FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony's EVIL GUI revealed (a bit) in CP+

Page  <1 89101112 20>
Author
RubberDials View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 January 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 1339
Post Options Post Options   Quote RubberDials Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 April 2010 at 04:12
Originally posted by edgaillard edgaillard wrote:

Originally posted by RubberDials RubberDials wrote:



Also a 35mm f1.2 is impossible.


Voigtlander makes a 35mm f/1.2. I've heard that Samyang does as well.


Indeed they do, ed. I didn't mean it couldn't be made, rather that it was a step too far in terms of size, weight, cost and usefulness, but it seems it isn't...
 



Back to Top
Vidgamer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 23 June 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 435
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vidgamer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2010 at 11:12
I looked at that thread, skipping to the end. April fools joke. Although look at the attention it got. There's obviously pent-up demand for a good "digital rangefinder".

I'm looking forward to seeing what Sony comes out with.

Btw, the 17-50/2.8 is pretty heavy. Contrast that with a 28 or 24mm prime, and I wonder of primes will regain some popularity, when attempting to keep it small/portable. I agree with Frodini that the kit m43 lens doesn't exactly seem pocketable. Maybe it's light and at least smaller...

As for more rangefinder comparisons, some of th 60's designs were kind of large, but they seemed to get smaller as the years went by. The Minolta Himatic E, which may be from early 70's, uses the shutter for the aperture -- I wonder if that saves space? They say it makes for good bokeh, which I find interesting. Sounds like a win-win to me! It also had a 40/1.7 lens. The himatic F had a 2.8 lens and was even smaller- this would probably be pocketable.

Anyway, seems like some of these old designs are still worthwhile. I'm not sure that I've seen a good equiv. in digital, although Leica is out of my price range. But even a bit larger than the old xa would be nice with a aps-c sensor. And maybe a fixed lens would be sufficient. I guess Sigma tried something similar, but seemed to get mixed reviews. Allowing for interchangeable lenses is much better, though, if the compromise isn't too great.
Back to Top
PhotoTraveler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 6356
Post Options Post Options   Quote PhotoTraveler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2010 at 23:21
I wouldn't say the old "designs" are worthwhile, it's old "concepts" are worthwhile.   Many folks want a "digital rangefinder" but that doesn't mean they want an M mount camera. Or even an optical range finder. They just want a camera of that style/concept.   A key problem is the world never really developed a term for a camera like a Leica M that had no range finder unit. If we had, then the name of it would be D_____ just like we ended up with DSLR.

Folks want that ground up new camera, new mount, etc. But they want the end result to be a modern equivalent. And I think most would agree, the camera to pul from is the Minolta/Leica CL and Minolta CLE. Beautiful small little camera.

MFT has gone to a similar place as this, but are limited by their sensor. My wish would be for a FF sensor, but really, if it wasn't FF that's ok. I'd actually go for a 16:9 sensor that fits in a 35mm Image Circle. Or simply just go for the biggest sensor they can do with an economical single pass fabrication method. If we ended up with a oddball-ish 16:9 ratio sensor, that has a crop below FF, but bigger than APS, that's fine. Since I only intend to have a couple primes, maybe a small zoom, or even better a stepped zoom (trielmar), having a goofy crop won't matter to me.

While I fully understand the new Sony's being APS. And it's clear from the images of the mount we have seen they will have FF someday. I would have liked to have seen a unification of sensor size I think. Just one size going forward. If going with multiple sizes, why not plan for a bigger than 35mm FF sensor. Maybe have a 1.75x crop sensor and then have one double that size. Leica S2 size is probably a bit far, but something bigger than FF 35mm might have been good. Of course you run into the issue of mount size, and I don't think folks want 2 different mounts.

A key design parameter for me, is the camera has to fit in coat pockets easy. Lenses that can fit in pockets, or in cargo pants. A design that means no backpack, and I can access all the bits on the front of my body.
Back to Top
PhotoTraveler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 6356
Post Options Post Options   Quote PhotoTraveler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 April 2010 at 23:26
Oh, another thing is something that was discussed back when Sony first was to come into the SLR market 4 years ago. (hrm, side note, maybe 2010/6/6 would be a good launch day as it's the 4 year anniversary).

The name of the camera and or lenses.   While Konica Minolta still exist, and that causes issues on name rights and so forth. I think they should try to see about a name revival. Maybe not Minolta.   But maybe bring Rokkor back.

CLE lenses were M-Rokkors.    Use what ever the new mount is, lets say E, and have E-rokkors for the non-zeiss ones.   Something to prevent confusion with regular A mount lenses, but give a tie to the past.

It's also not like it would be a bad thing to tie in the CL name into it for the camera.

Granted, I don't think Rokkor would have been to bad of a name for the whole new system.
Back to Top
pakodominguez View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 August 2007
Country: United States
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Posts: 620
Post Options Post Options   Quote pakodominguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 00:25
Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:

My wish would be for a FF sensor, but really, if it wasn't FF that's ok. I'd actually go for a 16:9 sensor that fits in a 35mm Image Circle. Or simply just go for the biggest sensor they can do with an economical single pass fabrication method. If we ended up with a oddball-ish 16:9 ratio sensor, that has a crop below FF, but bigger than APS, that's fine. Since I only intend to have a couple primes, maybe a small zoom, or even better a stepped zoom (trielmar), having a goofy crop won't matter to me.


Since TV screens standard is 16:9 (and Sony sells lots of TV sets) it could be exteremelly interesting for Sony (and for us, panorama lovers) such a new standard size for sensors -even if the height of the sensor is "only" APS sized -I sold my XPan last year becase it is format hard to scan and/or get printed. And I miss it!

Regards
-------------------

Pako Dominguez
www.pakodominguez.photo/blog
Back to Top
pakodominguez View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 August 2007
Country: United States
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Posts: 620
Post Options Post Options   Quote pakodominguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 01:02
Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:

Oh, another thing is something that was discussed back when Sony first was to come into the SLR market 4 years ago. (hrm, side note, maybe 2010/6/6 would be a good launch day as it's the 4 year anniversary).

The name of the camera and or lenses.   While Konica Minolta still exist, and that causes issues on name rights and so forth. I think they should try to see about a name revival. Maybe not Minolta.   But maybe bring Rokkor back.

CLE lenses were M-Rokkors.    Use what ever the new mount is, lets say E, and have E-rokkors for the non-zeiss ones.   Something to prevent confusion with regular A mount lenses, but give a tie to the past.

It's also not like it would be a bad thing to tie in the CL name into it for the camera.

Granted, I don't think Rokkor would have been to bad of a name for the whole new system.

I think CL is a Leitz's brand -the Minolta model was the CLE. An I think the idea of revival old names won't work: the last 2 years Sony is sowing us that thy are walking away of the Legacy path, and I'm not 100% against that, after all Minolta fails and we don't want Sony to do so.

In other hand, E-Rokkor, E-Zeiss... where do you place the "G" brand? Sony is replacing Zeiss design on the Cybershot line by "G" lenses and they seams really happy about it.

This new mount is a mystery, the mock ups don't really shows a bayonet type mount and the idea of adapters for A-mount lenses is nice but un-official. I'm expecting "the worst": a sort of magnetic thing that constrains third part lenses to be used in this system -a shame since I expect using my MD/MC lenses on this new system.

Regards
-------------------

Pako Dominguez
www.pakodominguez.photo/blog
 



Back to Top
PhotoTraveler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 6356
Post Options Post Options   Quote PhotoTraveler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 01:39
Well, I think in an ideal world, Sony would just make Zeiss lenses for it, there wouldn't be a ton of lenses, but what exist are extremely high quality. But back to reality, there will be cheap lenses. So there will be non-Zeiss ones. And really there will be Sony, Sony-G and Sony-Zeiss lenses for it. Which is ok, I just have issue with there being confusion between them. Heck, look how much trouble people get in being confused if there Minolta lenses for on Sony's. Or folks thinking a Konica lens will work as it was in name lineage shoved in there.

If they could come up with a good clean break on names, it could help make things clearer long term.

I wouldn't worry on adapters. Your old lenses will adapt better than they do to A mount since there is all the room in the world for adapters. And really, if someone got very enterprising and was able to figure out the commands for the electronic aperture control, a person/company could develop an adapter that gives folks functioning aperture stop down on old lenses. My money is on some company developing plans for such adapters right now for all the evils. Of course no one knows (or those who may know haven't said anything), if any of these new EVIL mounts (mFT, NX, etc) have communication protocols that can even be reversed engineered. They might very well be encrypted. Thus no more 3rd party makers.
Back to Top
PhotoTraveler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 6356
Post Options Post Options   Quote PhotoTraveler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 01:55
They could go one further and keep the APS height of 15.6 and then go out to the limits of the 35mm Image Circle and be able to get a 2.4:1 aspect ration (panavision).   If they could do this with minimal cost impacts, I'd be very happy. But it doesn't make a ton of sense to make the sensor that size. as your wasting a lot of lens. Better to use a bigger sensor (more height) and crop back.

I think Panasonic had a good idea with the oversize sensor approach to give various aspect ratios, all in native resolutions (no cropping down, waste).

In the end, I just want to see more movement towards wider sensors/options in cameras. As mentioned, the world of digital display of images is 16:9. Also with video becoming part of cameras, 16:9 makes sense.   3:2 is way better than 4:3rds in this regard but still has a way to go.   Oly/Panny will be continually trapped in the flaw of going with 4:3 aspect ratio. Which is still rather amazing they did that as even at that time, the signs of the end of 4:3 tv/displays was at hand. The benefits of smaller lenses with a more square aspect ratio just doesn't outweigh the draw backs of being an aspect ratio in the wrong direction of human preference.


Originally posted by pakodominguez pakodominguez wrote:

Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:

My wish would be for a FF sensor, but really, if it wasn't FF that's ok. I'd actually go for a 16:9 sensor that fits in a 35mm Image Circle. Or simply just go for the biggest sensor they can do with an economical single pass fabrication method. If we ended up with a oddball-ish 16:9 ratio sensor, that has a crop below FF, but bigger than APS, that's fine. Since I only intend to have a couple primes, maybe a small zoom, or even better a stepped zoom (trielmar), having a goofy crop won't matter to me.


Since TV screens standard is 16:9 (and Sony sells lots of TV sets) it could be exteremelly interesting for Sony (and for us, panorama lovers) such a new standard size for sensors -even if the height of the sensor is "only" APS sized -I sold my XPan last year becase it is format hard to scan and/or get printed. And I miss it!

Regards
Back to Top
douglasf13 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 September 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 1730
Post Options Post Options   Quote douglasf13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 02:16
I'd prefer a square sensor over a wider ratio. Then, I could crop however I want.
----
douglasferling.com
NEX-5, Hasselblad V, Leicaflex SL, Hipstamatic (former A900, A700, A100 owner.)
Back to Top
PhotoTraveler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 6356
Post Options Post Options   Quote PhotoTraveler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 03:27
But you can't really crop with square sensors because you now have so little area. That's the problem of square sensors. Per the image circle, you have a small sensor (width). Soon as you try to crop to anything, you have a very small sensor area. Square sensors remove ones freedom to crop how they like because they are now starting from the worse possible aspect ratio.

It's a very inefficient aspect ratio and thats why no manufacture goes that route.   The solution would be a round sensor to get the most out of things. But that's a no go because of manufacturing. Until we get to non silicon waffer based sensor, and to more of a thin film production where the edge waste doesn't matter, sensors will stay rectangular.

3:2 has been the grand compromise for a long time. Can crop to wide, or crop to square without too much loss either way. Only problem is technologies outside of sensors/cameras have allowed the world to get to what couldn't be done before, wider aspect ratios. People have always wanted wider, just display technology wasn't there. So it was limited to things like movies where it was an all film deal (capture and projection) so wide aspect ratios were able to be done, unlike tv which was constrained by tube realities.
Back to Top
albnok View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 October 2007
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Posts: 1018
Post Options Post Options   Quote albnok Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 04:08
Then they should've made a hexagonal sensor with hexagonal pixels. Hmmm.
Back to Top
douglasf13 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 September 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 1730
Post Options Post Options   Quote douglasf13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 05:37
I'm not sure what you mean, phototraveler. Outside of circle, it seems to me that a square sensor is the only way to record the entire image circle, and you can crop to your liking. For someone like me, who often prefers square ratio over anything else, cropping a square out of 3:2 ratio is very inefficient, sensor wise. Granted, square sensors wouldn't be cheap.

Edited by douglasf13 - 04 April 2010 at 05:57
----
douglasferling.com
NEX-5, Hasselblad V, Leicaflex SL, Hipstamatic (former A900, A700, A100 owner.)
Back to Top
Göran Larsson View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 January 2006
Country: Sweden
Location: Linköping
Status: Offline
Posts: 625
Post Options Post Options   Quote Göran Larsson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 10:07
Originally posted by PhotoTraveler PhotoTraveler wrote:

CLE lenses were M-Rokkors.    Use what ever the new mount is, lets say E, and have E-rokkors for the non-zeiss ones.   Something to prevent confusion with regular A mount lenses, but give a tie to the past.

But that will surely just create more confusion as E-ROKKOR has already been used.
Back to Top
sdm9465 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 February 2008
Country: Canada
Location: Nova Scotia
Status: Offline
Posts: 1180
Post Options Post Options   Quote sdm9465 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 April 2010 at 16:09
I suppose you could use an over-sized square sensor. If you shot in full sensor mode you would get massive corner vignetting but you could choose aspect ratio in camera (16:9 horizontal, 16:9 vertical, 3:2 horizontal, 3:2 vertical, 4:3 horizontal, 4:3 vertical, etc.) and the most sensor area to suit that aspect ratio within the available image circle could be chosen by the camera. Shooting in square format (while avoiding vignetting) would result in the least amount of sensor area being used as Phototraveler pointed out.

I can't see this happening but it could be done. I'm happy to stick with the 3:2 ratio.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk Page  <1 89101112 20>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.098 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.