Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: LesPalenik on September 16, 2014, 07:21:39 pm
-
Thanks you Kevin and Michael for the timely Fotokina news. Can't wait for the reports from the rest of the halls.
For Canon it was the 7D and Nikon the the 710.
Is there a new Nikon D710 or is it a shorthand for 810 and 750?
-
Pretty sure that's jetlag talking: it's the 810 and 750.
Btw, I just realized the 7DII is freakin' APS-C.....I had assumed all along it was full frame. WTF? This is 2014. Makes you wonder if Canon's entire R&D division died on a plane crash five years ago.
- N.
-
Funny, you should mention this to Scott Kelby. He just sent me an email with his take on Canon 7D MkII:
"I think one of the biggest advantages this new camera has (and a lot of folks might not realize this at first), is that it’s a crop-sensor camera, so it brings you 60% closer to the action than a similar full-frame camera. This allows us to use less expensive lenses and still get in really tight, so the 7D Mark II doesn’t just change the equation for the body; it lets you get closer to the action with less expensive lenses. I think not making this a full frame camera may have been Canon’s most brilliant move."
-
... Scott Kelby.... his take on Canon 7D MkII:
"...I think not making this a full frame camera may have been Canon’s most brilliant move."
The only "brilliant" thing here seems to be Kelby's spinning skill: if they made it a full-frame, it would not be 7D anymore, would it, Mr. Kelby?
-
... WTF? This is 2014. Makes you wonder if Canon's entire R&D division died on a plane crash five years ago.
+1 :)
-
In my defense and to clarify my previous post - I am just a messenger, and I never approved the "brilliant" part.
And to clarify it further, we really don't exchange personal emails, the aforementioned statement was one of those mass bombardments I get daily.
As to the actual perpetrator, he has a record of trying to be funny.
-
Funny, you should mention this to Scott Kelby. He just sent me an email with his take on Canon 7D MkII:
"I think one of the biggest advantages this new camera has (and a lot of folks might not realize this at first), is that it’s a crop-sensor camera, so it brings you 60% closer to the action than a similar full-frame camera. This allows us to use less expensive lenses and still get in really tight, so the 7D Mark II doesn’t just change the equation for the body; it lets you get closer to the action with less expensive lenses. I think not making this a full frame camera may have been Canon’s most brilliant move."
This is obviously more of an issue for Canon as well, a D810 is going to give you a 16 MP ASPC crop where I'd guess the 5D3 would be around 10 MP with a 1.5 crop, the 6D and 1DX even less.
The most significant thing about the event to me seems to be the continued growth of the high end compact market from Canon, Panasonic and Leica.
-
Pretty sure that's jetlag talking: it's the 810 and 750.
Btw, I just realized the 7DII is freakin' APS-C.....I had assumed all along it was full frame. WTF? This is 2014. Makes you wonder if Canon's entire R&D division died on a plane crash five years ago.
- N.
It's a freakin`7D why would it be FF??? Your assumption just shows how ignorant you are about Canon's product line. Want FF Canon? You can get the 1DX, 5DMKIII, or 6D.
-
Pretty sure that's jetlag talking: it's the 810 and 750.
Btw, I just realized the 7DII is freakin' APS-C.....I had assumed all along it was full frame. WTF? This is 2014. Makes you wonder if Canon's entire R&D division died on a plane crash five years ago.
You're not the only one thinking that/talking about Canon's lack of direction. My next Canon mount camera is going to be the A7 + metabones.
Michael was smart to sell out of Canon, was it 4 or 5 years ago?
-
Funny, you should mention this to Scott Kelby. He just sent me an email with his take on Canon 7D MkII:
"I think one of the biggest advantages this new camera has (and a lot of folks might not realize this at first), is that it’s a crop-sensor camera, so it brings you 60% closer to the action than a similar full-frame camera. This allows us to use less expensive lenses and still get in really tight, so the 7D Mark II doesn’t just change the equation for the body; it lets you get closer to the action with less expensive lenses. I think not making this a full frame camera may have been Canon’s most brilliant move."
Given the upgrade in AF and fps, it'll probably sell quite well with many 7D owners upgrading (and potentially rebel owners too). When you've seeded the consumer space as well as Canon has, all that they need to do is turn the wheel a turn out another facsimile camera and enough people will buy them for Canon to recoup its R&D.
-
The only "brilliant" thing here seems to be Kelby's spinning skill: if they made it a full-frame, it would not be 7D anymore, would it, Mr. Kelby?
I like Scott, but this this logical pretzel-twist is staggering. Good thin he's not saying it in a witness box ;)
And yes, I am ignorant of Canon's lineup because it is so freakin' sad. The 7D2 was touted as their big announcement so I assumed it was something interesting that mattered. They've done nothing innovative in five years. It hurts to watch. If I had Canon's corporate power and capacity, this is not the sort of weak nonsense you'd be seeing. Equally sadly, it seems to sell just well enough for them to continue down this path. I'd like to shoot a 1Ds from 2002 against the 7DII. Bet the former holds up remarkably in terms of IQ.
And 4K vid on the S2....now THAT's innovative. People who shoot serious commercial video are one of the few markets that could actually afford their lenses. Smart.
- N.
-
I like Scott, but this this logical pretzel-twist is staggering. Good thin he's not saying it in a witness box ;)
And yes, I am ignorant of Canon's lineup because it is so freakin' sad. The 7D2 was touted as their big announcement so I assumed it was something interesting that mattered. They've done nothing innovative in five years. It hurts to watch. If I had Canon's corporate power and capacity, this is not the sort of weak nonsense you'd be seeing. Equally sadly, it seems to sell just well enough for them to continue down this path. I'd like to shoot a 1Ds from 2002 against the 7DII. Bet the former holds up remarkably in terms of IQ.
And 4K vid on the S2....now THAT's innovative. People who shoot serious commercial video are one of the few markets that could actually afford their lenses. Smart.
- N.
It seems to me that you are ignorant of what Canon has done in recent years. They have refreshed a huge part of the lens lineup with really state of the art lenses. The 7D II is a smart move to serve the segment of action and wild life shooters who cannot afford the full frame price of bodies and lenses. The totally new high performance AF system and 10fps on a body at this price smokes what is available at this point from any competitor. You can call this innovative or not, but it makes a lot of business sense to me although I'm not buying one. The other part that you might not have gotten either is the new sensor with phase detection AF on the sensor for movie and live view. It's a first for an APS-C DSLR camera and suggest what will come on the next full frame from Canon. Making a camera that competes with the 1DX is smart and innovative.
-
... what will come on the next full frame from Canon...
Ah, the next... always the "next"... sometimes in the future... just wait for Photokina... oh, damn! it is Photokina... ok, fine, the next one... peddling hope is quite "innovative"... but works... at least for one president.
-
Ah, the next... always the "next"... sometimes in the future... just wait for Photokina... oh, damn! it is Photokina... ok, fine, the next one... peddling hope is quite "innovative"... but works... at least for one president.
There is always a next, isn't there? We discuss what is here now and what is coming next. Some seem to not understand what is here now. I'm not waiting for the next, I shoot with what I have as always :)
-
Ah, the next... always the "next"... sometimes in the future... just wait for Photokina... oh, damn! it is Photokina... ok, fine, the next one... peddling hope is quite "innovative"... but works... at least for one president.
I wonder, looking at Canon's current offerings in the EOS system, what is actually missing that could curtail the endeavours of a photographer that wants to use a DSLR? I mean, if I can not make a decent photo with such a system, I would first blame me, not the gear. But I suppose all the pros using Canon must be wrong...
-
Newer= better = more fun = more profits
Always has worked always will we do live in a consumer driven society (like it or not) and that's simply the way things are.
-
Nice report so far. Thanks. However, instead of the last photograph in the report showing the Hasselblad Lunar or Stellar or whaever, you really should have shown a photograph of a Phamiya DF++++ with the same caption. It's bad enough that it's still around, but for how many years has Phase been promising/hinting at a brand new, state of the art camera body? To me, that is the surprise of the show so far.
-
We just finished the day today and there will be no report today as there are not an more minutes left. We had good meetings today with numerous companies including Sigma. Tomorrow we meet with Fuji, Phase One and others. We'll have some interesting things to share soon.
Kevin
-
I wonder, looking at Canon's current offerings in the EOS system, what is actually missing that could curtail the endeavours of a photographer that wants to use a DSLR? I mean, if I can not make a decent photo with such a system, I would first blame me, not the gear. But I suppose all the pros using Canon must be wrong...
Odds are that some of those pros will be shooting Samsung cameras and lenses in 5 years from now if things stay on the same curve.
There is a huge amount of inertia in the DSLR world because of the lock up caused by non compatible lens mounts but disruptive technologies have proven able in the past to overcome this inertia.
- Nikon has succeeded to attract a significant chunck of landscape shooters but has done so by iterating better on the sensor side,
- mirrorless has started to eat away low end DSLRs,
- Sigma is making breakthroughs in core lenses,
- Sony is being innovative,
- Samsung is now attacking the actin camera segment
- ...
Yes, Canon will still have the most diverse lens line up with a few unique propositions but a camera like the NX1 is a potentiall game changer combined with the apparent inability of Canon to do more than mere iterations of existing bodies.
This has to be understood in the context of the repeated failure of the Japanese consumer electronic industry in most segments against samsung. Be it TVs, phones,... They saw it coming huge time and are still unable years later to come up with anything game changing. Canon has IMHO not shown any encouraging sign for years that they will fare better. Nikon is similar but they at least tried something different with their mirrorless offering that is differentiated.
So yes, it will remain possible to take amazing images with the Canon and Nikon systems, probably better for some niche applications, but where is this headed?
The funny thing is that we, existing Canon and Nikon users, are contributing to this downfall by comforting those brands in the feeling that they are still doing the right thing... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The key factor with the NX1 is surely the AF system, if that lags behind its DSLR competition I don't see it getting significant market share outside S Korea even with the higher FPS. That nationalism gives Samsung a strong home market does I'd say explain why they moreso than any of the other mirrorless manufacturers have been willing to go toe to toe with DSLR's so directly.
-
Because Samsung has done well in consumer electronics (yes rightly pointed out they came from nowhere to dominate some markets TV's etc)
But that does not mean they will in the camera market, don't get me wrong the NX-1 looks pretty good but they've had little impact in this market they do ok selling a few high connectivity compacts here and there, most of the NX models ended up in the bargain basement bin on blowout deals.
I don't see that changing.
Don't get me wrong I'm no brand snob if Yongnuo made a good camera/system I'd take a look (their flashes are pretty good) just the market is dominated by a few leading brands and there are probably too many smaller makers fighting for slice of the getting smaller pie.
-
Samsung has some serious financial and technological muscle. They can leverage mobile tech (BSI, multicore processors, touch, connectivity, the list goes on) where the Canikons are still clueless or just very far behind. Sony has the best chance of competing in my mind. They also make their own sensors and mobile devices that far outnumber camera sales.
-
Because Samsung has done well in consumer electronics (yes rightly pointed out they came from nowhere to dominate some markets TV's etc)
But that does not mean they will in the camera market, don't get me wrong the NX-1 looks pretty good but they've had little impact in this market they do ok selling a few high connectivity compacts here and there, most of the NX models ended up in the bargain basement bin on blowout deals.
I don't see that changing.
We will see.
When Michael sells off all his beloved Nikon gear in favor or something smaller/lighter/EVF based, something is going on.
There is movement in the market, people with money get older, are looking for cameras that are smaller, help them focus,... cameras that fix their challenges and not cameras that are easier to design for engineers.
I know, they are not pro sport shooters and I am aware I am mixing different segments in this discussion, but they are not un-related.
Overall in my view, the 7DII, although it is by far the best APS-C DSLR ever designed, will probably convince few new users to enter the Canon system. i think the NX1 has far more appeal potential.
I am aware that this doesn't change the fact that Canon still has the best system and will maintain that lead for years to come, but if you think from an opportunity cost standpoint, Canon had the potential to release a camera as attractive as the NX1 and they did not. So my point is that it is fine to do a good job, but that it is better to do a better job than your competitors... but you need first to have the ability to consider obvectively who your competitors are. Consider how arrogant the big guys are in Tokyo, I seriously doubt that they discuss the Korean threat when playing golf with each others.
Kodak seemingly thought that their competitors were Fujifilm while they were DSLR vendors. I am afraid that Canon still thinks that Nikon is their only competition and the opposite may be true as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Other than the Rebels, which remain excellent value for money, I cannot see a single camera that would make someone chose Canon if they didn't already use the system. Some other camera is better at basically every level and in every niche. Yes, the lens line has filled out, but I've never been impressed by anything but a smattering of their L primes and telephotos. They are having their clock cleaned in terms of future-tech by everyone from Fuji to Samsung. If they are not careful, they will become dinosaurs.
Canon was the dullest booth at Photokina two years ago, when they actually showed a FF camera. Things have only gone down hill. But market position has its privileges, and people who are bought-into the system keep buying, for entirely reasonable reasons. That, and only that, has carried them.
- N.
-
Canon works simple as that people can't help themselves they just buy them.
Many aspire to use Canon, to own at least some of the "red ring" L lenses, they have a big range of bodies and a massive range of lenses they are the choice of many pros and that has massive pull (I'm not agreeing with it just telling you what I see with people)
People do not aspire to own a "Samsung" and they never will they can have all the cash and resources in the world but they will never be no. 1. This market is not like other markets you don't just go in there and buy market share Samsung has no prestige almost 0. Marketing counts and Canon have it, Samsung do not. Other makers might do ok Sony are big enough and a known brand (but less so for cameras) Nikon won't disappear any time soon, but something has to give and there are not enough buyers to long term support all these makers some will quit the business eventually.
The only way Samsung would make any traction in the market is "cheaper" most people will def not pay £1200 for an NX-1 no matter how interesting or good it might be. A Samsung branded camera cannot command that price this will not change anytime soon.
-
Canon works simple as that people can't help themselves they just buy them.
Many aspire to use Canon, to own at least some of the "red ring" L lenses, they have a big range of bodies and a massive range of lenses they are the choice of many pros and that has massive pull (I'm not agreeing with it just telling you what I see with people)
People do not aspire to own a "Samsung" and they never will they can have all the cash and resources in the world but they will never be no. 1. This market is not like other markets you don't just go in there and buy market share Samsung has no prestige almost 0. Marketing counts and Canon have it, Samsung do not. Other makers might do ok Sony are big enough and a known brand (but less so for cameras) Nikon won't disappear any time soon, but something has to give and there are not enough buyers to long term support all these makers some will quit the business eventually.
The only way Samsung would make any traction in the market is "cheaper" most people will def not pay £1200 for an NX-1 no matter how interesting or good it might be. A Samsung branded camera cannot command that price this will not change anytime soon.
Hum... perhaps among the small LL community. Overall people end up going for performance/price.
The area where the NX1 may be hurting the 7DII worst is video though... to quote only one sentence "The camera is expected to cost just $1499, the same in Euros and on the basis of what I saw today completely annihilates the Canon 7D Mark II in terms of the technology under the hood."
http://www.eoshd.com/2014/09/photokina-report-day-1-samsung-nx1-4k-mirrorless-camera-h-265/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder, looking at Canon's current offerings in the EOS system, what is actually missing that could curtail the endeavours of a photographer that wants to use a DSLR? I mean, if I can not make a decent photo with such a system, I would first blame me, not the gear. But I suppose all the pros using Canon must be wrong...
What is missing, among other things, is a state-of-the-art sensor. The one that doesn't leg behind by 1 stop dynamic range from the one that is ¼ of its area (e.g. Olympus m4/3) and 2 stops behind Nikon.
Whether one can make a decent photo with such a system is beyond the point. Decent photos can be made by any camera and any system in any historic period, from Brownies to pinhole cameras, from Lomos to Soviet Leica-copies. The point being that, with technological advances, things become easier, to say the least, let alone enabling us to do previously unimaginable things. Otherwise, we could be all still shooting Brownies.
We all learn to cope with technological limitations of our times. We bracket to increase dynamic range, for instance. The operative words here are "of our times." When the times change, as they did with Nikon/Sony sensors, coping with the previous limitations becomes outdated. Being able to pull out details in the shadows with the 2 stop dynamic range advantage is, well, an advantage, and would often mean no need for bracketing. I bracket because I have to, not because it is a particularly enjoyable activity.
-
From the article Bernard linked to:
The Super 35mm sensor appears to deliver a very clean image free of moire and aliasing. I questioned Samsung on the readout resolution, because 28MP is a long way from the 8MP of 4K. 28MP is more like 7K! The answer had my jaw on the floor. Their sensor is able to do a full pixel readout at up to 30fps in 7K and so there’s no crop in 4K video mode.
Wow. A full pixel readout, 28MP at 30fps. That is pretty amazing. It could do a full 7K if it had the I/O bandwidth.
-
Hi,
APS-C is actually good for telephoto shooters. On a full frame you would need to add a 1.6 converter or an 1.6X times longer lens to achieve the same resolution on subject. The native resolution of the Canon 7DII is 122 lp/mm while on Nikon D810 it is 105 lp/mm. On the other hand, Nikon D7100 has 128 lp/mm.
The first question is weather the lenses resolve as well.
The other question is if adding an extender actually increases resolution or if simply magnifies the image.
I am normally shooting full frame (Sony) or MFD (Hasselblad V), but often use APS-C for wildlife and birds.
Best regards
Erik
Pretty sure that's jetlag talking: it's the 810 and 750.
Btw, I just realized the 7DII is freakin' APS-C.....I had assumed all along it was full frame. WTF? This is 2014. Makes you wonder if Canon's entire R&D division died on a plane crash five years ago.
- N.
-
This is 2014. Makes you wonder if Canon's entire R&D division died on a plane crash five years ago.
I thought for certain Canon was going to introduce a high-resolution FF DSLR at this Photokina. Tell me we just got more cameras that top out at 11.5 of DR.
BTW, the pixel density on the NX1 sensor works out to 63MP on full frame.
-
BTW, the pixel density on the NX1 sensor works out to 63MP on full frame.
pixel density on smaller sensors works out to much more, so ?
-
We all learn to cope with technological limitations of our times. We bracket to increase dynamic range, for instance. The operative words here are "of our times." When the times change, as they did with Nikon/Sony sensors, coping with the previous limitations becomes outdated. Being able to pull out details in the shadows with the 2 stop dynamic range advantage is, well, an advantage, and would often mean no need for bracketing. I bracket because I have to, not because it is a particularly enjoyable activity.
I'm shooting Canon 5D III and Nikon D810 and I bracket on both and the goal is to avoid exposure blending by getting the optimum exposure without clipping essential highlight. Sometimes the Canon will not make it and the Nikon will, but in reality it is a very small percentage. So for people who know what they are doing the DR disadvantage of the Canon is a smaller issue than it is made up to be. I'm all for technological advance and would welcome a modern sensor in the Canon in the sense of DR but it is not a deal bracker. The 5D III is the best designed DSLR in terms of handling and is still in my view slightly ahead of the D810 although it is a better camera than the D800E in my view.
Canon has the disadvantage to be limited (or so it appears) by their current sensor manufacturing infrastructure, but is has allowed them to use a totally new sensor in the 7D II with PDAF. Nikon using Sony sensors are limited to what Sony provides. Both have limitations and I think there is little movement in what their customer base is. Question is what the new generation starting with photography and used to smart phones will go for.
Those who grow older and cannot deal with the weight of FF 35mm systems (or MF) will downsize to smaller systems, but I doubt this will change much in the marketplace. All what is called revolutions seems pretty incremental in my view. Worth while increments for sure, but hardly any revolution like the iPhone killed a big company like Nokia. Or the Intel 4004, 8008, 8080 etc. which changed computing forever. This was a revolution. Digital was a revolution in photography but what is the next revolution?
The real question is if there is a technology around the corner that is really disruptive. E.g. http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/30/5949913/lytro-illum-review and perhaps a glimpse of a possible future.
-
pixel density on smaller sensors works out to much more, so ?
28MP APS-c times 2.25 = 63MP FF
-
Canon being dull: I bought into Canon, despite a lifelong aspiration to own a Nikon, due to some interesting and unique Canon lens offerings: an affordable 400mm f/5.6L supertelephoto, to try bird photography without breaking the bank; MP-E 65mm f/2.8 greater-than-life-size field macro lens (try using a bellows set-up in the field, and you can see why the form factor of the MP-E is appealing); adequate other macro offerings, as good as what Nikon had on offer (I ended up with the compact EF-S 60mm f/2.8 and the bokehlicious but heavy beast 180mm f/3.5L as my general macro lenses, use the 180mm more than all others, so maybe I would have been fine with the old Micro-Nikkor 200 f/4). Also, at the time I chose systems, the better Nikkors cost about 30% to 50% more than the equivalent Canon L lenses.
-
28MP APS-c times 2.25 = 63MP FF
18 mp Nikon 1 times (2.7 * 2.7 ) = 131MP FF, shall we look into P&S and cell phones ?
-
18 mp Nikon 1 times (2.7 * 2.7 ) = 131MP FF, shall we look into P&S and cell phones ?
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood your point. I was just envisioning the NX1 sensor as a FF sensor. Nothing else implied. I realize that FF sensors will probably top out around 200MP. I think the I/O bandwidth will be more of an impediment than anything having to do with pixel density.
As it is, 28MP * 30 = 840MP / second is a pretty good trick.
-
I'm shooting Canon 5D III and Nikon D810 and I bracket on both and the goal is to avoid exposure blending by getting the optimum exposure without clipping essential highlight. Sometimes the Canon will not make it and the Nikon will, but in reality it is a very small percentage. So for people who know what they are doing the DR disadvantage of the Canon is a smaller issue than it is made up to be. I'm all for technological advance and would welcome a modern sensor in the Canon in the sense of DR but it is not a deal bracker. The 5D III is the best designed DSLR in terms of handling and is still in my view slightly ahead of the D810 although it is a better camera than the D800E in my view.
Problem is not all types of photography can benefit from multiple shots for increased DR, hence the Canon's lagging DR is a problem for some, it's not a downer for sales though for some reason. People assumed 10 years ago that Canon were leading because they had the best sensors this is not the case now. Canon got in early with more affordable bodies they already had a good system and expanded that rapidly over time
-
We will see.
When Michael sells off all his beloved Nikon gear in favor or something smaller/lighter/EVF based, something is going on.
There is movement in the market, people with money get older, are looking for cameras that are smaller, help them focus,... cameras that fix their challenges and not cameras that are easier to design for engineers.
I know, they are not pro sport shooters and I am aware I am mixing different segments in this discussion, but they are not un-related.
Overall in my view, the 7DII, although it is by far the best APS-C DSLR ever designed, will probably convince few new users to enter the Canon system. i think the NX1 has far more appeal potential.
I am aware that this doesn't change the fact that Canon still has the best system and will maintain that lead for years to come, but if you think from an opportunity cost standpoint, Canon had the potential to release a camera as attractive as the NX1 and they did not. So my point is that it is fine to do a good job, but that it is better to do a better job than your competitors... but you need first to have the ability to consider obvectively who your competitors are. Consider how arrogant the big guys are in Tokyo, I seriously doubt that they discuss the Korean threat when playing golf with each others.
Kodak seemingly thought that their competitors were Fujifilm while they were DSLR vendors. I am afraid that Canon still thinks that Nikon is their only competition and the opposite may be true as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think your talking about two issues where, the NX1 being a threat to Canon's higher end users who will buy the 7D2 as an action camera and the potential of the NX1 as a bit more of an all rounder.
The first I don't think is significant outside of S Korea, again I doubt the AF performance will be there and we know the lens lineup isn't.
The second I do agree with a bit more although I wouldn't necessarily say the 7D2 is an example of Canon getting things wrong. I think the camera we got was a pretty inevitable evolution of the various lines canon has with the 70D taking the original 7D's spot as an all rounder.
What Canon and Nikon are missing in there APSC lineups for me is something the size of an entry level camera but with build and controls aimed at higher end users. You look at say the Nikon D5300 and you can see its possible to fit an advanced AF unit into a small camera, something slightly larger(say 600g ish) with a tougher body, 100% viewfinder, small top plate LCD and controls more inline with higher end offerings would IMHO cut into a lot of the market for higher end mirrorless systems.
-
Hum... perhaps among the small LL community. Overall people end up going for performance/price.
The area where the NX1 may be hurting the 7DII worst is video though... to quote only one sentence "The camera is expected to cost just $1499, the same in Euros and on the basis of what I saw today completely annihilates the Canon 7D Mark II in terms of the technology under the hood."
http://www.eoshd.com/2014/09/photokina-report-day-1-samsung-nx1-4k-mirrorless-camera-h-265/
Cheers,
Bernard
People often overestimate the impact of 4k video it's simply not widespread enough to be of any significance for "most buyers" esp not stills shooters
Even working professionals are not using full HD for some work (wedding) they are mostly using DVD still for that industry there is little demand for Blu ray let alone 4k
-
People often overestimate the impact of 4k video it's simply not widespread enough to be of any significance for "most buyers" esp not stills shooters
Even working professionals are not using full HD for some work (wedding) they are mostly using DVD still for that industry there is little demand for Blu ray let alone 4k
Maybe, but then again the GH4 seems to be selling very well and that is solely because of a good 4K implementation.
More generally speaking, I would also not under estimate the impact of specs on a majority of the camera buying population both for still and motion. In particular in countries such as India where Samsung has a very positive brand image already. It is not because Canon has decided that 22mp is all you'll ever need that buyers won't be attracted by 28mp.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think the I/O bandwidth will be more of an impediment than anything having to do with pixel density.
may be they will implement a task oriented binning on sensor die... say your camera can operate in landscape mode with 200 mp @ 4 fps or be switchted to action/high ISO gain mode with binning (similar "colored" sensels) 16:1 = 12mp @ 60fps
-
Maybe, but then again the GH4 seems to be selling very well and that is solely because of a good 4K implementation.
I'm not much of a video users so don't really have a great handle on the desired specs/controls for it but the impression I get is that the GH4 is the best handling still/video camera on offer. I won't be supprized if 4K is much more of a draw on that kind of camera aimed at professional use rather than being an add on for something like the 7D2.
Personally my guess is that the 5D4 will be released sometime next year with 4K and general handling aimed more at video use.
More generally speaking, I would also not under estimate the impact of specs on a majority of the camera buying population both for still and motion. In particular in countries such as India where Samsung has a very positive brand image already. It is not because Canon has decided that 22mp is all you'll ever need that buyers won't be attracted by 28mp.
Again for me I'm not sure how much of a black mark this is for the 7D2 as that camera seems to be aimed mostly as those wanting tele reach so its really pixel density rather than resolution your talking about so the 1.5 vs 1.6 crop means the difference isn't as great as the 20 MP vx 28 MP specs make it sound.
-
Any film and/or digital panoramic cameras there?
-
In the interests of balanced reporting, it'd be good to read a considered writeup about Hasselblad's announcements etc. rather than just a since picture of their Lunar. After all, they have properly opened up their H5X camera system and implemented live view and wi-fi in the H5D-50c, not to mention issued firmware to upgrade the new CFV-50c to implement live view. Maybe they plan to do it in their final post?
-
There may have been something that used film, but we didn't see it.
There were some smaller halls and back rooms that we didn't have time to visit, so I can't say for certain.
Michael
-
In the interests of balanced reporting, it'd be good to read a considered writeup about Hasselblad's announcements etc. rather than just a since picture of their Lunar. After all, they have properly opened up their H5X camera system and implemented live view and wi-fi in the H5D-50c, not to mention issued firmware to upgrade the new CFV-50c to implement live view. Maybe they plan to do it in their final post?
Well, balanced reporting isn't something that we ever claimed to do.
We report on things that interest us, and we report on companies that reach out to us and ask us to visit. Among those that don't particularly appeal this year are Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad and about 100 others...for the reasons above, and because none had anything terribly exciting for us to report on. We don't do product announcements and we don't do press releases. Sites like DPReview do a great job for those. We're looking for things that are innovative and exciting.
In a show that covers more than 1,000 exhibitors spread over 11 giant exhibition halls it's also impossible to see everything and everyone.
Hasselblad used to have a great representative who would always stay in touch. Now...silence. So, since we didn't see anything terribly exciting at their booth, and no one there seemed terribly excited to talk to us, we moved on.
Michael
-
The LX100 looked interesting as more compact makers move to bigger sensors higher up the range
I don't think it was a bad show from what I can see maybe no killer "wow" stuff but not bad.
-
Look at this sample 4K video from the NX1. Frames downsampled from 28MP full pixel reads. Look at the detail retention in the grass...and the fur!
Last video in the group. Be sure to set your player for 4K quality. Best on a 1080HD or better screen.
http://photorumors.com/2014/09/15/samsung-nx1-camera-50-150mm-f2-8-ed-ois-s-lens-detailed-specification-sample-photos-4k-video/
-
Wow. Just wow.
- N.
-
There may have been something that used film, but we didn't see it.
There were some smaller halls and back rooms that we didn't have time to visit, so I can't say for certain.
Michael
So I guess you're not lining up a year of shooting only film with a 35mm lens then ? :-)
-
That is
OK great, IMHO.
Erik
Well, balanced reporting isn't something that we ever claimed to do.
-
Wow. Just wow.
- N.
The NX1 is the sleeper of the show. It ticks every box.
If its performance meets its specs the big boys better starts being concerned, because the game of doling out annual incremental model improvements just went broke.
Michael
-
Nice to hear!
Best regards
Erik
The NX1 is the sleeper of the show. It ticks every box.
If its performance meets its specs the big boys better starts being concerned, because the game of doling out annual incremental model improvements just went broke.
Michael
-
Look at this sample 4K video from the NX1. Frames downsampled from 28MP full pixel reads. Look at the detail retention in the grass...and the fur!
Last video in the group. Be sure to set your player for 4K quality. Best on a 1080HD or better screen.
Very, very impressive, though playback was stuttery on my machine. Even after letting it download fully, but then YouTube in general is pants I find. Shame it doesn't appear to be on Vimeo.
-
The NX1 is the sleeper of the show. It ticks every box.
If its performance meets its specs the big boys better starts being concerned, because the game of doling out annual incremental model improvements just went broke.
Michael
+1
-
It's getting tiresome hearing about how innovation is the key to the photo industry, how these mirrorless offerings are going to eat Canon and Nikon's lunch some day real soon now.
Meanwhile no one ever mentions that the entire Sony corporation is in the process of cratering, that Olympus is seeing declining Micro 4-3rds sales year over year, and that Samsung, the company whose crappy P&S I took on a vacation when I was 18 and is famous for rebadging Pentax bodies and putting out invisible mirrorless offerings, is now going to take over photography. Right.
-
CaNikon Forever!
Flipping Mirrors Forever!
PD-AF (& Sloppy Mechanical Tolerances) Forever!
New Technologies Never!
Nothing Must Change!
;D
-Dave-
-
I would have enjoyed a bit more of reporting from the medium format world and tech cams in particular. There are pictures of Arca Swiss and Alpa booths, but a little bit more in-depth look would have been nice.
That's the kind of info that's hard to find, and a critical eye at their products would have been really interesting (and it's even harder to find).
But I understand that the public for that kind of gear is small, and it takes precious time...
I just hope in general for this kind of coverage here at LL.
-
It's getting tiresome hearing about how innovation is the key to the photo industry, how these mirrorless offerings are going to eat Canon and Nikon's lunch some day real soon now.
Meanwhile no one ever mentions that the entire Sony corporation is in the process of cratering, that Olympus is seeing declining Micro 4-3rds sales year over year, and that Samsung, the company whose crappy P&S I took on a vacation when I was 18 and is famous for rebadging Pentax bodies and putting out invisible mirrorless offerings, is now going to take over photography. Right.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Also, Sony's camera and sensor division are one of the brighter spots in their corporate portfolio.
And if you look at the history of corporate ascendancy and then fall, do I need to even mention Polaroid, Kodak, GM, Xerox and countless others when one considers Canon, and Nikon's potential futures? Countries rise and fall, and so do companies. Samsung may not be the next big thing, but they are a wealthily and aggressive company. Bigger surprises have happened.
One can either look at these things from a global business / economic perspective or as a fanboy of a particular brand. The latter approach won't get much sympathy from me here.
Michael
-
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Somehow you made sense out of that. I couldn't even find a grammatical sentence in it.
Samsung has become a worldwide industry leader, just as has Hyundai. They can do anything they set their mind to at this point.
-
Somehow you made sense out of that. I couldn't even find a grammatical sentence in it.
Samsung has become a worldwide industry leader, just as has Hyundai. They can do anything they set their mind to at this point.
I said a few years back Samsung was "one to watch" but now I'm not so sure most of their NX range has failed to excite buyers, many models end up on the clearance shelves it doesn't look like that's going to change at least not overnight. I'm not sure they're connected enough to the industry or have the appeal for buyers in this market.
Sony's problem is one of being somewhat detached from users they're not so good at taking feedback and planning ahead, that's their downfall. They can come up with some good ideas and are capable of delivering decent optics, Sony has at least some brand pull left.
Anyone betting on Samsung for stills photography on the basis of 4k is overestimating the imact of 4k it's just not that interesting for most buyers..at least not right now. In a few years maybe, by which time 4k will probably be standard on most models be it DSLR's and other cameras.
Not to pour cold water on things but "this ain't TV's" this market is one that is very different. Canikon can be boring, but they are mostly very consistent in a way some other makers are not.
-
I said a few years back Samsung was "one to watch" but now I'm not so sure most of their NX range has failed to excite buyers, many models end up on the clearance shelves it doesn't look like that's going to change at least not overnight. I'm not sure they're connected enough to the industry or have the appeal for buyers in this market.
I mostly agree with this, especially the last statement. Nikon and Canon have been marketing cameras to the US for 60-70 years. Sony was able to get into the digital camera market at its inception, with the ability to put their products big onto shelves in major electronics retailers in the mid 1990s.
Samsung has not quite gotten their US marketing operation tuned up and marching -- not in the same way they have with flatscreen TVs, monitors, and smartphones, where their LCD technology still dominates.
But if I just made a camera like the NX1, I'd be out making a commercial in 4K like the sample video. I'd be out there selling this as a leading camera brand. We'll see how the sensor measures up, and whether BSI has really made a material difference in this game.
One thing about 4k. You don't need a 4k television to enjoy the benefits of 4k, just a 4k workflow. The oversampling pays a dividend in detail and quality retained after downsampling. The NX1 takes it to a new level, deriving each frame from a full 28MP readout. This camera puts out the best 1080HD I've seen anywhere so far.
-
Hi,
Interesting to hear…
Best regards
Erik
I mostly agree with this, especially the last statement. Nikon and Canon have been marketing cameras to the US for 60-70 years. Sony was able to get into the digital camera market at its inception, with the ability to put their products big onto shelves in major electronics retailers in the mid 1990s.
Samsung has not quite gotten their US marketing operation tuned up and marching -- not in the same way they have with flatscreen TVs, monitors, and smartphones, where their LCD technology still dominates.
But if I just made a camera like the NX1, I'd be out making a commercial in 4K like the sample video. I'd be out there selling this as a leading camera brand. We'll see how the sensor measures up, and whether BSI has really made a material difference in this game.
One thing about 4k. You don't need a 4k television to enjoy the benefits of 4k, just a 4k workflow. The oversampling pays a dividend in detail and quality retained after downsampling. The NX1 takes it to a new level, deriving each frame from a full 28MP readout. This camera puts out the best 1080HD I've seen anywhere so far.
-
One thing about 4k. You don't need a 4k television to enjoy the benefits of 4k, just a 4k workflow. The oversampling pays a dividend in detail and quality retained after downsampling. The NX1 takes it to a new level, deriving each frame from a full 28MP readout. This camera puts out the best 1080HD I've seen anywhere so far.
I watched in on my NEC 26" and it looked amazing. Much better than HD.
-
The point is not that innovation is essential or will lead to corporate success, but that it is interesting. Not something one can say of anything Canon has done since the 5DII. Or Nikon since the D800e.
Samsung is a company that, frankly, makes Sony look a little puny in the same way Sony makes Nikon looks small. They have tremendous resources, and a track record of success in many related areas - read displays - a segment they own.
Perhaps the most interesting facet is the raw power of the processor on the NX1. It's staggering.
The big questions are AF, IQ and lens quality. If they nailed the AF the way they say they have....wow. FULL frame coverage and 15fps tracking? A processor that can crunch this data-volume might be able to do that. And a company the size of Samsung might be able to assemble a team to make this happen.
The two new lenses are also impressive on paper. Fully weather sealed - nice! The published MTFs are impressive, and the fact the 16-50 is an f2 to 2.8, and the 50-150 reaches further than traditional the 70-200 range, both tell me they had a mandate to be a little better than the status quo. The 28MPs vs 24MPs say the same thing....let's be a bit better.
Whether they achieve this, and whether is makes a shred of difference to their commercial succes, who knows. But it's definitely interesting.
I have only been blown away by two things in the industry in the last couple of years: the performance of the 645z sensor and the 4K video off the NX1.
While I don't personally shoot or care that much about video, no one can watch the whole 4K demo (especially the animals in the middle part) and not gasp at the beauty and technical wizardry.
If they have translated any of that mojo to the still part, I may have a new carry-around system.
- N.
-
The big questions are AF, IQ and lens quality. If they nailed the AF the way they say they have....wow. FULL frame coverage and 15fps tracking? A processor that can crunch this data-volume might be able to do that. And a company the size of Samsung might be able to assemble a team to make this happen.
Except is not Full Frame but APS-C. ;)
Still, an impressive camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Except is not Full Frame but APS-C. ;)
Still, an impressive camera.
I think Nick meant that the autofocus covers the entire frame, not that it is a "full frame" camera.
-
I am now back from Photokina and Germany.
Both the Fuji and the Leica interviews were truncated because out hotel allowed only 1GB of data per session and then logged off. Vimeo stupidly thought that the uploads were finished and I stupidly published them. Two wrongs make a wrong.
I will have new uploads of both of these files as soon as possible and will announce on What's New when they're up.
We also have a wrap-up video report which will be online in a day or two.
Michael
-
Kodak and Polaroid didn't have the lock in that Canon and Nikon have with their lenses. There also doesn't appear to be any barrier to Canon or Nikon making EVF driven legacy lens cameras, should it come to that. None of this mirrorless innovation seems to represent a big paradigm change for Canon and Nikon the way digital did for Kodak or Polaroid.
The other problem with mirrorless is that, except for some Sonys, taking out this apparently overcomplicated, expensive mirror assembly and making lenses for often smaller sensors somehow results in an INCREASE in price over the SLR manufacturers. On a value for money basis that is probably hurting mirrorless.
-
Kodak and Polaroid didn't have the lock in that Canon and Nikon have with their lenses. There also doesn't appear to be any barrier to Canon or Nikon making EVF driven legacy lens cameras, should it come to that. None of this mirrorless innovation seems to represent a big paradigm change for Canon and Nikon the way digital did for Kodak or Polaroid.
The shift from film to digital was a much greater shift than any transition from SLR to mirrorless maybe, Kodak weren't forced out of business by someone making a slightly different film but the entire climate of the market, there core product was pushed to the sidelines and makers of camera systems became much more powerful in the market. Fuji had the benefit of much more experience in the camera/lens market to fall back on.
The other problem with mirrorless is that, except for some Sonys, taking out this apparently overcomplicated, expensive mirror assembly and making lenses for often smaller sensors somehow results in an INCREASE in price over the SLR manufacturers. On a value for money basis that is probably hurting mirrorless.
Even the Sony systems cheapness is IMHO something of a illusion, the reality I'd guess is that Sony have cut down profits on bodies and jacked up the prices of lenses besides deliberately crippled kit options. More evidence for me of why they have serious issues in the camera market, compared to other forms of consumer electronics I think your looking at a market were treating customers somewhat better pays in the long term.
Also of course I would argue that a lot of "cheaper" mirrorless cameras are actually not at the same level as the bodies there competing with. You compare say the Sony a7 to the Nikon D610/750 and I think the latter models represent higher end bodies, top plate LCD's, greater manual control, dual card slots, weather sealed, etc.
-
For some photographers some of the extras on a D750 will make it a more worthwhile camera. My reaction was why pay $1000 more than an A7 for features of little use to me ? Just like why pay $1800 for the Canon 7D Mark 2 when the Sony A77 Mark 2 at $1100 is more camera than I absolutely require ?
And just for the record I do own a reasonably comprehensive Nikon kit and even have a couple of Canon lenses with an adapter. So I am far from a hostage to a camera mount decision made many years ago.
-
For some photographers some of the extras on a D750 will make it a more worthwhile camera. My reaction was why pay $1000 more than an A7 for features of little use to me ? Just like why pay $1800 for the Canon 7D Mark 2 when the Sony A77 Mark 2 at $1100 is more camera than I absolutely require ?
From my experience with Olympus and Panasonic mirrorless cameras, I am going to guess that that the A7 is perfectly serviceable handling, image quality quite excellent, but doesn't handle or respond nearly as well as the Nikon. And that's part of what you're paying for. You could also buy a D610 and not pay anymore for the Nikon than you will the Sony.
-
For some photographers some of the extras on a D750 will make it a more worthwhile camera. My reaction was why pay $1000 more than an A7 for features of little use to me ? Just like why pay $1800 for the Canon 7D Mark 2 when the Sony A77 Mark 2 at $1100 is more camera than I absolutely require ?
And just for the record I do own a reasonably comprehensive Nikon kit and even have a couple of Canon lenses with an adapter. So I am far from a hostage to a camera mount decision made many years ago.
Looking at B&H right now the D750 is $600 more expensive than the a7. I would guess as well that the kind of person who bought the a7 over the a7r is more likely to have bought a FF system for the low light ability and DOF control rather than pure resolution, hence you would think that a fast AF system that works in low light would be important to them.
-
APS-C is full frame to any lens designed specifically for that format.
I maintain that "full frame," as commonly used, is just BS marketing jargon now curdled into status symbol arrogance. Ptooeey!
-Dave-
-
Hope you enjoyed your river tour Michael. Funny to think that you walked the streets where I grew up. The place from where you photographed the gargoyle was on my walk to the Musikhochschule, passing through the Trainstation.
Thanks to Kevin and yourself for the entertaining reports.
Best
Georg
-
APS-C is full frame to any lens designed specifically for that format.
I maintain that "full frame," as commonly used, is just BS marketing jargon now curdled into status symbol arrogance. Ptooeey!
-Dave-
Zach Arias explained it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
-
Zach Arias explained it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
Except that Zach Arias did not mention "Depth of Field" not even once... Stepping down or ofcus stacking increase depth of field. Nothing, except for Photoshop artistery, can reduce delth of field beyond the widest aperture of a lens.
-
I really enjoyed all the videos - watched each one in its entirety :) Thanks guys!!!
-
If Olympus (Pen F) and Canon (Dial 35) didn't go and make "half frame" cameras we wouldn't have the term "full frame" in our vocabulary to begin with. These are just two different formats on 35mm film, something you needed to know if you were buying a 35mm camera. Then someone invented APS. APS was just a reason for people to say "who needs full frame?"
-
APS-C is full frame to any lens designed specifically for that format.
I maintain that "full frame," as commonly used, is just BS marketing jargon now curdled into status symbol arrogance. Ptooeey!
If Olympus (Pen F) and Canon (Dial 35) didn't go and make "half frame" cameras we wouldn't have the term "full frame" in our vocabulary to begin with. These are just two different formats on 35mm film, something you needed to know if you were buying a 35mm camera. Then someone invented APS. APS was just a reason for people to say "who needs full frame?"
FF is more a reference point for sensor size that gives you a sense of how lens focal lengths will work on a crop camera. Most lenses are designed for 35mm film/FF size and an APS-C sensor regardless of whether the lens is designed for that size sensor or not will capture a cropped image compared to using the same focal length on the standard sized FF sensor. How big the circle of light at sensor plane is not really relevant.
FF is not status symbol arrogance, some people prefer it because of the different look it gives and because all the 35mm format lenses work as expected. Others prefer APS-C for exactly the opposite reason, your long lenses are longer [due to the crop factor] which saves money and weight over using FF.
Personally speaking - I had a crop camera years back and I used it for a few months, but got a 5D as soon as it came out and never used the 20D again. Why? I simply didn't like how is cropped my wide angle lenses [which I use 90% of the time] and how it also increased depth of field. Also bigger sensor do tend to give better quality compared to a smaller version of the same sensor, because that's just how things work.
Doesn't mean I won't use smaller sensors as I do like them for some things, but I find the APS-C a bit meh for my uses, neither fish nor fowl. I'd rather use a 4/3rds.
-
If Olympus (Pen F) and Canon (Dial 35) didn't go and make "half frame"
Didn't Olympus call them "single frame" (harking back to the original 24x18mm frame of 35mm film when it was used mostly for movies) as opposed to "double frame", the early name for the doubled 36x24mm still format pioneered by Leica?
Anyway, people stopped using "full frame" for still film cameras back in the 1980's; that is not why it is used for 36x24mm format now. Instead, it was revived to distinguish from digital cameras that used lenses designed for 36x24mm but which forced a substantial crop of the images that those lenses were designed to deliver. That need is ancient history now, so the phrase is an anachronism like "horseless carriage", and I seriously wonder why the utterly familiar "35mm" is not now the obvious description. It is a lot more accurate than the universal use of the obscure and obsolete film format "APS-C" as a size description for digital cameras, since that film format was larger than any so-called APS-C digital sensor.
Full-frame lives on as relevant in DMF, where most lenses are still design for the 56x42mm of "645" format and so sensor sizes like 44x33mm are "wide-angle challenged".
-
FF is not status symbol arrogance, some people prefer it because of the different look it gives and because all the 35mm format lenses work as expected.
Substitute "35mm" for "full frame" or "FF" and I'll be in agreement with you. It's not the format I have an issue with.
I know there are claims that "full frame" goes back to APS film, but the first time I ever heard or saw the term used to describe 35mm was around when the Canon 1Ds and Contax N Digital came on the market. In the film era referring to a frame size no larger than a US overseas airmail stamp as "full" would've been laughable. :)
-Dave-
-
The LX100 looked interesting as more compact makers move to bigger sensors higher up the range
I don't think it was a bad show from what I can see maybe no killer "wow" stuff but not bad.
The LX100 answered some of my ideas about which way the camera industry could go. Panasonic did use larger sensors than the lenses could cover in their cameras before the LX100 but this time it is more pronounced. It allows different aspect ratio choices that offer similar total image resolutions as they do not crop on the lens covered sensor area itself. I'm curious how good that lens is. Limiting the focal range to keep a lens small and fast is a wise decision too. They could still offer a LX101 with longer zoom next to this one or go for interchangeable lenses with that concept.
Throwing digital bits away of unused sensor area in image taking is something else than not using film area though digital camera designers seem to be stuck with the idea they are still wasting film. Ample sensor area and lenses that cover that area more or less in relation to their size/task/etc should be an idea more embraced. Sony's A7R already allows that if their E mount lenses were interesting, they are not. A square mask is not selectable on the EVF and sensor, should be available on the next firmware update. Sensor image stabilisation is not available either in that camera, they dropped that when going from SLR to mirrorless. APS-C lenses on FF sensors do not occupy sensor space as nicely as M4/3 lenses on APS-C sensors.
Stretching this idea more and with interchangeable lenses I wonder whether Ricoh or Pentax ever signed the M4/3 club agreements. A real mirrorless "Pentax" body with the 5 axis image stabilised APS-C sensor + M4/3 mount at M4/3 focal distance would allow any aspect ratio between square and panorama with M4/3 lenses without resolution loss that is usually the result of a crop on the lens covered sensor area.
>>There still is some loss as a 1:3 panorama aspect ratio within a given circle contains less area than a 1:1 square area in that circle but way less waste than cropping on an already small sensor. The normal M4/3 lenses cover a 15,7 mm square in the center of a normal 23,5x15,7 APS-C sensor.<<
There is also ample sensor area left for shift or panorama with new M4/3 lenses that have more sensor cover, no need for shift lenses then. The digital shift on the new Olympus update sounds too much like a Photoshop solution. What I mention is a true physical shift without any shift mechanisms, only the relation sensor area to EVF area needs to shift or zoom. The Fuji Hasselblad Xpan comes to mind for the panorama feature.
True the M4/3 mount size and focal distance should have had Sony E mount properties to make this idea even more attractive but at least the M4/3 mount has a wide lens range to fill it. When Samsung introduced their mirrorless mount they did not even consider the possibility of M mount lens adaption so it can be done worse.
We have seen enough interchangeable lens, mirrorless cameras with sensors too small for comfort from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. They will never get the lens range M4/3 already has. Pentax's mirrorless designs go straight to collector's shelves due to their bad concept + low production numbers and I think the Ricoh's are destinated to go the same route. However enough skill at Ricoh/Pentax to design new and special M4/3 lenses and a body like mentioned. That small Ricoh Photokina booth with the interesting images shower could be twice the size next time if it had the camera and lenses ready in two years.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Holy moley! Saw off the lens hood and Nikkor 14-24 has a usable image circle of ~75mm? 10 degrees tilt? 5 mm shift? Who knew? Well, Stefan Scheib, and boy does that 14-24 T/S look awesome, stimulated GAS attack. Good thing the video stopped just before Scheib mentioned the price ;)
-
Sony A77II or Samsung NX1 or Pentax or other In-Body Image Stabilization cameras might be fine paired with a supertelephoto, but I understand that when keeping IBIS on, the "keeper rate" of the Pentax 560mm is only 15% or so. Frame rate advantage (translucent mirror Sony A77, or Samsung) or ultimate weatherproofness (Pentax) may not outweigh the supertelephoto In-Lens image stabilization advantage. Granted, I, peon that I am, still shoot handheld with an outmoded but sharp and cheap no-IS Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L lens, but I do aspire to one of the newer Canon f/4 superteles with good IS, to be used hand held as well as on tripod. I know that inadequate IS is not an issue with the new Canon superteles.
1,000+ exhibitors there - someone is showing film cameras, even if it is just Shen Hao with their field view cameras.
-
Good article IMO on Photokina by Thom Hogan. Read down past the camera maker summaries for his observations re. the utter lack of a seamless maker-provided camera-to-screen workflow/datapath. Given that most folks don't print you'd think some there'd be
more some consideration of what they we actually (want to) do with photos.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-lost-photokina.html
-Dave-
-
Holy moley! Saw off the lens hood and Nikkor 14-24 has a usable image circle of ~75mm? 10 degrees tilt? 5 mm shift? Who knew? Well, Stefan Scheib, and boy does that 14-24 T/S look awesome, stimulated GAS attack. Good thing the video stopped just before Scheib mentioned the price ;)
Nancy! A little cryptic there. Do you have a source for information on the 14-24 mod? Is that for real? I always suspected that this lens had an outsized image circle. If you've got a source on that, I want it!
-
Hi,
Yes it is real: https://www.facebook.com/122001131245665/photos/pb.122001131245665.-2207520000.1411506215./580077868771320/?type=1&theater
Best regards
Erik
Nancy! A little cryptic there. Do you have a source for information on the 14-24 mod? Is that for real? I always suspected that this lens had an outsized image circle. If you've got a source on that, I want it!
-
re: Nikkor 14-24 as T/S, by HCam/Hartblei engineer Scheib, see this site's report of Photokina day 4, scroll down to see HCam/Hartblei video:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/photokina____day_4_.shtml
Also see: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/08/14/hartblei-introduces-hcam-master-ts-14-24mm-tilt-shift-optic-for-sony-e-moun
~$5,000.00 USD plus your favorite Sony A7r = T/S heaven?
-
Yes! Vindicated! I've wondered for a long time whether the corner sharpness of the 14-24 came from the use of a much outsized image circle. I'd seen it mentioned, but could not find the mention again. [Thanks for the references, Nancy and Bernard.]
I suspect that a number of high-end lenses use an outsized image circle to achieve their edge/corner performance. The Otus apparently does, according to H-Cam. I'll bet you that the Sigma Art lenses do too.
[This from photo.net]
Luke Kaven , Feb 28, 2010; 12:17 p.m.
Bjorn, is it true that the 14-24 has an enlarged image circle over other 35mm format lenses? I've seen people describe using the lens on a view camera, but for some reason, I can't find any of those references again.
Bjorn Rorslett , Feb 28, 2010; 12:24 p.m.
That must have been an extremely limited-view camera :)
As far as I'm aware of there is nothing special about the 14-24 (apart from its image quality).
-
Sony A77II or Samsung NX1 or Pentax or other In-Body Image Stabilization cameras might be fine paired with a supertelephoto, but I understand that when keeping IBIS on, the "keeper rate" of the Pentax 560mm is only 15% or so. Frame rate advantage (translucent mirror Sony A77, or Samsung) or ultimate weatherproofness (Pentax) may not outweigh the supertelephoto In-Lens image stabilization advantage. Granted, I, peon that I am, still shoot handheld with an outmoded but sharp and cheap no-IS Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L lens, but I do aspire to one of the newer Canon f/4 superteles with good IS, to be used hand held as well as on tripod. I know that inadequate IS is not an issue with the new Canon superteles.
1,000+ exhibitors there - someone is showing film cameras, even if it is just Shen Hao with their field view cameras.
The NX1 (or any recent Samsung camera) does not have sensor image stabilisation. The possible exception; the early Samsung rebranded Pentax DSLRs of some years back. I have no experience with lenses that long. Sensor image stabilisation can be put Off and a lens with image stabilisation can be used on bodies like that.
Harman of Ilford films had a prototype of a 6x9 pinhole camera on the counter, extending the Walker camera designs. http://www.walkercameras.com/harman_titan_4x5_pinhole_camera.html
Lomo territory.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Substitute "35mm" for "full frame" or "FF" and I'll be in agreement with you. It's not the format I have an issue with.
I know there are claims that "full frame" goes back to APS film, but the first time I ever heard or saw the term used to describe 35mm was around when the Canon 1Ds and Contax N Digital came on the market. In the film era referring to a frame size no larger than a US overseas airmail stamp as "full" would've been laughable. :)
No, it is not laughable, it is simply describing the size relative to the lenses being used on it. Nothing to do with absolute size of image capture area.
'Crop' sensors cameras only used a smaller part of the image circle when 35mm format lenses are used on them. I had a D20 years back and with my 35mm format lenses I got an annoyingly cropped images as APS-C and similar variants like are not full frame.
If these crop framed cameras had been launched with a different mount and selection of lenses, then the term FF would never have come up in conversation as it wouldn't have been relevant.
As for using the term 35mm to describe the format, imaging how ridiculous and confusing that could be. "Hey look at my 85mm 35mm lens" or "Hey look at my new 35mm 35mm lens" ;D
-
"Full frame" isn't an accurate description of the format but most of us understand what it means. Likewise saying a 50mm lens "is like a 75mm lens" is inaccurate and can be confusing to those who don't know what it means but its use has become so embedded in 21st century photographic culture that rooting it out and substituting something more accurate is like pushing a rope uphill. Like the "full frame" terminology.
-
Is in-lens image stabilization purely autonomous operation of gyros and motors? Could I take a Canon IS lens and slap it on any mirrorless body and have the lens still maintain IS, or is some degree of body-lens communication needed?.
-
"Full frame" isn't an accurate description of the format but most of us understand what it means.
It is an accurate description, see my previous post. People's objections to the term are what is inaccurate. :P
Likewise saying a 50mm lens "is like a 75mm lens" is inaccurate and can be confusing to those who don't know what it means but its use has become so embedded in 21st century photographic culture that rooting it out and substituting something more accurate is like pushing a rope uphill. Like the "full frame" terminology.
Saying a 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop frame camera is like a 75mm on crop camera is not inaccurate either if they both give equivalent fields of view. Which is what people are really concerned with when asking about focal length.
Because of it's use and huge popularity for so long, lens fields of view tend to be referred to as compared to a 35mm equivalent. Even with large formats at times because they vary so much, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 plus the various digital variations of MFDSLRS where a 40mm may be the same as a 24mm on 35mm/FF with one size film/sensor and 28mm on 35mm/FF on a different film/sensor.
I have a Ricoh pocket camera with a 24-70mm equivalent lens, it is shortly going to be replaced by another compact camera also with a 24mm-70mm equivalent lens, I'm also eyeing up an EM1 with a 24-80mm equivalent lens. This makes comparing cameras with in this case, 3 different sensor sizes really easy. I don't really care or even know what the actual focal lengths are but I know how much coverage I can get with them - which is what actually matters.
-
Yes,
I would agree. But I would also say that what is most important for me is having a system that does the job.
For telephoto work I often prefer an APS-C body with smaller pixels instead of using a full frame and an 1.4X converter. But everything also depends on the quality of the involved optics. We need to test to find out the optimal combo.
Best regards
Erik
"Full frame" isn't an accurate description of the format but most of us understand what it means. Likewise saying a 50mm lens "is like a 75mm lens" is inaccurate and can be confusing to those who don't know what it means but its use has become so embedded in 21st century photographic culture that rooting it out and substituting something more accurate is like pushing a rope uphill. Like the "full frame" terminology.
-
I have a Ricoh pocket camera with a 24-70mm equivalent lens, it is shortly going to be replaced by another compact camera also with a 24mm-70mm equivalent lens, I'm also eyeing up an EM1 with a 24-80mm equivalent lens.
Except these lenses aren't equivalent; only the angle of view is equivalent. Some people get confused because when they read '75mm equivalent' they try to calculate an extension factor when using their 25mm extension tubes, for example, as though the lens is a 75mm focal length.
IMHO it would be much less confusing to express the equivalence as an angle of view, i.e., my 280mm lens on a camera with a 24mm x 36mm sensor yields an 8.8 degree angle of view. Divide this angle of view by the crop factor to get the angle of view on a camera with a different size sensor. i.e., my camera's crop factor is 1.37 so the 280's angle of view on this camera is about 8.5 degrees, roughly the same angle of view of a 400mm lens on a 24mm x 36mm sensor.
Accuracy is too wordy so we invent these shortcuts like 'full-frame' and 'equivalent focal length' that are not accurate but are widely understood.
-
Is in-lens image stabilization purely autonomous operation of gyros and motors? Could I take a Canon IS lens and slap it on any mirrorless body and have the lens still maintain IS, or is some degree of body-lens communication needed?.
I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that some communication is involved.
-
As for using the term 35mm to describe the format, imaging how ridiculous and confusing that could be. "Hey look at my 85mm 35mm lens" or "Hey look at my new 35mm 35mm lens"
Yet "35mm" is how the 36x24mm still camera format was commonly described for decades (at least in English speaking countries), without ever being confusing, and as far as I know it was not considered ridiculous.
But I am a fan of the usage in at least some European countries: 36x24mm, or "36x24" for short (since there is little likelihood of being misinterpreted as 36x24cm or such.) Shorter to type and more precise than "full frame".
-
Except these lenses aren't equivalent; only the angle of view is equivalent.
As I think is almost universally known by people who know or care much about focal lengths.
Some people get confused because when they read '75mm equivalent' they try to calculate an extension factor when using their 25mm extension tubes, for example, as though the lens is a 75mm focal length.
Really? I have never encounter or ever heard of someone who knows enough to use use extension tubes and yet is ignorant of this standard modern shorthand description. Surely any such person will look at the actual focal length, which is what is marked on any lens usable with extension tubes.
IMHO it would be much less confusing to express the equivalence as an angle of view
It would be nice, but we know it is never going to happen. I like a variant based on "magnification", a bit like the way binoculars are described: "3x" means a focal length of three times the image diagonal, and so on, so "1x" is a "standard" lens. But that's not going to happen either.
-
Holy moley! Saw off the lens hood and Nikkor 14-24 has a usable image circle of ~75mm?
At what focal length? All of them or just the long end? It is fairly standard for "zooming in" to essentially enlarge the image, including enlarging the whole image circle, so that a 14-24mm designed to cover a the 43.2mm image circle of 24x26mm format even at the wide end almost naturally covers 43.2*24/14 = 74.2mm at the along end. Close enough to 75mm!
If so, not there is nothing "oversized" about the image circle choice.
-
As for using the term 35mm to describe the format, imaging how ridiculous and confusing that could be. "Hey look at my 85mm 35mm lens" or "Hey look at my new 35mm 35mm lens" ;D
It ain't perfect but it worked fine from c. 1935 through 2003 or so. How old are you? ;) Anyway I'll let the subject rest…we 21st century snappers dig our "full frame."
-Dave-
-
Except these lenses aren't equivalent; only the angle of view is equivalent.
Try reading all of a post before replying.
I had already talked about angle of view being equivalent between lenses and that being what should be compared, not simply focal length in the part you snipped out. I then gave the specific examples you are now carping about to illustrate the point and how the relationship between focal lengths and angle of view for 35mm film cameras are understood by virtually everyone.
-
As for using the term 35mm to describe the format, imaging how ridiculous and confusing that could be. "Hey look at my 85mm 35mm lens" or "Hey look at my new 35mm 35mm lens" ;D
It ain't perfect but it worked fine from c. 1935 through 2003 or so. How old are you? ;) Anyway I'll let the subject rest…we 21st century snappers dig our "full frame."
Uh, I'm in favour of the term full frame. ??? And it wasn't really used in ye olde days as explained below.
Yet "35mm" is how the 36x24mm still camera format was commonly described for decades (at least in English speaking countries), without ever being confusing, and as far as I know it was not considered ridiculous.
Yes the camera format was described as 35mm, not the lenses. You usually referred to the lenses by manufacturer. e.g. Nikon lenses, Olympus lenses etc which as they only worked on 35mm film cameras, describing the lenses as 35mm lenses was redundant.
But I am a fan of the usage in at least some European countries: 36x24mm, or "36x24" for short (since there is little likelihood of being misinterpreted as 36x24cm or such.) Shorter to type and more precise than "full frame".
Not as sort as the more usual FF though. :P And as FF means 36x24, it's just as precise and way less clunky/geeky.
-
Try reading all of a post before replying.
How rude.
-
The implication was that significant shift and tilt were available at both ends of the FL range of the Nikkor 14-24. Go to the Hartblei links.
-
Hi,
There is nothing like full frame 4/3 or full frame APS-C. The are all normally full frame. I would say that it is OK to talk about full frame 135, which was a designation used for 35 mm film.
With MF it is a bit more complex, as there used to be 6x6, until Pentax invented 6x7, Fuji 6x8 and Mamiya 6x4.5. So now we have cropped frame 645 (like the IQ-250), full frame 645 (like the IQ-280), but full frame 645 is still a cropped format on 6x6 or anything larger.
Best regards
Erik
APS-C, FF 135 and 645 with 1.1X crop.
Uh, I'm in favour of the term full frame. ??? And it wasn't really used in ye olde days as explained below.
Yes the camera format was described as 35mm, not the lenses. You usually referred to the lenses by manufacturer. e.g. Nikon lenses, Olympus lenses etc which as they only worked on 35mm film cameras, describing the lenses as 35mm lenses was redundant.
Not as sort as the more usual FF though. :P And as FF means 36x24, it's just as precise and way less clunky/geeky.
-
Yes the camera format was described as 35mm, not the lenses. You usually referred to the lenses by manufacturer. e.g. Nikon lenses, Olympus lenses etc which as they only worked on 35mm film cameras, describing the lenses as 35mm lenses was redundant.
Describing the format has been exactly the focus here. What do the focal lengths of lenses have to do with it? (I don't remember the difference between "the 35mm format" and "a 35mm lens" causing confusion. You can figure it out from the context.)
-Dave-
-
Another way of referring to the 24mm x 36mm frame size format is "135". Anyone who dates from the film era will recognize this - films were labeled (emulsion type) - 135 -(number of exposures in the roll, usually 20, 24, 36).
-
Describing the format has been exactly the focus here. What do the focal lengths of lenses have to do with it? (I don't remember the difference between "the 35mm format" and "a 35mm lens" causing confusion. You can figure it out from the context.)
This is a thread about Photokina 2014.
-
Hi,
Thanks for reminding! Seriously!
What I found were interesting from my viewpoint were the Loxia lenses and some discussions with Sigma. It is also nice to have seen Leica born again.
The new Samsung camera is probably impressive.
A third product that evokes some of my interest is the Hartblei Master Cam.
Best regards
Erik
This is a thread about Photokina 2014.
-
I'll re-post my link to Thom Hogan's fine post-Photokina article:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-lost-photokina.html
A quote: "Most images these days don’t need to be anything other than 8mp 16:9."
-Dave-
-
I'll re-post my link to Thom Hogan's fine post-Photokina article:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-lost-photokina.html
A quote: "Most images these days don’t need to be anything other than 8mp 16:9."
-Dave-
He seems to be wanting to have his cake and eat it bashing Canon for releasing the 7D mk2 we all expected and at the same time bashing Nikon for NOT releasing the D400 many expected.
Part of what were seeing I would say is that Leica treats Fotokina more seriously than the big Japanese brands, yes the latter will save up announcements that would likely have happened around the same time for it but Leica seems to save up a great deal of its new announcements for along time either side of it, the new S for example isn't going to ship for another 6 months.
-
There is a new interview with Samsung on the technical innovations in the NX1. I excerpted some of the interview in a thread here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93839.0
Even the most jaded among you will be amazed I think. It will help to define the future of digital photography.
-
Another way of referring to the 24mm x 36mm frame size format is "135". Anyone who dates from the film era will recognize this - films were labeled (emulsion type) - 135 -(number of exposures in the roll, usually 20, 24, 36).
The name "135" describes a format for rolls of film, not a frame size: a total width of 35mm wide including sprocket holes and frame numbers, with about 24mm of that for images. That 135 film has been used for a variety of frame formats, from 24x18mm to 36x24mm to panoramic shapes, so it is a poor choice for describing a sensor format.
-
How rude.
No, rude is not bothering to listen to what someone says when talking or not reading what someone says before replying. Too much friction and misunderstanding on forums would be avoiding if people were less careless in their reading of other's posts.
-
Describing the format has been exactly the focus here. What do the focal lengths of lenses have to do with it? (I don't remember the difference between "the 35mm format" and "a 35mm lens" causing confusion. You can figure it out from the context.)
Point missed entirely. There was no confusion then for reasons explained above. Try reading posts before replying, no point responding to you otherwise.
-
Photokina 2014 people. This argument about format naming conventions is going nowhere the long way.
-
Photokina 2014 people. This argument about format naming conventions is going nowhere the long way.
Not surprising, seeing as people seem to not be reading posts before replying on matter.