[eurostar]

I think it would be a very good camera for digiscoping. Either mounted on the eyepiece, or with the adapter for reflex cameras.

[jct us101]

Seriously, who designed this thing?

[Caat]

I agree macro photography will benefit from the small sensor, but I'm not sure about wildlife. That's not my area of interest, but I see plenty of wildlife pics that benefit a great deal from out of focus backgrounds; usually bird photo's. Plus, even someone like myself that is into lightweight backpacking wouldn't balk at caring the Panasonic 100-300mm lens along for a hike. It's not very big and will give you 600mm's of reach plus decent DOF control. On top of that high ISO are often needed so faster shutter speeds can be used. So if I were a nature photographer I'd certainly choose m4/3's as my system over a small sensor system or even an APS-C system.

Of course there are times when shallow depth of field is desireable in wildlife photography. But it is equally true that the very shallow depth of field can be problematic as well. This is why I said you would gain new options at the expense of others.

And as Gazonk says a 5.6x crop is much greater magnification than a 2x crop.

The range of ultra mega hyper zoom cameras has exploded in recent years. Whilst it's true the tiny sensors in these cameras don't help image quality it's also true that their lenses aren't brilliant either - and are design comprimises.

A 200mm f/2.8 prime on the NC-1 would be a 1120mm f/2.8 lens in terms of field of view and light gathering power. Of course you've got probably poor ISO and wide DoF but in good light with SR it could still produce excellent image quality. Handling would probably be terrible though

And again this lens would be a tough sell to the kinds of people who'd be interested in this camera. It wouldn't be a cheap lens.

[Michael Barker]

A 200mm f/2.8 prime on the NC-1 would be a 1120mm f/2.8 lens in terms of field of view and light gathering power. Of course you've got probably poor ISO and wide DoF but in good light with SR it could still produce excellent image quality. Handling would probably be terrible though

If the NC-1 system is as pictured, then all lenses are exactly the same size and shape, so it shouldn't be a hard sell

[Kenn100D]

Pentax just released RS1500 DC universe pack
Pentax offers DC Super Heroes RS1500 pack: Digital Photography Review
It means NC-1 is next. DC universe pack is the last slide before NC-1.

[uccemebug]

Pentax just released RS1500 DC universe pack

Well at least Pentax cameras will always have a spot in gift stores.

[Pompous Moronox]

A 200mm f/2.8 prime on the NC-1 would be a 1120mm f/2.8 lens in terms of field of view and light gathering power.

If we assume that such a camera will ever be real, then a 200mm f/2.8 will still be a 200mm f/2.8

If we talk about 35mm equivalencies, then it might well be 1120mm, but at the same time not f/2.8 equivalent, but about f/16 equivalent.

[Pompous Moronox]

Exactly.

I could see this system working even with it's tiny sensor but weirdly for very specialist applications. It's tiny sensor gives you very deep DoF which many people have cited as a negative which combined with probably very poor high-ISO performance (comparative to DSLRs) is a valid point.

However two areas actually benefit (assuming light levels that allow close to base ISO shooting:

- Macro, as already mentioned

- Wildlife photography

A very high quality prime lens that is extremely fast for it's effective focal length is an interesting idea. Clearly though there'd be some handling issues but

There would be no advantages in using such small sensor in these applications. You will get similar deep DOF by stopping down with a larger sensor camera.

The f-number tells the size of the aperture (ie. entrance pupil) relative to the focal length of the lens. If you want to have a lens that is extremely fast at some "effective focal length", it has to have an insanely low f-number and this would create ridicilous challenges to the lens designer making the lens not only complicated and low quality item opticallly, but also large in size.

[thibs]

If we assume that such a camera will ever be real, then a 200mm f/2.8 will still be a 200mm f/2.8

If we talk about 35mm equivalencies, then it might well be 1120mm, but at the same time not f/2.8 equivalent, but about f/16 equivalent.

If you even care about DOF at all. If not the, the f/2.8 is still there, as a matter of shutter/aperture/Iso couples.
Of course, if DOF matters... but you wouldn't even consider such a camera would you? So what you write is technicaly correct, but in this context, of limited interest.

[thibs]

There would be no advantages in using such small sensor in these applications. You will get similar deep DOF by stopping down with a larger sensor camera.

......

Again, you only focus on DOF. No problem but others might not care at all.
The question here isn't about DOF but reach (or FoV).
Mixing unrelevant arguments really doesn't help discussion.

[eddie1960]

you may get similar dof by stopping down, but then you lose the light advantage of 2.8 which is also a relevant thing for wildlife. i can see the use giving you hi shutter speeds and lower iso with narrow fov of a long lens. the loss of OOF areas would limit the type of shot but it could be very useful (and for guys doing surveillance work it would also be quite useful. photography has many fields of endevour remember.

[Pompous Moronox]

Again, you only focus on DOF. No problem but others might not care at all.
The question here isn't about DOF but reach (or FoV).
Mixing unrelevant arguments really doesn't help discussion.

Maybe you should have read the quote too, as he explicitely mentioned very deep DOF.

[Pompous Moronox]

you may get similar dof by stopping down, but then you lose the light advantage of 2.8 which is also a relevant thing for wildlife. i can see the use giving you hi shutter speeds and lower iso with narrow fov of a long lens. the loss of OOF areas would limit the type of shot but it could be very useful (and for guys doing surveillance work it would also be quite useful. photography has many fields of endevour remember.

I am not sure what you mean here. The issue was a high-crop-factor f/2.8 versus a large sensor (APS-C or FF or whatever), right? The f/2.8 on the small sensor has no light gathering advantage at all over the large sensor camera stopped down to equal DOF. The large sensor camera will of course be set to shoot on a higher ISO. The key here is that the large sensor camera can do everything the small sensor camera can do, but also more.

[Pompous Moronox]

If you even care about DOF at all. If not the, the f/2.8 is still there, as a matter of shutter/aperture/Iso couples.
Of course, if DOF matters... but you wouldn't even consider such a camera would you? So what you write is technicaly correct, but in this context, of limited interest.

Yes the f/2.8 is still there, but the light gathering abilitiy is nowhere near to 1120/2.8, but 1120/16 on a FF. I think this is an important point as it should show how painfully limited such a camera would be.

Considering the limitations of the small sensor and the lack of lenses and the lack of significant price (or other) advantage over any competing system, creating a system with tiny sensor and interchangeable lenses with mass producing is borderline lunatic. Very limitied productions for some niche markets (like folks who might have a zillion C-mount lenses they want to fool around with) may still make sense, but that is hardly an area Pentax is interested in.

[eddie1960]

I am not sure what you mean here. The issue was a high-crop-factor f/2.8 versus a large sensor (APS-C or FF or whatever), right? The f/2.8 on the small sensor has no light gathering advantage at all over the large sensor camera stopped down to equal DOF. The large sensor camera will of course be set to shoot on a higher ISO. The key here is that the large sensor camera can do everything the small sensor camera can do, but also more.

i think you are mistaken. small sensor iso 400 at 2.8 will have quite a wide DOF (large in focus zone) and if the numbers above are right crop factor of 1120 mm equivalent.

same 200 2.8 on apsc will have FOV equivalent of 300 mm so much wider FOV, DOF will be much narrower (smaller in focus area) so to get the same FOV and DOF you would need to stop down the apsc to approx f16 and crop by 75% losing resolution advantage. if you are looking for deep dof and fast shooting the small sensor wins by a lot (see surveillance for example)
If you are shooting wildlife #1 you get narrower FOV, #2 you can shoot at a higher shutter speed while maintaining deep dof. if you want a narrow dof then apsc will be the better (sacrificing the FOV unless you want to carry one of the old a* 1200mm bazookas pentax made (and give up AF of course along with a good chunk of your salary if you can find one) or you can get a sigma 500 4.5 and a doubler for about 12 grand

so there is a use. will it produce as sharp and high quality an image as a well equipped apsc. nope not a chance, but it will have it's markets as will the kenko (there will be an adaptor for other lenses already announced for the kenko, i imagine the same will arrive for the pentax if the iso performance is halfway decent i can see it becoming a standard bit of kit for guys doing surveillance and as a secondary bit of kit for wildlife shooters. this is of course in addition to the real target market teenage japanese girls who want cute
coming soon baby robot cam lol