http://www.sony.com/upload/assets/ho...Ord=1286922663
More...
Now I wish the D300s had the fast live view and video focusing...
"Featuring an unprecedented Translucent Mirror," Like the EOS RT of almost 20 years ago.
Seriously, this will be great for HD video, as one will have phase detect focus tracking of moving subjects.
But I do wonder about degradation of image quality with long focal length telephoto lenses. And how much light is lost with the mirror?
Roger
Sound great for video but I too have to wonder about image quality with another piece of glass between the subject and the sensor!:2eyes2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Clark
Whilst this is all very clever, I fail to understand why if you wish to take video people do not buy a decent video camera. Theres just has to be a compromise in quality in these "combos".
Ken,
DSLRs as video cameras set a new standard in quality because of the large sensor. A couple of years ago I researched buying a new video camera. I found the consumer cameras had sensors much smaller than a typical P&S camera, and the dynamic range they produce shows it (very poor). Then I researched pro cameras in the $ 5 to 10K range. They had sensors the size of a P&S camera. Then the 5D Mark II came out. Wow what a difference in quality, especially low light performance. But it can't track focus on moving objects. The Sony could be very popular with the HD action crowd.
Roger
How does this differ from the pellicle mirror that went into cameras like the Canon Pellix?
Somehow 'translucent' doesn't seem to comport with the notion of 'sharpness.' Maybe I don't understand the design concept, or is the marketing terminology used misleading?
Bill,
Yes, translucent is the wrong word. Transparent would be better.
The mirror must be less than a fraction of a pixel thick. With 5.1 micron pixels in the Sony, the mirror thickness should be about 3 microns or less. If thicker, then reflection off the back side of the mirror will contribute to the image with a secondary image beside the first. This will happen at all wavelengths, but the effect will be worse with large aperture lenses as the light will be coming in over more angles that needs to be focused on a single spot.
Does anyone know how thick the pellical mirrors were in the Canon cameras? When an optical component is this close to the focal plane, its effect on sharpness due to non flatness is pretty low. So the main effect would be double reflections. We need to see some good star tests, or edge of the Moon.
Roger
Ken,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Watkins
It is not easy (budget wise) to buy a video camera with a sensor size comparable to DSLRs. The recently launched video cameras by Canon - XF 300/XF 305 have been certified by BBC to be fit enough for their programming needs. The B&H prices are 6500 USD and 7500 USD respectively. And these video cameras have a fixed lens. So any hopes of using your present lenses with an adaptor goes for a toss.
Unless you are a professional film maker, buying a video camera that satisfies your needs is tough. For eg. I have been travelling like crazy for the last 3 months and havent touched my cameras. Do you think investments in a video camera is justified in such a scenario? Absolutely not. I am comfortable filming with my DSLR and live with its inherent issues of handling difficulties as investment in a dedicated video camera just doesnt make sense.
I am sure many people in BPN would be in the same boat as me.
Having said that, I expect the DSLRs to become better and better in terms of their filming abilities. Hopefully they will feature XLR inputs for audio will be featured sometime. Auto focus becomes important for some applications and for some applications I will prefer manual focus.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
$750 too... at that price many complaints are a bit OOT. All of the following is still more or less first impression and I am not qualified to really judge a camera by any stretch of the imagination, but if you are interested in a stocking filler....
Features of interest for shooters around here may be
- very good dynamic range - excellent for the price for sure
- much improved AF system compared to earlier Sony/Minolta cameras, although the best of the Nikon/Canon cameras may be better still
- 6-7 frames per second (the 10fps is only available in limited bursts in full auto, so unlikely to be of interest here) but buffer is a bit small
- quiet shutter (of course, with no mirror slap)
- extremely light and small (too small for some for sure, so try it before buying)
- a bit flimsy (goes with the light I guess) and entry-level weatherproofing
- shortish battery life (again weight)
- overheats (with video rather than still, but I'd ask around first if you wanted it as your prime body to use in the desert); video is good for limited time before overheating - 7-15 minutes depending on who you ask, so may be some QC variation too (jury out on that)
- video quality is excellent and for some the ability to AF with a top-end lens is alone enough reason to buy this - as Sabyaschi says above
- viewfinder is rather better than you might expect (but again give it a try, it's not for everyone)
- nothing reliable on long focal-length teles yet
Image quality so far seems good (and likely excellent for the price). People will moan about this and that (there appears to be some ghosting in certain,limited conditions, for example) but generally pictures taken by skilled photographers still look **** good. A month or so on, no other obvious IQ issues yet.
I think very few people here would go for this as a main body (just the slight risk of overheating would put most of us off) but as a second body, especially if you are keen on a bit of HQ video too......
A full-size, full-featured version (top-end APS-C bracket) is planned for next year.
