[eddie1960]

(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.

Why would hoya not be interested in c mount. they have been one of the largest producers of c mount in the past?

[Michael Barker]

you can shoot at a higher shutter speed while maintaining deep dof.

Agreed, and it doesn't take an extreme example to illustrate this. Here is fairly ordinary example of a DSLR pic at f/5.6, 160 mm-e, ISO 200. The pic is awesome the way it is. But imagine if for some strange reason, you wanted to take the same pic, in lower light, and have both animals sharp - you could be well advised to use a smaller format than APS-C.


- Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic CC BY 2.0

If you are using f/11 or above on a DSLR just to get deeper DOF, you are starting to need high ISOs, which cuts down the image quality advantage of the larger sensor. Something like the Olympus XZ-1 is already able to shoot the above shot as-is with ISO 80. And I've seen Canon G10 compared with medium format at ISO 80.

Different tools for different tasks. If you're in the jungle maybe you want to blur all the trees. In the Savannah, maybe you don't.

Another example - thank goodness for tripods and IS on this one - shooting 1/60 s at 450mm-equiv:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

Now check out these beautiful bird shots by Nancy Chow with the Canon Pro1, 3.9x crop factor:
148mm, 168mm, 74mm, 1/1000 sec.. All that camera needs is upgraded internals and LCD (it's a seven-year-old sensor now).

[Caat]

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.

Which is why I said specifically in terms of light gathering power (not DoF) and talked about equivalence in terms of field of view

[Caat]

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.

Yes, thanks for getting the point I was trying to make!

It's a limited application sure, but all I was trying to say is that there are scenarios where such a camera might be interesting.

[thibs]

Yes, thanks for getting the point I was trying to make!

It's a limited application sure, but all I was trying to say is that there are scenarios where such a camera might be interesting.

IMO your point was clear but there's always some zealot to tell you're all wrong

[Michael Barker]

This is the real news! Forget the crappy gimmicky other one, an APC-C EVIL is big news... If they get it right it will be the perfect platform for small manual and limited pentax lenses... We just need them to include the non-crippled K-Mount... Please Hoya, get this one right... And if they do, watch the prices of manual K-Mount glass skyrocket...

Do you think they will include SDM contacts? Will we see it released with a cheaper Limited size lens, or with a DA-L 35mm? Or will it be high-end enough to warrant a DA 40 Ltd?

If they make it compete with the Leica X1 and Fujifilm rangefinders then something similar in size and look to the K1000 would be so stylish...

Perfect for me and candid street photography - silent, compact, high end glass.

When comparing speed and compactness of APS-C mirrorless cameras vs. Micro Four Thirds, the APS-C advantage seems to be in wide angle (Samsung 30mm f/2 vs Olympus 25mm f/2.8). The Micro Four Thirds advantage is in telephoto (Olympus 40-150/4-5.6 vs. Samsung 50-200/4-5.6).

So it would make sense to focus on street photography if it is a premium camera. Release with a new 23mm lens designed for the new mirrorless APS-C mount. I wonder what the new wide-angle Zeiss lens for Sony NEX is going to be like.

Just supporting old telephotos through an adapter is not so crazy. Look at the small difference between mirrored Four Thirds telephotos with adapter vs. mirrorless Micro Four Thirds: Olympus mFT lens and body size comparison - Four Thirds User discussion forum.

The reason for new telephotos these days seems to be quiet video autofocus.

Of course, the adapter adds thickness and about 100g of weight. So you're not getting much compactness.

So yes, street photography is one reason to create a mirrorless APS-C system. Oh, and video superzooms. Not sure there are many other compelling reasons. Nikon and Canon don't seem to admit to thinking there is.

[Pompous Moronox]

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

Sorry, I have difficulties in following your reasoning.

To keep things simple, I'll create a scenario with a full frame camera and a camera with sensor with half the width and height (ie. 36*24mm vs. 18*12mm), that is crop factor of 2.0. Let's call this camera CC.

The CC uses a 100mm f/2.8 lens, the FF uses 200mm f/2.8 lens. The FOV is thus the same. Now, if both shoot wide open, it is obvious that the FF will have much shallower DOF.

If you want to get the same DOF with the FF you get with the CC, you will have to stop down to f/5.6 which gives you and identical DOF. As the FF now uses f/5.6, it will also have to use two stops higher ISO, which is just fine, as this is just how much better ISO performance the camera has, thus you will get the very same image (assuming the cameras have the same pixel count) from both cameras (though in practise the larger sensor usually has more pixels as well, thus likely creating a superior image).

The CC has no image quality advantage, but is only more limited.

[Pompous Moronox]

Why would hoya not be interested in c mount. they have been one of the largest producers of c mount in the past?

The C-mount lenses were not designed for high resolution photography. They could be used, but they would perform poorly.

In addition, using old lenses does not translate into new lens sales.

[eddie1960]

Sorry, I have difficulties in following your reasoning.

To keep things simple, I'll create a scenario with a full frame camera and a camera with sensor with half the width and height (ie. 36*24mm vs. 18*12mm), that is crop factor of 2.0. Let's call this camera CC.

The CC uses a 100mm f/2.8 lens, the FF uses 200mm f/2.8 lens. The FOV is thus the same. Now, if both shoot wide open, it is obvious that the FF will have much shallower DOF.

If you want to get the same DOF with the FF you get with the CC, you will have to stop down to f/5.6 which gives you and identical DOF. As the FF now uses f/5.6, it will also have to use two stops higher ISO, which is just fine, as this is just how much better ISO performance the camera has, thus you will get the very same image (assuming the cameras have the same pixel count) from both cameras (though in practise the larger sensor usually has more pixels as well, thus likely creating a superior image).

The CC has no image quality advantage, but is only more limited.

ok last time i reply
you aren't paying attention
he was talking a 200 2.8 on the small sensor (likely an affordable kit) which wuld have 35 mm FOV of about 1120mm. DOF was not a consideration as we all realise the bigger sensor has shallower DOF capability. This this though would be an unobtainable FOV with this light gathering ability on apsc (or 35mm or MF...) so i has it's uses as long as you aren't concerned about apparent DOF, and for some things people won't be
Re-read what has been written. no one denies the DOF will be better on the bigger sensor, thing is that wasn't what the discussion was pointing out. it was that you could have huge reach with a fast lens (as in lots of light therefore i can have a high shutter and lower iso), just no DOF
Image quality wise there will be no argument i think that the apsc will outperform the c mount small sensor. so what my 6x7 and 645 outperform pretty much any dslr but aren't tools for the same purpose.
like is said previously Photography encompasses many fields of endeavour, this won't be suited to all of them (no camera is)

[Pompous Moronox]

Agreed, and it doesn't take an extreme example to illustrate this. Here is fairly ordinary example of a DSLR pic at f/5.6, 160 mm-e, ISO 200. The pic is awesome the way it is. But imagine if for some strange reason, you wanted to take the same pic, in lower light, and have both animals sharp - you could be well advised to use a smaller format than APS-C.

Sorry, wrong. Instead, you could stop down with the APS-C to match the DOF and use a higher ISO to get the shutter speed if you want to create an *ideantical* image to the image created by the smaller sensored camera.

- Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic CC BY 2.0

I think the DOF is good as it is

Anyhow, who won?

[Pompous Moronox]

IMO your point was clear but there's always some zealot to tell you're all wrong

Too bad his point was wrong and calling someone a zealot for simply correcting him is not polite.

[Pompous Moronox]

ok last time i reply
you aren't paying attention

Good since you're not being too polite.

he was talking a 200 2.8 on the small sensor (likely an affordable kit) which wuld have 35 mm FOV of about 1120mm. DOF was not a consideration as we all realise the bigger sensor has shallower DOF capability. This this though would be an unobtainable FOV with this light gathering ability on apsc (or 35mm or MF...) so i has it's uses as long as you aren't concerned about apparent DOF, and for some things people won't be

What was argued was that a small sensor has advantage when a large DOF is needed at certain FOV. I claimed that this is not true and provided practical evidence to support my case.

Re-read what has been written. no one denies the DOF will be better on the bigger sensor, thing is that wasn't what the discussion was pointing out. it was that you could have huge reach with a fast lens (as in lots of light therefore i can have a high shutter and lower iso), just no DOF

Please read the previous posts yourself. I simply stated that there is no image quality advantage for the small sensor camera under any circumstances.

You are also ignoring the fact that the f/2.8 number, thus the light collecting ability, is relative to the real focal length. A f/16 1120mmm lens would collect about the same amount of photons a f/2.8 200mm lens will.

When you talk about high shutter speeds due to the fast lens, you're forgetting that the 1120mm equivalent lens needs at least about 1/1000s, preferrably 1/2000s shutter speed. This means that only on good light one could use the base ISO. If the subject is in shade, one needs to up the ISO. A camera with a tiny sensor has quite bad image quality to start with - upping the ISO will not help things.

If we talk about the sizes of the lenses - a 200/2.8 lens would be quite a large lens regardless of the size of the sensor (a kilogram or so). Putting a 300/4 and a couple of TCs together would create a 1200/16 lens which would not be much bigger.

If one wants to find a sensible use for a tiny sensor interchangeable lens camera, it is special purpouses. It might be decent for budget astrophotography (with a slow and cheap telescope), hidden camera photography and for example aero-photography with radio controlled aircraft toys.

But this is not something Hoya could make money out of, but instead would lose quite a bit if tried to push such a product.

[Pompous Moronox]

Which is why I said specifically in terms of light gathering power (not DoF) and talked about equivalence in terms of field of view

You said:

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.

This is false.

A 200/2.8 lens on the vaporware NC-1 would be 1120mm equivalent vis-a-vis FOV, but it would not be a f/2.8 in terms of light gathering power. You're trying to get a free luch here. The light gathering power equivalency would be about f/16.

[gazonk]

You said:

This is false.

A 200/2.8 lens on the vaporware NC-1 would be 1120mm equivalent vis-a-vis FOV, but it would not be a f/2.8 in terms of light gathering power. You're trying to get a free luch here. The light gathering power equivalency would be about f/16.

I think the confusion boils down to this: It will still be a f/2.8 lens wrt. which shutter speed and ISO you would select for your f/2.8 exposure. However, since the tiny sensor only gets a tiny fraction of all the light that the f/2.8 lens collects, there has to be a catch somewhere. And that catch, of course, is that ISO 100 on those small sensors is about as noisy as ISO 1600 on an APS-C sensor.

[thibs]

Indeed. But this is already known isn't it?
Or will pompous moronox moan gain about DOF when everybody else talkies about something else?