keeps flat enough when turned off?
do existing T&S lenses shooters complain that it is difficult to use them for “normal” shooting?
Medium format Fuji Instax is quite portable to be in popular use xD
sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Canon hackers unlocked LiveView on some of older Canon EOS which didn’t support it officially and 3k video on 5DM2 iirc.
yeah, but many people cannot afford it.
It can be — on static images.
Images from IR are from static targets so it can’t rule out temporal NR.
Hail “tested and true” faux DSLR form factor!
what if Olympus learned to cheat with dxo tests? they might detect testing conditions and enable NR. dxo doesn’t post its files xD
for fun leisure lens it’s somewhat large. if it was at least collapsible…
a lens which costs $10k against $3k camera might have its own AF sensors as well xD
Leicas are fashion accessories with photographing function.
Yes maybe canon’s M5 sells more in Japan. But is it a birder’s camera? Are there any EF-M lenses for wildlife? World class leading AF?
If anything, canon’s EF-M proves you wrong…
Largest E-mount cameras dwarf A99 xD look as FS700
it’s not intendedto birders at all xD why don’t you ask for special hybrid viewfinder (e..g like in Fuji PRO) for birders? xD
Obviously because there’s no camera which exactly matches all
no, only teles have to be longer
if they do, whydon’t they post number of specimens tested?
unlikely, Dxo don’t test long exposures
I agree on most points, but area per pixel is of low relevance.
E-mount being a fully electronic system shouldn’t have tilt-shift. It is an old paradigm.
I don’t own any EF lenses xD but I have two E-mount macro rings and they are quite unreliable xD
X1D uses leaf shutters, no focal plane shutter unlike Sony FE
I guess shutter is normally open on these lenses, because it’s for DSLRs
actually MF *used* to have worse low light performance, but since Sony makes MF sensors, it is no more.
why don’t they sell 42 mp and 12 mp FF sensors to anyone else then??
you could think Leica especially would want to get FF BSI sensor
X1D + wideangle prime weights slightly more than 1 (one) kilogram.
fallacious argument. picture from a7rm2 downsized to 12 mp will be superior to image from a7s.
you need to compare old low mp count MF with high MP FF then
why does it need to? 12-bit m43 sensors gave more DR (at min ISO) than Canon’s old 14-bit sensors.
the thing is, that the point where MTF hits zero is different from the point where MTF fall becomes noticeable
The same cheap Tessar lens on 16 mp apsc and on pentax Q https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
And Australia makes no cameras…. what a coincidence, strange, eh?
like FE 50/1.8 which has less sharpness than Canon EF 50/1.8 STM despite having one ashperic element more?
Why can’t we have positive locking mounts on regular cameras?
Why stop at 12-24? Why not go to 10-20? xD or 8-16/4 so it doesn’t overlap with existing 16-35?
Sony did not have option to rebrand Tamron FE lens, because it had not existed xD
70/2.8 on aps-c camera has equivalent reach of 105/4 on FF xD
Duh if he was posting clever comments, it wouldn’t make Sony to actually produce the Barry lens anyway xD
Those are wideangle SLR lenses. They require about ~38 mm backfocus, more than thrice longer minimum focal length and 1.5x longer max focal length. and it keeps size bigger.
106 degree fov vs. 120 degree fov a world of difference? that’s like difference between 58 mm and 50 mm lenses. the biggest difference between 12 and 16 is how faces are stretched in the corners xD
Doesn’t RX1M2 have leaf shutter like the Mark 1?
innovation like faux pentaprism which prevent mounting of some lenses and adaptors?
Sony’s new FE 50/1.8 has inferior IQ to Canon’s simple one whereas the Sony has extra aspheric element?
but 2017 is only begun, what does “2017” refer to?
And would they also publish spectral and angular response of their sensors as well? xD
those f-stops are rounded heavily anyway. Canon’s 50/1.2L is more like f/1.27. And so are focal lengths.
There is no practical reason to use T-stops but traditionalism of filmmakers (who were also very reluctant to switch to digital). Except, maybe, for STF or catadioptric lenses.
Effective T-stop would be dependent on color of illumination used, sensor spectral response, and angular response for fast lenses. 24mps on FSI aps-c sensor are not effeciently handling f/0.9 lenses .
Wrong. A photo receptor cell in human eye is not same as pixel in digital camera
No he shouldn’t. Stitched panorama from smaller sensor would give more resolution still.
A7II has old 24 weak sensor with bad SNR… 6D has even better SNR that this. both don’t do 4k at all.
I agree that ‘cross point’ is a bit of misnomer, but then PDAF is huge misnomer, because there it’s more like a rangefinder. Phase appears only when you do FFT on data from sensors
With 24-42 mp small loss of pixels isn’t that significant. Some Nikons used even entire rows for PDAF. And yet it appears nobody speaks of IQ loss. There are no special options in demosaics to accomodate for this loss. And IQ won’t suffer at all if you replace half of pixels sensitive to horizontal shift with same number of pixels sensitive to vertical shift.
Well… composition is actually more important than using M mode xD
Yes, it would. There is no way to get more SNR without reducing DOF, except light field cameras.
You comment reads much like folk science from person who confuses entrance pupil and front lens diameter (i’m not saying you do, but you can do better). And you haven’t answered why there is no cross-type ospdaf points.
have other manufacturers trickled EVFs to lower end?
Nah, something other which is more interesting to most people (who don’t read SAR): small ultracompact aps-c pancake 27/2 for $200.
seems BS to me. Production queues are long, nobody will hold looking what competitor will do.
Most of buyers are not whiners for 16-50/2.8 etc. They want cheap lenses. Sony has more lenses but their lineup is silly. They even have two basic 18-200 and lenses for videographers (which most folks don’t want too)
Duh $1k Zony 24/1.8 performs same as Canon EF-M 22/2 which is a fraction of price and twice smaller.
You should compare A7 II to Canon 6D. vs 5D4 its apples and oranges.
Which ‘image characteristics’ of ‘real’ 60 f/1.0 it will lack?
The first Q and Q10 had 1/2.3″ sensor, Q7 and Q-S1 had 1/1.7″ sensor
so 15-45/2.8 lens for Pentax Q is equivalent to 70-200/2.8 on full-frame? They don’t produce equivalent images.
why is it geometry problem?
there are still no cross-type ospdaf points, does geometry prevent that?
I guess Sony can’t use Dual Pixel yet due to patents, and Canon probably can’t use something other due to patents.
I’d prefer something which would tether to the smartphone via wire or wifi
Just because 70-300 has same FL and aperture with a-mount lens does not meant it’s same, the interior is totally different.
You are confusing two different things. Moving lens to another sensor doesn’t change its FL, but attaching a reducer does.
aps-c cameras are surely more common than ff cameras… not sure about mft through.
Sigma 18-35/1.8 is a bad example because it’s wideangle for DSLR with overly long backfocus (relatively 1.5x longer than FF). for mirrorless cameras it could be smarter.
iirc Samsung has 50-150/2.8 too?
Diameter of 16-50/2.8 is *NOT* determined by its entrance pupil size.
And OSS is not a requirement given A6500 has IBIS.
Read about focal reducer concept xD
Yes, 5 f/1.8 ones and 5 f/1.4 ones 😛
you can buy this lens in a supermarket where they also sell refridgerators and playstations. it’s a consumer item.
Because we don’t need to.
I generally agree but Sony has nothing to do with Batis & Loxia lenses and Loxias don’t really count because they have no AF.
Canon released f/1.0 prime very early in EF timeline… Sony has done only f/1.4
where’s his A5?
as of why don’t we have 15.2 of DR in aps-c, this is because it doesn’t sell. Canon is still the market leader despite lagging in DR for years. it’s actually not that hard to get more DR trading another qualities of sensor.
Ok. How, then, do you explain DXO chart wheres the Red has more than 2 stops better SNR than the Sony despite having about 50% of the area?
16 bit is a marketing gimmick. Most of those ’16bit’ MF actually did only 14 bit. And modern D810 has more DR than those old ’16bit’ MF
Two kinds of people probably irritate me the most. The one kind says you can’t use m43 lenses on aps-c. The second one makes userpics on website round, clipping out those precious corners.
That is videos. For videos only a portion of sensor is used.
proof about clipping on aps-c?
how are you going to get 190 fov with rectiliniar lens?
same 190 diagonal and horizontal, but fov will be somewhat clipped vertically.
well… some thought 42 mp sensor cannot do 12 fps until a99m2 came.
i’m irritated Tamron didn’t release 14-150 in E-mount… Small nice lens xD
well we only know Batis lenses lens patents are hold by Tamron, but do they manufacture the lenses?
nope, i complained about Sony many times, e.g. not exploiting this BSI sensor angular response to make smaller lenses, their huge and pricey “zeiss” 24/1.8 etc etc. But that users picks very odd reasons to complain all the time.
Yet I like his attitude more than others “it cannot be done better because of physics”
“Whatever noise reduction system RED employs creating the RAW images from the Helium sensor, its presence means that we aren’t measuring just the RED sensor, so its results aren’t directly comparable to those from camera sensors we have tested from other vendors, whose RAW results come straight from the sensor with no prior noise reduction processing.”
well, if it indeed gives better results from twice smaller area, then it’s impressive regardless of the cost
it’s a speculative patent.
You seem to have something against Sony. Have they taken your wife, dog or car?
I’m afraid it’s just a jpeg file, not a game.
Shave the petal hood xD
well the way for smaller fisheyes was found by Sony, by throwing out the mirror xD
Exciting! Whereas Sony makes only gentleman’s set lenses, like “everyone else”
Well it’s obviously intended to be used mostly by aps-c users, where it is diagonal.
btw why there is no more compacts with external AF sensor (essentially rangefinder) like PowerShot Pro 1?
oh and you could rip 1/2.3″ 20 mp compact cam which has even smaller pixel pitch than the Q.
Nah, stated max consumption is 55 mW, min at 3 fps is 8 mW. That makes from 140 hours to 962 hours from NEX battery
Pentax Q has similar pixel pitch — 1.54 micron vs. 1.12 micron and both are too small for E-mount lenses. A camera with 1″ sensor would however make good teleconverter for e-mount lenses.
crop factor about 15…
Well there’s Pentax Q already. Just crop 1 mp out of 12 mp, and you’re done xD
No second card slot, deal breaker.
how would OSPDAF on APS-C sensor be different from 1″ sensor? BTW, pixel size on 10 mp Nikon Ones is nearly same as 24 mp aps-c.
Would you rather prefer lens that is acceptably sharp and has distortion, or a lens without distortion where corners never get sharp (like E 16/2.8?)
They do have already some designs (they have even patent applications)
designing doesn’t take so long, but setting up cost-effective production
Flipping mirror requires more space than fixed. In A900 they had to use more complex mechanism to fit mirror and IBIS at the same time.
nah, you’re messing it with LEA-4. screwdriven lenses need screwdriver, mirror is not neccessary, it’s just Sony does not make any adaptors which have screwdriver and no mirror (but some users asked for this)
Hindu coders…. Hindu photo gear testers….
It’s a shame it doesn’t yet exist.
Can’t. Because current sensors have only “left” and “right” looking OSPDAF pixels.
Yeah, and add digital signature to prove the photo is authentic.
Yeah, but only if tinfoil hat is weared improperly.
Nitpicking: some Leica lenses are autofocus.
There is nothing special about rangefinder. Duh anything Leica is doing going to be expensive
oh I thought MP-E is an AF lens xD anyways I don’t have money for it. I use 4x at APS-C, so small sensor camera has to do 1:1 to counter that. What is the magnification for TG-4? And working distance? Many compacts shoot macro only at wideangle
what’s the problem with short telephoto lenses?
Manual focus stacking is inconvenienient
>as in, an after-the-fact ability equal to adjusting a polarizer during the shoot.
I don’t see why this is true. At worst, we get worse SNR because of subtraction. But instead we can apply different directions is different places and eliminate reflections entirely instead of partially
Envy is bad
so you can shoot first and “apply” polarizer later? isn’t this desirable for photography too?
But it’s a very niche lens.
Isn’t 50/1.4 FE already?
While the lens is not capable to render its 20 mp, it sure does more than 2mp of fullHD.
Source for what? Optical diagram for the 85 has been published, and you can see it has no similarity to classic Sonnar, not even one celemented pair. And it’s longer than the Batis 85/1.8.
But I guess it works with focus stacking in Magic Lantern and you can change magnification without changing lenses xD
…And this would make a nice portrait lens for Pentax Q… xD Just mounting will be inconvenient xD
It is not a Sonnar design, Zeiss just owns the trademark and they may slap it on anything they like.
Sorry I can’t give advice because I already had lenses around and never really looked for them.
20 cm refers to distance between image and object, not object and front lens!
>closer it must be.
not necessarily. in can be retrofocus.
if it’s conventional double Gauss at 20mm, then the working distance can be expected to be ~ 13 mm.
yes, but for such magnification increase of working distance would make lens larger and more expensive.
There are actually a lot of such lenses in microscopy mounts (e.g. RMS mount). It’s a lot cheaper to buy RMS lens + adaptor.
so fisheye is even wider! you can always defish in post.
There’s panaleica 12/1.2 and olympus 8/1.8 and laowa 7.5/2
Admin? The Konica’s 45/2.8 is different from the Panaleica which is a more complex construction and the 150 and the 8-18 lenses do not exist
Good point. Though maybe Leica haven’t really tried to negotiate with Sony well enough.
Duh why don’t they buy 42 mp sensor from Sony then, it has enough angular response to work with M and SL lenses at same time
So are you
that’s eliminates one of sources, but there are others as well: like refractive index non-uniformity. Actually the only use of this for photography I see is variable field curvature lens with such electronically controlled in the very rear of the lens, this is where it won’t impact resolution.
It won’t work with old lenses.
changeable refraction index may also make electronically switchable mirror (between two prisms)
I don’t see it. Panasonic discontinued their GM line.
….because Touits only had PRICE of high-end without others features?
Who designed Touit lenses? 50/2.8 is co-design with Fuji. Others?
Fuji system is much less diverse. There are no Sigma, Samyang, Tamron AF lenses, no fancy 3rd party adapters. You can buy Sigma 30/1.4 + a6500 with less money than xt-2 alone and still xt-2 has no IBIS
And they have that horrible X-trans.
Fuji do have strong points with X-system, but diversity isn’t one of them.
>in a couple of years from now
or maybe Google or someone else will make software which removes rolling shutter. Neural networks can do amazing things.
>STOP MAKING CAMERAS
Don’t buy it xD Have you forgot it’s a stills camera first?
3 colors per pixel not really needed. 2 would be as good.
X-trans has less aliasing if you only shoot vertical and horizontal lines (test charts). Everything else, it’s worse than bayer.
If people want fake DSLR, why wouldn’t they want “look like film”?
Roll off into the highlights is better in film, but if you don’t ETTR then you don’t have this problem with digital. Sensors manufacturers could have easily fixed it (e.g. small and large pixels) but don’t do it because most people are obsessed with high ISO noise.
>plus more forgiving in post.
what do you mean?
> transparency film either on a light table
it isn’t really argument for shooting film. you can shoot digital, edit it and use slide printer to make transparencies.
it could be argued about DSLRs, too.
DSLR still outsell mirrorless about by 2.5-3 x ratio. Heck, even mirrorless cameras have grown in size.
ah, now i’ve got it
A7II sensor is mysteriously worse than seemingly similar sensor in Nikon D600/D750.
That’s what I’m trying to explain to Barry.
Maybe this 500mm lens on Nikon 1 camera would have given better result. But then, p900 can zoom xD
Ok then we should use 1 pixel sensor, diffraction will be reduced by this.
The fist A7R had problems with shutter vibration. And it has no EFCS.
so it makes 5 photosites per one unit of area? In foveon with only three it doesn’t work well. too dense packing
>Because each pixel is twice the length of a square pixel there will be significantly less diffraction
you can’t fool diffraction with pixel sizes/shapes
it pretty much depends on how well demosaic/NR is done.
just nitpicking: 2000 mm is “equivalent” FL, optical FL of P900 is about 350 mm.
Sure it does. Minilabs killed many many rolls xD
A6500 is ~50 grams heavier than A6300. Now A6500 is heavier than Canon 100D, which is a true DSLR.
I don’t understand what you’re referring to.
We don’t know what the contract says. Also, Sony probably can cite damage due to Kumamoto earthquake.
a6500 is best teleconverter xD
lol, the lens is for DSLR obviously
What if it the reason why Sigma didn’t produce nikon to Sony adapter? lol
By repeating this multiple times, you don’t make point stronger… Obviously Commlite/Fotodiox are NOT licensed by Sony.
It is the opposite of publishing. It’s a private club, Sony only promises to tell it under NDA. Even conditions of approval are under NDA themselves.
just nitpicking: you need 2 mm cover glass in order for Loxia lenses to work as intended.
are you going to print focal plane shutter as well? probably modding one of existing cameras with e-mount front more practical
well… if they really wanted to…. they’d publish e-mount specs
If Sony helps only with E-mount side of adapter, this probably won’t bring legal action. Also E-mount part is the most complex here.
i think Sony want something in between: so adapted lenses work, but for serious use one needs native lenses
…… but what if Sony are indeed reading SAR and released A68 and A99M2 just to pull a prank on Barry? xD
isn’t 55/1.8 sharper than any a-mount 85 mm lens?
I though it too, until I viewed in larger size. It’s a painting!!
well i agree about the fist part, but i think to Samsung executives the exact reason why it didn’t sell well didn’t matter.
aps-c sensor area is 61% greater than m43 sensor area, so it’s only fair…
well if all pixels have new, better, microlenses — that’s enough to say it’s a newer sensor. a6000 also suffers less from colorshift than nex-7
comparison with 5d4? link please (sorry i’m lazy)
between NEX-7 sensor and A6300/a6500 sensor there is A6000 sensor, so isn’t it like nex-7 sensor being 2 generations older than a6500?
MTF curves would change if anothing focusing point was chosen
The rod/cone cells mention here is a red herring. Rods participate only in low light and enter saturation in good light. Large number of rods is because rods are binary detectors and one neuron accumulates signal from multiple rods.
Well they could, but it didn’t sell well. What is the reason to keep it up if it doesn’t give profits?
*just remembered that Olympus and Panasonic used to make rangefinder-mimic DSLR cameras* now they make SLR-mimic mirrorless
he apparently asked for CMOS sensor with another color filter array, with one out of 2 greens replaced with ’emerald’
Is that why A7S is the fastest focusing E-mount camera? (not)
In some way, the size difference is there yet you can’t provide any proof it has to do something with how good AF is. It’s like saying “black cameras produce better IQ than pink cameras, therefore new camera needs to be black to have good IQ”. Folk science.
They might throw in Dual Pixel AF (they probably NEED to buy intellectual property to do this) which will add, like, 4-5 stops
Self-timer function s%%%ks, I use IR remote for this
(capacitative) Touchscreen is sometimes useful when camera is mounted on weak tripod, when pressing a button would make it shake, pressing touchscreen does not.
nitpicking: that 1.8-2.8 lens it only 1.8 at 24 mm and f/2.8 at 28 mm already.
They made a major effort to make lens small and collapsible yet the layout prevents it from being pocketable.
Граф не нужен
come to reality, Canon 5DM4 does have 36 million pixels used for Dual Pixel AF.
Barry is sometimes annoying, but one thing I like about him that he asks for *new* things rather than old things like larger batteries
admin, can we please ban him?
apparently Sony do not have enough sensor production capacity to completely drop a6000 and go to newer models. btw a5000 is long discontinued.
And none of them are cheap.
Nikon 1 and NX mini are ILCs with oversized and too slow lenses. Though, you forgot that Nikon AW is the waterproof 1″.
It makes camera unpocketable. Bricks with EVF in corner use space more efficiently.
google “normal cpu temperature”
1″ market oversaturated? o.o the prices for 1″ cameras are still high.
well the title of 43rumors says “Panasonic and Olympus digital camera news” if you haven’t noticed.
It would sell a lot better with more compact EVF rather than fake hump
“physics” again. Most lenses do. But amount of degree it occurs, if it does occur, depends on lens design.
It’s not f/1.8, as people have pointed below
how would it be cheap it FF sensors are not cheap? Would you be satisfied with telephoto lens with 36×24 mm aperture? Don’t you want apertures > 100mm? anyone’s steppers cannot manufacture such large discs
You can make focal reducer that pokes into rear of the main lens (even focal reducer that preserves back focus is possible (e.g. US patent 5499069) or unscrew rear baffle from SEL lens and install focal reducer there
Nope. You misunderstand how focal reducer works. It actually makes rays less oblique. The problem with this reducer on the lens side — it won’t work with telephotos, producing only a small image circle.
The point is, rear lens relative to the image surface, *not* the mount.
All Minolta mount lenses have backfocus > ~ 38 mm. But it is very uncommon to E-mount lenses which usually have 26-13 mm.
You’re mistaking reducer lens *closer* and main lens *closer*. The main lens sits almost where it is. E.g. Metabones lists “length reduction” as mere 4-7 mm for their reducers (larger values are to MFT ones); that is, empty mirrorbox is replaced by glass and they could have kept “length reduction” to zero if they optimized for it (which you can do if you optimize only for certain kinds of main lenses and not various ones as designer intended)
those that have protruding elements? won’t work
SEL70200FE4 has a lot of empty space in its rear. So does the f/2.8.
oh pardon me.
Are you sure they reach APO-level correction?
Published MTF curves look quite mediocre.
curiouser and curiouser
p.s. tell them to make focal reducer for sony FE 70-200 too xD
Sony have IBIS and the only system which has autofocusing adapter xD
if they add exif support xD
single lens element for ~250 £ ?? L3
I think there should be a wiki for 3d printing of somewhat.
if meta-lens future comes, the present will be called the stone age of optics.
Barry do you read what you link to? This metalens is not achromatic. Not good for shooting birds xD
I recall numerous reviewers said Summicron 50 was sharper
1080p=>720p is non-integer ratio, 4k=>1080p is ratio of two.
why doesn’t it?
Liberte Egalite Fraternite, counts meet guilotinnne
If they painted it white from the start with, it might be less prone to overheating…
I agree with most of our points, but with 1″ cameras you can crop corners out and still have more area and mp than with 1/1.7″ camera. And in lowlight 1″ has 3x advantage — imo this is more useful for walkaround camera. 1″ cameras can use slower lenses with same equiv-F-stop, which G5X doesn’t do (e.g. it could use f/4.8 instead of f/2.8 to make optics sharper).
the rearmost element is very close to sensor so light does not dissipate when traveling from lens to sensor :3333
The only 1/1.7″ advantage was that it came to market earlier.
i’m almost sure the speculated camera won’t be smaller or cheaper than already existing 1″ cameras.
Fascist? Troll? Meme? what?
The lens in question (in the patent, I mean) is not parfocal, and neither huge.
The size and price of cine lenses comes of because they can.
Who’ll be the first to say “28mm is for noobs, real pros need 24mm”?
P.S. oh. it was. already.
Isn’t wedding bakery a service?
Yeah, because it is a protected class if and only if it is useful in undermining Western civilization. Religion is *idea* but considered protected class somehow — unless it’s Christian.
I wonder when they make a sensor with cryptographic signature on-chip.
…said a communist
Do you think Sony’s naming is worse than Canon’s where a model has three names in different parts of the world?
Why don’t you use a true DSLR with OVF then?
Increasing voltage doesn’t increase quantity of energy stored. It just connects banks in series instead of in parallel.
Samsung NX 30/2 is smaller, faster, better IQ and more convenient FL.
So is Panasonic 20/1.7
Aristocratic snobs are not needed.
so he did disassemble and measure the radii of the rear element of batis lens? what about other elements?
yeah, but the marketing materials claimed that QC is done by Zeiss.
This “tweaking” isn’t really creative part of lens design, anyone can do this using zemax. Lens designs always change slightly when they go into production.
the precision is indeed, greater, but they are monochromatic and operate on fixed magnification and size constraints are not issue.
Don’t you think Japanese produce stepper lenses themselves too?
I’m sure so much more people want to have compact APS-C 30/2
oh, why then “zeiss” 16-70/4 is known for decentering issues?
Tamron DID patent 90/2.8 macro but the design is completely different from SEL90F28M.
Ok, not two but three. Anyways others are already using it in Canikon mounts.
Low volume item + high fixed costs.
Are you saying Zeiss designed the lens and asked Tamron to patent it? LOL
Sure. Why not. Pay them $20M and they’ll do it for you.
After all, we know only 2 (two) people who are going to use such lens — you and someone else.
p.s. you forgot builtin-macro extender.
that’s EF mount TC, not an E mount one 😀
a 1″ excellent stacked sensor body with E-mount, if it existed, would have been a better option.
What was to be expected. E-mount is very unfriendly to teleconverters.
so many people believe
1. there are too many megapixels
2. we need teleconverters
Why would they do the former?
I understand it is above your understanding, but here’s JP patent publication number for 25/1.8:
And same goes for M.Zuiko 25/1.8…. I’d suprised to know if 45/1.8 not a Sigma design.
…says a person who understands nothing in lens design.
btw, the lens insides shown in marketing materials are not required to be precise.
what? hx-400v doesn’t have raw?
I guess it’s all up to software used for stitching. How would lens would give it? esp. considering you don’t need to stitch 220 fov images
there are only hundreds of them, making them very rare compared to kit lenses made in millions
IIRC such lenses are made for tracking meteor trails, therefore they must be faster than this.
Like that 10 mm voit has much real world use?
They’ll release MFT versions soon.
Apple users deserve this :3
Because if it has good AF, Sony can sell more of them
If there’s full pixel readout, low light sensitivity does not worsen.
It is not question of neccessity. If they can afford, they’ll buy it :3
How does faux pentaprism help?
Yes… they produce some small cameras, but they are all underfeatured.
I want cameras with new features that don’t exist in DSLRs.
In past, they even used 70 mm film for cinema (effectively medium format). RULE of photography #1: bigger is better.
Me too. Additional advantages that it will work with lenses that don’t accept filters, and with wideangles it will operate with rays closer to perpendicular to sensor
Too bad it isn’t a Nikon
Yeah, but it’s still dark, at least not as bright as outside.
An 1″ camera more expensive than average APS-C camera could be hardly ever called minimanist design.
Because I want manufacturers to make new things, and not repeat old designs. at higher price. If one needs large camera with vertical grip, there area CaNikon cams which are better at this.
For very long time; most humans live in artificial caves which are more widely known as “buildings”.
It would increase sensor cost, shutter & IBIS cost, and would not permit correcting skew
No. Olympus makes no DSLR anymore.
But there are *mirrorless* cams with faux pentaprism that drive me nuts.
Cool, nice thinking outside of box.
So would you bet any money on that claim “$400 FF not far from reality” if you are sure in it? I guess it will — it your words — “on longer than expected”. Maybe 40 years or so.
As for $400 DSLRs, most of their users are limited by skills, not gear.
it’s because they accidentally designed a mount which can’t host FF sensor unlike Sony’s E-mount
I’m sick of seeing mirrorless cameras emulating DSLRs in everything.
I want camera with such feature:
so there will be no need for “vertical grip” in the first place.
RX1 lens is Sonnar in name only, because Zeiss owns the trademark and Sony decided it would be cool to slap it…. Of course you didn’t understand if you didn’t had even known that.
It’s so big with vertical grip. Why not to put mirror back in.
20*(2.7/1.3)^2 = 86 MP.. (<120) oops you’re right.
Does yours Nikon 1 have Sony or Aptina sensor?
If you are going to heavily crop from this rumored 120 mp sensor, wouldn’t be the quality near of Nikon 1 anyway?
If they use a BSI sensor for this MF(or another way to have good angular response), they be able to make really tiny wideangle symmetric lens. The RX1 lens is so big because it was designed for a sensor reused from DSLRs.
Uh-oh, more claims not backed by evidence from you.
Wake me when they will sell new FF cameras for $400.
APS film is completely different issue, because film needs to be developed and APS infrastructure wasn’t widely available. Digital produces ready-to-use images.
There were lots of 135 cameras with fixed 2 or 3 element lens. Because of, um, sensors are very expensive.
why do you need more battery so much? Sonys now can draw power from USB and shoot at the same time. There are battery grips.
In film times, you had to change roll every 36 shots.
It will probably more expensive due to market shrinking and strong yen, not because of some engineer reason.
If you need more tele reach for birds, using e.g. 1″ stacked sensor is more sensible that this.
Where does it say 16 bit readout?
The digital chips (memory, math, etc.) decrease in cost faster than imaging sensors, because e.g. area required to hold 1 Gb of data becomes smaller and smaller, yet size of imaging chips stays the same.
For 98% of people A77M2 + full set of lenses is more useful than A99M2 + kit lens.
Video, of course, is nice, but they are still cameras.
Is really dual PDAF so noticeably better than old PDAF?
It does not have 16 bit readout, 16 bit used by imaging processor, sensor readout is still 14 bits.
Do they really result in better pictures?
what do you mean by “half the capability”?
in theory they can use A-mount for medium format lol
A99M2 is ~$3200 and A77M2 is ~$1200. Are you implying “in a couple years” price for A99M2 will fall 3x? Would you bet on this? lol
Not everyone is rich enough. Most of APS-C users are not professionals
Do the math: if you crop to 3x FL, you get 11 mp out of 100 mp.
Yeah, but you’re paying for whole expensive FF sensor, also shutter is also FF-sized. And 24 mp cropped to APS-C is only 10 mp.
Well, if you know beforehand which is FF and which is MF, you’ll “see” the difference. I’m sure in “blind” test you’ll struggle to identify which format was used.
44×36 — that’s even less difference than between FF and APS-C
Maybe EF to E adapter is easier because Canon EF was fully electronic protocol from the day 0.
If so, why sports photogs don’t use RX10M2 which can shoot fullres at 24 fps?
>an EVF like that of the A6000 costs almost nothing
who has a cheap cam with 2.4 mpix EVF? as a separate device, FDA-EV1S costs like a complete entry-level DSLR.
>They come with tons of expensive features
Maybe because it has no EFCS and shutter is not well damped.
Or maybe it has something to do with microlenses.
How do you spot them?
BTW, it must be Leica’s SL lens.
the canon is 193 mm long, the sony 70-200 gm is 200 mm, both have 77 mm filter.
zoom eyepiece LOL xD
Sony is not a charity…
Yeah, it isn’t appropriate pic.
Actually the original said “without beard and with beard”
Except in real image sensors, you don’t get zeros… noise is always greater than 1 ADU.
>For smaller pixels, shadow details are easier to lost. And whatever lost are lost forever.
sounds more like what they speak in “SAR college” rather than engineering, doesn’t it?
according to dxomark, small pixels of A7RM2 outperform in Color Sensitivity large pixels of D5.
with half of stop loss due to SLT, it’ll be pretty even.
as a bonus, 2x more pixels is like having 1.4x TC of perfect quality.
why do you need lesser number of MPs. A99M2’s 12 fps not enough for you?
except you cannot put rangefinder lens on this adapter xD so no problem here.
It was all obvious in the first place; those who do not wish to see it won’t see regardless of any evidence.
yeah, everyone who disagrees with you must be an uneducated fool
There are battery grips if you need it.
Lol you caught me xD let’s add Laowa 15/2. Would be same weight as 16-35/2.8 and you have faster f-stop.
Well it would require some modding….
Some people adapt M42 and Canon lenses to Nikon F mount like a pasttime.
SEL24F18: 225 grams, 66 mm long
EF-M 22/2: 105 grams, 24 mm long. LOL even more than twice
For a price of the Zony you can buy the 22 *AND* a EF-M body and avoid changing lenses.
Yes EF-M has less lenses than Sony E, but every lens makes sense unlike Sony’s silly lineup.
Sony has E 16/2.8 which better would not have existed in the first place. WA/Fisheye converters for E16 are silly too: better to buy a prime for Samyang. Sony has E 30 macro. Canon has 28 macro *WITH* lights.
And Sony makes large lenses making you think — would have better bought a DSLR in the first place.
The protocol used by EF-M is apparently largely identical to EF…. so probably someone will figure out…
Looks more like CG than photo xD
FE 35/1.4 is strongly retrofocus…. like it was for DSLR.
Lens designers had a problem that non-BSI sensors poorly respond to light coming at acute angles, causing colorshift and additional vignetting. So they could not shrink lens size as much as they wished to.
BSI sensor fixes this problem.
There are two aps-c lenses which cover this FL, 16-70 and 16-50PZ and neither have good IQ.
I’d bet than this GM zoom will be larger than Loxia 21/2.8 + Loxia 35/2 (a stop more of light)
Lenses for mirrorless get reduction in size primarily for primes… because zooms have to be retrofocus anyway.
they have cool lenses though… 22/2, and small and light 18-150…
eventually Canon will stick good sensor and folks will update Magic Lantern (which only supports the first EF-M only…. whereas Sony probably won’t get right lenses for aps-c and Magic lantern)
someone will come with a way to use EF-M lenses on E…
Use a prime, then. And you don’t need AF for astro xD so any lens works even better than focus-by-wire one.
it would be cool to transplant this lens to E, altrough it would be difficult.
Tiny? Lol. Canon EF-M 22/2 is twice smaller and cheaper, too.
Just some nitpicking
EF-M 11-22 is lighter than E 10-18
Oly 9-18 is even smaller
And they need to remake 35/1.4 specially for BSI sensor
42, the answer to main question of the Universe
Why people need f/2.8 landscape zoom so much?
It’s not, they announced 2 two new lenses in current year only.
It’s just not marketed for snobs…
EF-M lens lineup makes much more sense for mirrorless.
Olympus’ half-frame PEN-F (24×18 mm) is smaller than this Canon 100D.
Damn menus, where’s focus stacking?
Still too large. And EF-M has 22 f/2 (f/2, Carl) lens which is smaller.
DXomark seems to score only one sample of lens; Sony is widely known for large sample variation.
Oops. I search by 201626086 and it shows not lens patent, but “(54)GAME MACHINE SOLUTION: A game machine includes a three-dimensional movable decorative body. “
Which kind of magic do to offer to make 2.39:1 from 3:2 sensor without losing pixels? Tell me, I want to know!
In short: Magic Lantern for Sonys xD
Which %% of A7 users really need this, esp. since you can crop in PP?
Why stop at 2.39:1? Why not go to 4:1?
cool. where you knew about that?
Tamron’s patented 50/2.8 is a pancake and fast focusing unlike Sony FE 50/1.8
don’t you think gap between 35 and 50 needs filling too? lol
again… if lens is produced, it usually occurs *BEFORE* the parent is published.
nope, you need at least 8*(1.5)^2 = 18 MP for this.
you google, luke
Why not call 16-300 a standard zoom?
I tried 400 mm lens and found that the telephoto reach wasn’t as long as I expected. Need 2000mm++ lens.
What? Does Fuji have 6-year old cameras they release FW updates for?
I want Magic Lantern for Sonys.
Yeah, it does, but only after you set all up and produced large quantities of them
You don’t need 2x anyway when pixel count is enough. 2x will degrade IQ enough that cropping would give same, if not better, results.
rear mounted TC is a lens, just its focal length is negative rather than positive 😉
I’d not call 18-105/4 a standard zoom
Electronically controlled apodization filter (oh no, won’t sell, cuz it’s difficult to explain to people)
Hm… sounds nice… but no still no OLED indicator and no adjustable tripod foot — deal breaker, no buy!
Also… where’s the dragon-skin lens bag?
8x SD card slots
or it’s a videocam… they tend to be large…
>we published many correct rumors
is it really a rumour when it happens 2 days before official presentation??
Nikon D5200: 0.78x
Sony A7300: 0.7x
To put this lens on Pentax Q? lol
Nope, it won’t fit.
No, some m43 lenses have short backfocus (true for mirrorless systems) which makes TCs virtually impossible.
I have explained it many times before…
No, having this *AND* high pixel density made TCs obsolete.
well, at least, we might find relief in that cine lenses indirectly improve availability of still lenses and other accessories for e-mount,
1. that’s male chauvinism
2. some of them don’t use DSLRs because of their big size
I think using bolt and screw is better and cheaper.
I’d ben more interested in a cap which fits camera, lens rear, and lens front.
Unoh. That was a joke.
1.Both of these zooms go wider than 35 mm FOV.
2.One is for DSLR, other for mirrorless.
Cameras have different metering, dpreview (unlike dxomark) tests never check this. (use ‘i’ icon to check real exposure). Oly’s 6400 ISO is really more like 3200 ISO.
Yes, but then even more people would complain.
Somebody needs to actually MEASURE ‘same’ volume, ‘it seems’ is unconvincing.
Why not go straight to having OVF then?
It’s a mirrorless camera so sensor should rotate instead! Also would be much more convenient when on tripod.
For 6′ tall European male maybe. Have you thought about Japanese schoolgirls? They deserve good cameras too.
LOL. From one side, I second your question. From the another, the a6500 is about 50 grams heavier
Anyone wants to buy a kidney?
This doesn’t answer the question.
Removable IR filter is present in Canon’s low MP monster ME20F-SH
A33II will be killed by Grand Chicken Eater.
Why does it matter to you? Camera will still open wide for focusing when it’s dark.
Why can’t someone solve this problem with 3rd party add-on once and for all?
2. It’s not sensor area; this 5DM4 has updated brand new sensor and more mp count.
wait, if I brush my teeth, then I am doing wrong?
No wonder, A99 is now obsolete, Sony will say you should buy mark 2 instead xD
what about Pentax and Sony A mount cams??
This is pre-production sample, likely to change. Sony updates camera software at least for one year xD
Dozens of microseconds difference between polling different rows don’t really matter.
I think it must be because of pixel architecture rather than readout per se.
Still no cross-type OSPDAF points?
Separate? if so, why nobody else buys 42mp FF sensor?
Not small, but smaller than DSLR one. Wideangle is where short flange helps.
This is a gear oriented forum, so no surprise here!
It’s a DSLR lens, so it has to be larger
What is matrix size for A99M2 EVF? (apparently DSLRs use about 36×24) I wonder if it’s bigger than E-mount series.
BTW, if you had a focal reducer instead of teleconverter, it would have produced images on its own (when put on macro bellows). E.g. Metabones’ reducer FL is about 83 mm. (don’t know about others, must be similar)
I don’t see why PDAF would be impossible; just more complicated.
Maybe they decided it doesn’t worth the effort of coding.
Sony BSI in FF before APS-C in an exception. They made it in 1″ before FF and in 1/1.7″ before 1″. BTW, Samsung made APS-C BSI before Sony’s BSI FF.
BSI first appearing in smaller sensor sounds illogical to you?
Stacked sensor first appearing in 1″ rather than aps-c or ff?
remember Casio 1/2.3″ high-speed compacts with 1000 fps video and 30 fps still, years ago.
So why Sony’s 42 mp FF sensor is better at high ISO than 24 mp sensor?
People buying $2000 lenses can’t afford 3d printer? Even if so, they might ask friends or company which does 3d printing.
medium format is a tool, not a goal…
so what does it speak?
But then you can put a FF lens on Fuji and have a square crop without losing image circle lol
many FF lenses would even cover its sensor
can’t wait to see photos when someone puts a meniscus lens on it. xD
how could it be step ahead if sensor area difference is smaller than stop and number of mp difference is even smaller?
I don’t know. To get rid of inversion, It one can use relay two times or relay and a prism.
Why don’t they publish 3d models so anyone could 3d print it themselves? come on, it’s %current year%.
It’s a 20mm f/2 (fast) lens. If 18-55 needs AF, so does 20/2
There must be free software which does this, as the concept is very old.
IIRC canon 5dm3 has median multishot function?
median, not mean….
or adding some smileys at the end of sentence.
Quantum Efficiency, QE. For green color falling on a green pixel QE is about 60%.
isn’t the XT-1 sensor 5 years old?
He might have changed sides since Sony released GM lenses. I’m not sure
duott was one of the main A-mount fans on SAR.
so why Canon 5DM4 has it?
it’s a relay lens, like periscope
Such lens might be banned in some countries.
Does it have infinity focus?
Sony’s 47% is bacuse of OSPAF?
4) whaaat? so many times it was said that SLT separate module offers uninterrupted AF all the times, and what?
Happy to be wrong this time.
You’re wrong, I was pretty much aware of this post.
Having polarizer after lens does not prevent from option of using one before lens. Moreover, anterior polarizer needs to be of higher quality and size whereas 1/2.3″ is only ~8 mm
Nah — I don’t want manual adjustment, I want motorized one.
Ahem. It doesn’t tell any differences between real lens and patent.
For those not familiar with optics, the rear flat element drawn in the patent is part of the camera — sensor cover glass stack, not the lens.
The Loxia has advantage of being slower lens and more symmetric than the Batis. Faster lenses need to have more complex construction to have same quality.
why not have both? xD
What about built-in polarizer?
>than the Tamron patent everyone cites.
>I don’t think you can make such generalisations
of course, it assumes similar materials and tech are used
if cut horizontally, FL doesn’t change.
But it’s easier to design sharp F2.4 than sharp F1.4 (given same glass/size constraints)
Um your example is UWA where mirrorless has advantage. For 85 mm reduction in length requires telephoto (Sonnar) design which is suboptimal for IQ.
I don’t get the logic. As a first approximation, 135 f2.0 cut in half => two 270 f4.0
Wrong is that filling WA with front converters defeats one of advantages of mirrorless cams.
Sony: 28/2 + boring ultrawide and fisheye converters.
Chinese manufacturer: amazing 15/2 lens. What’s wrong with this world?
10 grams lighter than Samyang 20/1.8, wow.
The Voit has entrance pupil more than THREE TIMES more than this 14/2.4.
less people => means you have to wait more for deal or accept greater loss than if it were CaNikon lens.
but it’s not parfocal….
what about cold fusion engine?
isn’t stealing a no-no?
Difference between 25 and 28 mm could be significant for some cases.
no, it should also have auto focus stacking and removable IR filter
Knowing Sony, they must have spoiled something.
> Once any spurious variables are controlled for any correlation goes away.
well THERE IS a book, named The Bell Curve… It states the opposite of what you say, IQ is still a powerful predictor of criminality after “spurious” variables have been controlled.
Care to name a book instead of insulting me?
IQ and race are correlated. The thing that “liberals” (the smarter ones, I mean) question is the causal relationship, not the correlation. The dumber “liberals” think that because causal relationship should not exist, so does not correlation. See where you fit here.
lol, liberals guide to IQs: IQs don’t matter unless a Republican has lower IQ or a criminal needs to be spared execution.
Oh, still a SLR lens
SHG lenses suffered from disproportionate flange distance of 43 system, hence big size. Micro 43 has FL in appropriate range.
35+SB better than native 24? apart from stabilization and f/stop, I mean
What does mean ‘compact’?
is this another SLR lens with permanently built-in adapter?
>why can’t they produce
because they aren’t trying?
a lens doesn’t need to be “really wide”, it needs to be “wide enough” for use case.
I’d gladly accept 24-70 as a gift even I am have only crop camera xD
actually after one of his jokes I used 270 mm lens on macro bellows and found it rather cool. — wish it had AF and focus stacking lol
most of pro grade cameras are black, is there a reason for it?
Another lens, when there is a new body LOL
all of these cameras are newer than A7M2.
You’re optimistic xD
from Iphone? I guess reading patents not approved by phone manufacturer. lol
Interesting. What was it? It was made for 36×24 originally, which mistake can prevent 1.5x crop?
Both. Where does it imply?
What formula do you think should describe relationship?
The mount isn’t wide enough. The real usable diameter is less than even 42 mm — because barrel must have non-zero thickness.
Why do you refuse to take LA-EA1 designed with aps-c sized baffles as proof?
>image-space telecentric lens will have the exit pupil at infinity, but it will still appear with a finite size.
exit pupil size = exit pupil distance / f-stop. so as one goes to infty, so does the other.
Sony A900 — year 2008.
it is “too big” for aps-c just like four-thirds mount “too big” for 4/3″. 43er standards specifically makes mount opening LARGER than image diagonal.
It is, you’re confusing two completely different things. in E-mount, FF sensor corners cannot accept light coming at straight angle, because the mount gets in the way.
You have no proof E-mount was designed for full frame and require something from me.
LA-EA1 already proves for me that it wasn’t. It is not proof like in math, but hey, we don’t have better.
I’d agree it it was f/4 lens, but it is quite fast (f/1.4) and it asks for short backfocus even for telephotos.
Sony GM 85/1.4 has quite short backfocus too – about 18 mm.
The patent was filed in 2015, with FF cameras on market already. I’d want to see a patent filed before FF E-mounts announced.
If Canon 5DM4 crops 1.71 in 4k video, it should have had ability to accept m43 lenses!! lol.
There is no evidence that E-mount was designed for 36×24! Also LA-EA1 and LA-EA2 too narrow for full frame — which suggests Sony didn’t think of possible FF cams.
yeah, they probably have to make defensive patents.
Exit pupil is not located at physical exit of the lens, so it can easily be much larger, can’t it?
Lenses like 85/1.4 have much vignetting wide open, so for image corners their exit pupil is much much smaller, especially meridionally — about 2-3 times. (that damn “lemon bokeh”)
Canon apparently wants all noobs to be in market for their 5DM4.
Your elitism, if anything, IS conservative.
You can always turn long backfocus design to short backfocus design by adding a very weak lens close to image plane.
Many telephoto lenses are designed to take teleconverters which extend even more forward than mirror box does.
No need for you? Fine. Most people don’t have need for DSLR at all.
It would still be possible benefits of using A-Mount with reduced FL. First, the simple adapter would have been a macro tube. Second, it would make “dual mount camera” possible
But Nikon does not have only more good lenses than Sony, but more mediocre lenses too. I guess more fair metric would have been (number of lenses in topXXX) divided by (total amount of lenses)
Most of old lenses are not top performers.
>as that does have a 43mm (approx) diagonal.
You didn’t need to read patent to figure it out, did you? So this patent adds nothing.
It needs to be said, that after subtracting lens barrel thickness, usable diameter is smaller than 43mm.
Meanwhile it was filed 10 Jun 2015 — so they could write so it looks like it was designed for FF.
It was reported that 70-400G on E-mount produces vignetting in corners (even w/o IBIS)
to have something doesn’t imply REQUIRE.
Please elaborate, I don’t know details
what with Nikon?
Why is it “conservative”? Fixing DR issue, Dual pixel AF, touchscreen is much. Sony doesn’t even have any FF touchscreen cams.
but then, you can’t take 16:9 from 3:2 without cropping.
Given that some manufacturers have had problems with centering issues on some lenses, fixing an element in place might make it better xD
1.5 years since patent has been filed; often patents are published AFTER the product has been announced, so we can expect there will be no 115/1.4 lens on market.
there are two more 85/1.8 (both different to the 85/1.8 produced) and one 85/1.4 in this patent.
Explain the humour please. It’s allusion to “on a horse and rode in sunset” seen in movies?
Nothing makes this design DSLR-only. Samyang did produce versions with de-facto built-in adapter, albeit manual focus ones.
also… K-01 :))
Tele designs DO NOT require it. If anything, E-mount would produce vignetting with very far exit pupil (+IBIS), so if anything, they would bring exit pupil somewhat closer to sensor.
This has nothing to do with Sony. Batis lenses are designed by Tamron and manufactured by Cosina.
I don’t get why manufacturers are so committed to old standards either.
a6300 whole sensor? but it’s 3:2 aspect ratio whereas video is 16:9, it can’t be full sensor.
Hm, I don’t remember Andrea saying anything about clicks based ads, only actual purchases. (OIC, google ads are here too).
Mitakon 42/1.2 is rather small.
Well, of course I meant taking shots with a mirror flip. Like HDR.
metering sensor is still 150.000 pix, that’s more than early digicams had on their main sensor.
That is, in theory, you can combine low-res IR image with high-res visible light image in PP and get high-res IR image.
maybe because Canon users spend more time taking pictures?
The DR issue was fixed already in canon 80D. Since it’s a completely new sensor, might be that 5D4 fixes it too.
doesn’t 200-400/4 already include 300/4 ?
The patent was filed 1.5 years ago, and only was produced in DP0 Quattro. Unlikely they’ll make it for ILCs.
Compact? This design is larger than FF Batis 25/2
what’s wrong with 5D4?
BTW, Pentax can do astro tracking using IBIS.
I’d like to have STF effect for macros. Rough bokeh from specular reflections sometimes causes problems for focus stacking
Well, 2nd gen A7 do have IBIS
and why do you need stabilization if you shoot from tripod anyway?
great celebrity photos xD
Laowa offers a f/2 STF lens.
Of course it does affect diffraction pattern… but in more complex way than you write.
This f2.8 is too close to 90/2.8 :)))))
Many? How many? No proofs.
I knew that, but it doesn’t really count, and both are too late.
>Especially considering there are way less medium format users out there than apsc users.
Nine percent…. big deal…. *ROFL*
Proof for 20% ??
E-mount cameras usually focus using working aperture if there is sufficient light, so no focus shifting here.
By the chance, do you have any knowledge how SLT AF module is different from classic DSLR ones? Does it operate via aerial image and relay optics?
in theory. In practice, oops, but only one camera (A77M2) from this system realizes this capability.
>(Also Sony’s sensors are superior to Canon’s).
As you say, this occurs only “at lowest ISO”
Magic lantern xD
“to other dslr” did not have a focal reducer in them.
Sony stopped making new camera bodies?
This CZ f/0.7 wasn’t for SLRs, it had short backfocus and required modification of the cinema camera to be used.
Hm, maybe Magic Lantern has something like this.
Both rely on cross-correlation (and cross-correlation is being the simplest thing here)
OSPDAF still has a baseline.
Not necessarily. If aperture is located right after first element, wider elements can be avoided — however it’s not optimal for aberration correction.
Useless anyway without focus stacking xD
on-chip or not, it still presents problem for PDAF
the entrace pupil is always equal to FL divided by f-number
can’t mount on NX
The MTF chart displays 20 mm which suggests it’s full-frame.
but we can hope this STF lens will be faster than f/2.8 — because lens designers have more freedom
Hm…. what if there is a paint with special scattering pattern….?
it’s as large as full-frame 50/1.8
well, you can if it’s “invasive” — requiring mirror lockup
Take a look on Samsung NX 30/2
the element at the top is the rear element, not the front one.
Fuji X100 has strongly curved element too.
In smartphone lenses they are even more curved.
f/0.95 anyway occur only for mirrorless, so saying “native” is superflous
expensive,. and not as small as it could be.
That’s the same DOF as 53/1.8 on fullframe
360k pixels in metering sensor…. cool, that’s more than early digicams can on their main sensor.
Of course not. You are looking at smaller part only.
Because E-mount kit zooms are split between 18-55, 18-50 and 16-50.