Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on June 10, 2016, 04:53:42 am
-
Hi team,
How about a little crystal balling about what's going to be presented at the Kina? Here is my take:
APS-C and smaller
- Sony: a5300 (a6300 specs in a5100 packaging), RX100Mk5
- Fuji X-T2 (24mp, better EVF)
- Olympus EM-1 successor
- Nikon: D3500 (first Nikon DSLR with EVF in packaging similar to D3300),
35mm
- Canon: 5DMkIV (30~MP replacement of 5DMKIII, 1Dx II AF, 4K video at 60p), 85mm f1.2 III with Otus like performance, 600mm f4 DO, 1000mm f5.6 DO
- Sony: a9r (72mp sensor, weather sealing, dual memory card, 4K video at 60p)
- Nikon: D900 (same sensor as the a9r, D5 AF, 4k video at 30p), 70-200mm f2.8III, 200mm f2 E FL, 500mm f5.6 PF
MF
- Phasone: XF2 with optional EVF and better damped mirror mechanism (attractive upgrade program for XF existind users)
- Hassy: digital XPan
- Pentax: 645X with the Sony 100mp sensor, pixel shift technology
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon may be showing a mirroless camera with a curved Sony sensor.
Olympus OM1 may be really nice. At the very least it should bring 5 axis stabilisation, full 4K video and handheld multishot.
Sony A9 may also have some unexpected features, maybe a Sony-branded full-raw video recording option with external screen; at the very least I would expect Sony to offer an internal 120fps 4K burst mode that would make the A9 into an incredible sports camera.
Panasonic will probably be showing the GH5, which will add stabilisation, maybe handheld multishot.
Pentax will have some interesting successor to the 645Z, maybe, but not the 100MP sensor.
As for an upgrade to the XF - how can something so perfect be improved? :)
On balance, I think Sony is the company to watch, as it's clear that they still have a bunch of innovations which will find their way into most other cameras on the market via their sensor SDK. I wonder whether at some point they will officially add z-axis to the 5-axis stabiliser module.
Sony may still decide to market a luxury MF fixed-lens compact, now that on-sensor focus allows them to solve the focus issues which plagued the RX1.
Edmund
Hi team,
How about a little crystal balling about what's going to be presented at the Kina? Here is my take:
APS-C and smaller
- Sony: a5300 (a6300 specs in a5100 packaging), RX100Mk5
- Fuji X-T2 (24mp, better EVF)
- Olympus EM-1 successor
- Nikon: D3500 (first Nikon DSLR with EVF in packaging similar to D3300),
35mm
- Canon: 5DMkIV (30~MP replacement of 5DMKIII, 1Dx II AF, 4K video at 60p), 85mm f1.2 III with Otus like performance, 600mm f4 DO, 1000mm f5.6 DO
- Sony: a9r (72mp sensor, weather sealing, dual memory card, 4K video at 60p)
- Nikon: D900 (same sensor as the a9r, D5 AF, 4k video at 30p), 70-200mm f2.8III, 200mm f2 E FL, 500mm f5.6 PF
MF
- Phasone: XF2 with optional EVF and better damped mirror mechanism (attractive upgrade program for XF existind users)
- Hassy: digital XPan
- Pentax: 645X with the Sony 100mp sensor, pixel shift technology
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi team,
How about a little crystal balling about what's going to be presented at the Kina? Here is my take:
APS-C and smaller
- Sony: a5300 (a6300 specs in a5100 packaging), RX100Mk5
- Fuji X-T2 (24mp, better EVF)
- Olympus EM-1 successor
- Nikon: D3500 (first Nikon DSLR with EVF in packaging similar to D3300),
35mm
- Canon: 5DMkIV (30~MP replacement of 5DMKIII, 1Dx II AF, 4K video at 60p), 85mm f1.2 III with Otus like performance, 600mm f4 DO, 1000mm f5.6 DO
- Sony: a9r (72mp sensor, weather sealing, dual memory card, 4K video at 60p)
- Nikon: D900 (same sensor as the a9r, D5 AF, 4k video at 30p), 70-200mm f2.8III, 200mm f2 E FL, 500mm f5.6 PF
MF
- Phasone: XF2 with optional EVF and better damped mirror mechanism (attractive upgrade program for XF existind users)
- Hassy: digital XPan
- Pentax: 645X with the Sony 100mp sensor, pixel shift technology
Cheers,
Bernard
Without a total rework, the mirror/shutter will be the same, but you might see a drop in EVF? as the finder has a lot of pins and HDMI is already present. May have to run a cable external, but EVF, with the capabilities of a Sony or Fuji 35mm camera, that would be excellent. (personally don't feel that is coming for a while even kina). Can't see a "new" body with shutter/mirrorless or what not until a another year.
As for the mirror slap, it's a big mirror, curious to see if the new Hasselblad body has a more damped setup? For countering the vibration, IMO Phase did a very good job with the vibration reduction option.
Paul C
-
I would also expect the successor of the Leica M240 to be announced. Next iteration of the SL/Q sensor, hybrid RF/EVF, 30 or 36MP.
Hasselblad's take on the Leica SL would be interesting as well but I believe we will need to wait a few more years for that.
-
A MF-sized sensor, in a X100 style body, with a fixed lens. Go on Fujifilm, you know you want to.
-
A MF-sized sensor, in a X100 style body, with a fixed lens. Go on Fujifilm, you know you want to.
Fuji is dead. Even Ken Rockwell doesn't like them anymore...:
http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-pro2.htm
;)
-
Fuji is dead. Even Ken Rockwell doesn't like them anymore...:
http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-pro2.htm
;)
Ken knows best.......
Paul C
-
Both reported for mentioning he who shall not be named
-
Hi team,
How about a little crystal balling about what's going to be presented at the Kina? Here is my take:
35mm
- Canon: 5DMkIV (30~MP replacement of 5DMKIII, 1Dx II AF, 4K video at 60p), 85mm f1.2 III with Otus like performance, 600mm f4 DO, 1000mm f5.6 DO
- Sony: a9r (72mp sensor, weather sealing, dual memory card, 4K video at 60p)
- Nikon: D900 (same sensor as the a9r, D5 AF, 4k video at 30p), 70-200mm f2.8III, 200mm f2 E FL, 500mm f5.6 PF
As a happy D810 owner, I wouldn't want a 72MP D900...Let me revise that, I would have to have that in addition to the D810. At 72MP it takes it from being a great general purpose camera to definitively targeted. I hope Nikon is smart enough to keep the 36MP range. It is large enough to be large while small enough not to be too large with reasonable 2$MP 1.2x crop and 15MP DX crop. 72MP is too large to do that and 24MP too small.
-
Both reported for mentioning he who shall not be named
The man's an idiot. Which is why he writes such superb Idiot Guides. I bough Thom's book for my D3x, useless, but with KR's guide I finally figured out how to set up the AF - something which my PhD had not prepared me for. And it was *free*.
Ken's site is one of the best resources on the web. For idiots, of course :)
Edmund
-
As a happy D810 owner, I wouldn't want a 72MP D900...Let me revise that, I would have to have that in addition to the D810. At 72MP it takes it from being a great general purpose camera to definitively targeted. I hope Nikon is smart enough to keep the 36MP range. It is large enough to be large while small enough not to be too large with reasonable 2$MP 1.2x crop and 15MP DX crop. 72MP is too large to do that and 24MP too small.
The D810, for its time, was also definitely targeted at resolution.
The new 36MP-range, general-purpose camera will be the replacement to the D750. The D810-replacement will be 50MP-plus, although it will likely have a mRAW/sRAW mode for 36MP/18MP output too.
-
For the record, I'm expecting:
Canon: 5D4
Nikon: D900. Possibly an updated 14-24 or 200-400.
Sony: A9r.
HP: Update to Z3200
-
The man's an idiot. Which is why he writes such superb Idiot Guides. I bough Thom's book for my D3x, useless, but with KR's guide I finally figured out how to set up the AF - something which my PhD had not prepared me for. And it was *free*.
Ken's site is one of the best resources on the web. For idiots, of course :)
Edmund
I refuse to admit it, of course, but that ¡s where I figured out what with happening with both my D200 and D700 on a couple of occasions. I like explanations that don't assume you already know everything. If I knew everything already then why would I have problems?
;-)
Rob C
-
As a happy D810 owner, I wouldn't want a 72MP D900...Let me revise that, I would have to have that in addition to the D810. At 72MP it takes it from being a great general purpose camera to definitively targeted. I hope Nikon is smart enough to keep the 36MP range. It is large enough to be large while small enough not to be too large with reasonable 2$MP 1.2x crop and 15MP DX crop. 72MP is too large to do that and 24MP too small.
Disagree.
I think it is pretty clear that the D500 is the "general" camera, while the D5 is a sports specialists' camera, and the D800/900 is the high-res specialists' camera.
The D800 was class-leading in its day (with the D810 still being so, in many ways), so if the D900 becomes "average" it would be a total disappointment to everyone (but you, apparently).
I think it's pretty clear, based on the class-leading D5 and D500, that Nikon will not disappoint, so I expect the D900 to be a super-camera.
I expect the either the D900 or Sony A9r (or both) to be class-leading. I expect the D900 to have better AF/wildlife capabilities, with the Sony having better 4K video.
-
My wishes, posing as predictions:
- An Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mk II. Or any high end MFT body that provides accurate and fast AF with my legacy Four Thirds SLR lenses and state-of-the-art IBIS.
- Options from Canon, Nikon and various medium format makers that allow one to combine the best features of their SLR bodies and lenses with a good EVF. One option would be high spec. mirrorless bodies using the same sensor formats as existing SLRs and on-sensor PDAF, to allow full lens backward compatibility via adaptors. However, I would also be interested in DSLR bodies that accept an accessory EVF. Above a certain level, it is often the lenses that account for most of the bulk of an SLR kit, so going mirrorless does not offer much reduction in system size and weight: then adding an EVF option could be more important than removing the OVF.
- A Pentax digital 645 with a sensor that is actually on close to true 645 format, like the new Sony 100MP one.
On the other hand I am skeptical about most of the above DMF predictions:
- It is far too early for Phase One to update the XF.
- A camera that ties a still very expensive larger-than-35mm-format sensor permanently to a single lens is an impractical fantasy. With fixed lens film-based medium format rangefinder cameras, there was a substantial bulk advantage over SLRs in the same format by avoiding the TTL OVF with its huge, heavy, noisy, sluggish mirror and pentaprism and allowing more compact wide-angle lens designs, but there is now the alternative possibility of a medium format "EVF" camera with interchangeable leaf-shutter lenses and allowing equal lens design flexibility.
- Panoramic format "array" sensors for cameras like the Fujifilm/Hasselblad Xpan would be impractically expensive low-volume specialty items (whereas the Xpan used the same 135 format "single use sensors" as millions of other cameras), so I expect that the solution will continue to be either stitching or variations on "sweeping", in the style of a scanning back or the iPhone panorama mode. For sweeping, there are already those scanning cameras using linear sensors, and it would be interesting to see a tripod-mounted camera sweeping rig for use with a normal camera, but hand-held sweeping with software fixes can already do fairly well!
-
One thing nobody is mentioning, which is a surprise, is the launch of Nikon's new Premium DL-Series Point-N-Shoots (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/premium-compact-cameras/index.page).
People like the compact nature of mirrorless, but these Premium P&S's are even more compact than mirrorless and (by the looks of them) very high-quality also.
DL Series
- Nikon DL 18-50 f/1.8-2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234156-REG/nikon_26512_dl18_50_f_1_8_2_8_digital_camera.html) (the fastest ultra-wide lens Nikon's ever made)
- Nikon DL 24-85 f/1.8-2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234163-REG/nikon_26511_dl24_85_f_1_8_2_8_digital_camera.html)
- Nikon DL 24-500 f/2.8-5.6 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234150-REG/nikon_26509_dl24_500_f_2_8_5_6_digital_camera.html)
I don't expect the 3rd camera to be technically-great, but I believe the first one in particular is going to be a great "convenience" camera, while still retaining high-quality.
In the past, I had used the Canon G15 as a compact, which was a great lil' pocket camera for me, and which I was still using up until a fumble last month >:(
I have the DL 18-50 on pre-order, and so right now I am using a D810 and two heavy Ai-S lenses (15mm f/3.5 and 50mm f/1.2) for standard accident documentation, where my simple G15 used to be all I needed. It is a pain in the @$$ to lug around a D810 and 2 lenses for my general, non-surveillance, work-related purposes ... so I can't wait to go to a compact again for this capacity.
Nikon says these DL compacts have premium Nikkor ED glass, so I expect this Nikon 18-50 DL camera to have far superior performance than the Canon G-series, and almost-DSLR-like performance for my work-related purposes (preserving accident scenes, photographing individuals, injuries, etc.).
The 18-50 mm in particular seems very well-suited as a convenient travel camera, IMO, being wide-enough to capture scenes (18mm), and yet coming-in close enough (50mm) to capture individual portraits .. and by its price point, and appearance, it looks to be of very high-quality also, having a 20.8mp sensor and shooting 4K as well.
Jack
-
I'd prefer an accessory EVF of the same quality as the SL.
I expect a hybrid VF but an accessory could very well still be an option if size (which appears to be an issue quite a few people) is too big of a design consideration.
30 or 36 MP, possibly, but 24 is plenty for my applications.
A lot of Leica shooters feel that way I believe.
That being said all APS-C cameras are 24MP now, so most likely the next generation of T/X cameras as well, so it would be awkward if the number of MP did not increase for the M.
Another option would be the same number of MP but a slightly lower price perhaps, more like the M262...
And, wouldn't it be refreshing if the camera and accessories were available off shelf on announcement?
It would... but it is not going to happen... :)
The whole circus with people being on multiple waiting lists is not a particularly pleasant experience...
-
I just want an up to date Nikon 12Mp DSLR.
-
That being said all APS-C cameras are 24MP now,
Samsung NX1 ?????
-
Samsung NX1 ?????
Or slighty more, I stand corrected... The Samsung NX1 has been discontinued though AFAIK, at least in the US...
-
Wouldn't it be nice to have a little version of a square-sensor camera, but digital? Even 36mm x 36mm would be sweet. How pleasant not to have to go onto the side, be able to shoot square and even to crop later, if needed.
Square opens up the freedom to compose portraits as you wish, whereas vertical always feels too tall and horizontals, whilst easier and more convenient to shoot, can still dilute the force of a strong, tight shot.
One wide, a 'standard' and a double-standard length for heads... In essence, more or less what used to be 40mm, 80mm and 180mm on 6x6. I think my roots are showing.
Rob
-
Sigma DP Quinta with a 500mm F2.8 lens
-
Rob,
You are becoming a philosopher in your old age.
BTW, the first name you have trouble remembering is Alois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Alzheimer) :)
Edmund
If I knew everything already then why would I have problems?
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob,
You are becoming a philosopher in your old age.
BTW, the first name you have trouble remembering is Alois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Alzheimer) :)
Edmund
Second childhood is more appropriate; I left old age behind last month. This month I'm studying the old Leica chronicles:
http://leicaphilia.com/that-lens-has-character-really/
Rob
-
Wouldn't it be nice to have a little version of a square-sensor camera, but digital? Even 36mm x 36mm would be sweet. How pleasant not to have to go onto the side, be able to shoot square and even to crop later, if needed.
Square opens up the freedom to compose portraits as you wish, whereas vertical always feels too tall and horizontals, whilst easier and more convenient to shoot, can still dilute the force of a strong, tight shot.
One wide, a 'standard' and a double-standard length for heads... In essence, more or less what used to be 45mm, 80mm and 180mm on 6x6. I think my roots are showing.
Yep, that'd be nice. Who knows, this may be what Hassy has in store for us?...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The D810, for its time, was also definitely targeted at resolution.
The new 36MP-range, general-purpose camera will be the replacement to the D750. The D810-replacement will be 50MP-plus, although it will likely have a mRAW/sRAW mode for 36MP/18MP output too.
True when the D800 appeared, but by the time the D810 appeared, 36MP no longer so. Increases in processing power, bandwidth and storage size overcame the limits.
If take the D5 off the table as out of reach based on SIZE, WEIGHT and COST for a lot of applications, and we assume the D900 is 72MP, there definitely is room and need for a 24-36MP FX sensor professional body camera. I personally thought the D750 should have been packaged in a pro body when it was released.
And John, I view the D500 as the most targeted Nikon in the lineup. The D5 is a general purpose tool that excels at sports and wildlife, but also any other class of photography. As a general purpose camera, I would personally go for a D810, D750 or D610 before a D500. Only if I needed the fps and focus capability and could not go for the cost, size and weight of the D5 would I consider the D500 for general use.
-
I'll take that Nikkor 500mm f5.6 PF, please. And a second D800 body, because they'll be cheap once the D900 appears.
-
And John, I view the D500 as the most targeted Nikon in the lineup. The D5 is a general purpose tool that excels at sports and wildlife, but also any other class of photography.
A $6500 camera, with so-so low ISO, but unprecedented high-ISO/AF is "general purpose" ... but its little brother (that is almost as good at everything, but 3x cheaper) is "specialized" :o
We disagree.
As a general purpose camera, I would personally go for a D810, D750 or D610 before a D500.
The D500 does everything better than all of the aforementioned, except high-res, and it's cheaper.
Only if I needed the fps and focus capability and could not go for the cost, size and weight of the D5 would I consider the D500 for general use.
I think everyone disagrees with you.
DPReview called the D500 "the most well-rounded camera we've ever used," precisely because it does everything at a very high level, except absolute resolution.
The D5 is 3x as expensive.
Also, wasn't it you who said:
- "FOCUS: The D500 is amazing. Not much experience with top line D4s and the like as most of my shooting has been with D810, D7200, D7100 and the D300. The D500 blows them all away. It isn't even close. Even with the TC it snapped into focus and locked on. Even on shots I thought would be out of focus, were in focus. There were some out of focus shots, but from what I could tell, it was user error not getting the focus point (Dynamic 25) onto the target properly.
"NOISE: This thing has better high ISO capability and lower (or at least more controlled) noise than the D810. I pulled the highest ISO shots (ISO 12800) and while they weren't great, they would be usable with some work. I'm normally able to keep ISO down under 6400 in most cases, but the light on this night was just low. I was shooting with 1 stop under exposure last night.
...
"Looking at the image in camera, the focus spot was on the player's hip. With no other camera I have ever owned, would this first frame have been in focus. I don't know how the D500 compares to the D5 or 7DmkII, but I am having a ball with this compared to the D810, D7200 and D300 I have shot in the past."
Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought you said these things.
I am supposed to get mine next week, and I am going to Havasu Falls, so I will compare it to the D810.
-
The D500 does everything better than all of the aforementioned, except high-res, and it's cheaper.
Don't get me wrong, the D500 is awesome and if one were to choose an APS-C camera as a general purpose camera, the D500 would be it. But pixel size still matters and always has for a number of reasons. I have yet to see an APS-C equal the "technical" quality of a larger sensor full frame camera of the same technology. When I pre-ordered the D500, I stated that I hoped it would approach the high ISO capability of the D810. And it does, but it does not beat it.
I'm going to Spain and will be taking both the D810 and D500. When shooting the soccer tournament the D500 will be the main camera. However, when I shoot landscapes and cityscapes and nightscapes and other more artistic images, it will be the D810 I'm lugging around. While the extra 15MP is part of the reason, it is not the only reason.
-
Don't get me wrong, the D500 is awesome and if one were to choose an APS-C camera as a general purpose camera, the D500 would be it. But pixel size still matters and always has for a number of reasons. I have yet to see an APS-C equal the "technical" quality of a larger sensor full frame camera of the same technology. When I pre-ordered the D500, I stated that I hoped it would approach the high ISO capability of the D810. And it does, but it does not beat it.
I'm going to Spain and will be taking both the D810 and D500. When shooting the soccer tournament the D500 will be the main camera. However, when I shoot landscapes and cityscapes and nightscapes and other more artistic images, it will be the D810 I'm lugging around. While the extra 15MP is part of the reason, it is not the only reason.
Footlball; Spain; I thought it was all safely away in France!
;-)
Rob C
P.S. I have just fitted a new mouse; it slides all over the place far more violently than its predecessor. I hope I can still use it to do PS... Typing this is almost a step too far - certainly one too damned fast!
-
Don't get me wrong, the D500 is awesome and if one were to choose an APS-C camera as a general purpose camera, the D500 would be it. But pixel size still matters and always has for a number of reasons. I have yet to see an APS-C equal the "technical" quality of a larger sensor full frame camera of the same technology. When I pre-ordered the D500, I stated that I hoped it would approach the high ISO capability of the D810. And it does, but it does not beat it.
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm going to Spain and will be taking both the D810 and D500. When shooting the soccer tournament the D500 will be the main camera. However, when I shoot landscapes and cityscapes and nightscapes and other more artistic images, it will be the D810 I'm lugging around. While the extra 15MP is part of the reason, it is not the only reason.
I think we are similar in our approach.
Ever since I had a debate with Michael Erlewine (about the Voigtlander 125 APO macro and the Sigma 180 macro), I have kind of done a make-over on my gear. While I favored the Sigma 180 macro due to its AF and VR capabilities for field use, he favored the precision and optical rendering of the Voigtlander mostly because he dealt with static situations. I have since grown to love a fully-manual, precision lens ... yet I still see their limitations in certain contexts where speed is required.
In an effort to get the best of both worlds, I not only purchased the Voigtlander APO macro, but I upgraded my Sigma 180 macro into a Nikkor 300mm VR II (when I need the speed and AF that the all-manual Voigtlander simply cannot give me), and the Nikkor 300's rendering is actually superior to both the Voigtlander and the Sigma.
My plan is to slap the 300mm AF Nikkor on my D500 as my main camera/lens combo for nature shots, to have at-the-ready ... where quick action is needed ... plus the additional reach ... but also to have the Voigtlander on my D810 for macro shots where I have the time to compose. I have actually gotten rid of every single AF lens I had, and now shoot only manual lenses on my D810 (elder Nikon Ai-S lenses), while I intend to use the D500's superior AF capabilities on the modern 300mm for action shots.
Yes, it will be a pain to hike with 2 cameras, but that is the only option as I see it: either/or was not my solution; both will be my solution.
Jack
-
I am more into lenses these days, especially the ones that can be mounted natively on the A7 series:)
Thus, I am very curious as to:
1. The new Samyang AF lenses (two have been announced already);
2. The new rumoured Loxia tele from Zeiss.
That's all.
-
- Hassy: digital XPan
I, too, would welcome a digital XPan!
But besides the uncommon sensor size and ratio, which would drive prices up, I fear the lenses would have to be much larger than the original Fuji lenses, which were using symmetric designs. Digital sensors would have trouble coping with that and Otus-sized telecentric lenses would probably have to be used instead ;).
With the rumoured 70+ MP full frame sensors on their way, there might be enough resolution to simply crop to a 24:65 ratio when stitching is not possible. That would be the "UPan" (for underpan ::)) way of doing things. Weak corners of the lens could be ignored.
That being said, I would still miss the ability to see the picture in a 24:65 ratio in the EVF to ease composition. I wonder why it is not possible to define user selected ratios in recent cameras featuring EVFs?:-\ Native 3:2 and video 16:9 are standard, with 4:3 and 1:1 being also offered by the most adventurous camera manufacturers. But how about 24:65?
Cheers,
Fabien
-
I think a digital X-pan is unlikely in the near future, even as a niche product, for a number of reasons, and wouldn't be the same success the film version was.
Firstly, with digital sensors and advances in lens design and manufacturing, it's no longer as necessary.
a) Its prime application would be landscapes and other static, panoramic scenes. Stitching is easy with digital. Even if there are moving components, it's usually possible to isolate each moving component into one individual frame to avoid ghosting when stitching. You no longer need to capture everything in a single frame.
b) Advances in manufacturing make modern lenses much sharper than older lenses could ever be. It's also easier to make a small, sharp lens than a large, equally-sharp lens. A modern full-frame DSLR lens can resolve as much detail as an older lens for a 4x5 camera. An image on a smaller sensor may need to be magnified more than an X-pan image for the same final size, but the smaller lens will probably also be sharper to start with, so it can be magnified more.
c) CMOS sensors are much more sensitive than colour film ever was. You no longer need a 24x65mm sensor just to reduce the noise in the final print. Furthermore, with digital stacking of multiple frames, you can reduce the contribution of random noise to essentially zero.
Secondly, introducing a new system would come with a few big hurdles.
a) Sensor fab. It's no longer a case of drawing 135-format film through the camera two frames at a time. You'd need a new fab plant to handle the sensor - one that could handle much larger wafers. And you'd also need a source of flawless, much-larger wafers to go with it. This may be much easier once they move beyond silicon semiconductors.
b) Lens selection. You'd need to design a new set of lenses from scratch.
That said, I'd still like to see one at some point. A 24x72mm sensor (e.g. two A7rII sensors stuck side-by-side and calibrated to match each other's output) could easily match 617-format film output, both in aspect ratio and image quality. Movable/tiltable sensor for tilt/shift capability and micro-shifting multiple exposure modes, a mirrorless design and rear-mounted, tiltable display for those shots down at ground level or on a tripod above head height. Since this would be a non-action camera with limited intended uses, you'd also only need a few lenses. Not super-fast (it's a landscape camera, after all) but super-sharp. I'd start with a few zooms - 20-50mm/5.6, 50-135/5.6 and 135-400/5.6. Don't really need primes if you're shooting at narrow apertures anyway. Throw in 1.4x and 2x TCs and you'd be covered for every possible landscape from 10-400mm 35mm equivalent. The kit wouldn't even be that large or heavy.
I, too, would welcome a digital XPan!
But besides the uncommon sensor size and ratio, which would drive prices up, I fear the lenses would have to be much larger than the original Fuji lenses, which were using symmetric designs. Digital sensors would have trouble coping with that and Otus-sized telecentric lenses would probably have to be used instead ;).
With the rumoured 70+ MP full frame sensors on their way, there might be enough resolution to simply crop to a 24:65 ratio when stitching is not possible. That would be the "UPan" (for underpan ::)) way of doing things. Weak corners of the lens could be ignored.
That being said, I would still miss the ability to see the picture in a 24:65 ratio in the EVF to ease composition. I wonder why it is not possible to define user selected ratios in recent cameras featuring EVFs?:-\ Native 3:2 and video 16:9 are standard, with 4:3 and 1:1 being also offered by the most adventurous camera manufacturers. But how about 24:65?
Cheers,
Fabien
-
Footlball; Spain; I thought it was all safely away in France!
;-)
Rob C
I'm from Pittsburgh, PA so I just can't go there! There is Football and there is Soccer. Not sure the soccer pitch could have survived Jack Lambert!
(http://www.pittsburgh-cosmetic-dentist.com/files/2012/11/Lambert.jpg)
-
I'm from Pittsburgh, PA so I just can't go there! There is Football and there is Soccer. Not sure the soccer pitch could have survived Jack Lambert!
One's soccer and the other's basically rugby played with armour.
This is football:
(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/50309/area14mp/k7wt4pzb-1401933099.jpg)
(http://www.afana.com/drupal5/customfiles/images/stk_v_col_rd21_25.jpg)
-
One's soccer and the other's basically rugby played with armour.
Rugby, which markedly resembles a game we called "Throw up an kill!"