[LamyTax]

True to a point only.
We are fortunate at this point of time/tech to be able to choose the right tool for the right job.
A small sensor camera can do some things easier and cheaper.

No, it's entirely true. If you make a large sensor with the same pixel density as a Q has, you'll get pretty much the same result. Long way ahead until then, I guess.

You don't have to tell me about the advantages of a crop sensor with high pixel density. If you give me the choice of 24mpix, either APS-C or FF, I take APS-C.

Very nice photos btw.

[LamyTax]

well with current technology yes larger sensor is better generally - but if sensor technology changes where noise simply isn't an issue - say with some room temp super conducting sensor - then dof is likely the only gain - and then if you start down that lytro or whatever it was called camera - the light field one where you could do focus and dof after the image has been taken, then maybe small sensors will be superior - so yes the laws of physics wont change but the advantages of large sensors at the moment is only how those laws apply to current ccd and cmos sensor technology

Light field requires a large sensor. Look into the patent...

[falconeye]

if sensor technology changes where noise simply isn't an issue - say with some room temp super conducting sensor - then dof is likely the only gain - and then if you start down that lytro or whatever it was called camera - the light field one ...

There is a reason why always people who don't understand physics expect miracles to happen.

As we say: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Obviously, dSLRs are magic for most photographers posting here, like stormcloud. Nothing wrong with that.

For the rest of us though, it is sufficiently advanced technology and just be affirmed that some unpleasant laws of nature limit what magic you are going to receive next, and what not.

E.g., a big part of the noise isn't coming from the camera, it is already coming from the light itself -- light itself is noisy (aka photon shot noise). And light field cameras are severely restricted by diffraction as is known since 100 years and never changed. God made no exception for the founder of Lytro whatever his marketing may some people make believe. You want to read more about it from the ones who own all the relevant patents (it's not Lytro ...).

[stormcloud]

There is a reason why always people who don't understand physics expect miracles to happen.

As we say: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Obviously, dSLRs are magic for most photographers posting here, like stormcloud. Nothing wrong with that.

For the rest of us though, it is sufficiently advanced technology and just be affirmed that some unpleasant laws of nature limit what magic you are going to receive next, and what not.

E.g., a big part of the noise isn't coming from the camera, it is already coming from the light itself -- light itself is noisy (aka photon shot noise). And light field cameras are severely restricted by diffraction as is known since 100 years and never changed. God made no exception for the founder of Lytro whatever his marketing may Americans make believe. You want to read more about it from the ones who own all the relevant patents (it's not Lytro ...).

your missing the point i was making though - the limitations of current sensor technology mean larger is better - but that might not always be the case if there is a fundamental change in the technology - like i brought up earlier silicon/gold etched lenses is such a fundamental change - lenses with no distortion at all - no chromatic aberations - sure that before these new lens were made public most people would have considered that impossible

so i find it entirely possible that in the future a sensor might be developed that its size makes no impact on noise in high sensitivity or dynamic range - so claims about the laws of physics and how they apply to todays sensor technology might be completely bypassed by tomorrows technology

my statement about lytro was just an example of something different - and the super conducting sensor was just an example of a possible way to eliminate noise (now if they invent a room temp super conductor camera sensors will be a really minor change in the grand scheme)

now the nature of light itself certainly might impose some restrictions on what is possible even with noiseless sensors and perfect lenses but that is indeed an area that i am not upto speed and shall defer to you on - but with perfect lenses that weigh very little and noiseless sensor i would perfectly happy with aps c - actually i am happy with aps-c since the k-5 does everything i want from an image quality perspective - only area i care to see improved is autofocus tracking

[cfraz]

your missing the point i was making though - the limitations of current sensor technology mean larger is better - but that might not always be the case if there is a fundamental change in the technology - like i brought up earlier silicon/gold etched lenses is such a fundamental change - lenses with no distortion at all - no chromatic aberations - sure that before these new lens were made public most people would have considered that impossible

so i find it entirely possible that in the future a sensor might be developed that its size makes no impact on noise in high sensitivity or dynamic range - so claims about the laws of physics and how they apply to todays sensor technology might be completely bypassed by tomorrows technology

my statement about lytro was just an example of something different - and the super conducting sensor was just an example of a possible way to eliminate noise (now if they invent a room temp super conductor camera sensors will be a really minor change in the grand scheme)

now the nature of light itself certainly might impose some restrictions on what is possible even with noiseless sensors and perfect lenses but that is indeed an area that i am not upto speed and shall defer to you on - but with perfect lenses that weigh very little and noiseless sensor i would perfectly happy with aps c - actually i am happy with aps-c since the k-5 does everything i want from an image quality perspective - only area i care to see improved is autofocus tracking

Your rebuttal illustrates Falk's point perfectly: To suggest that the Harvard thin film lens is applicable to photography requires that you ignore how it works. Of course it has no chromatic aberration - it works only with a single wavelength of light!

[LamyTax]

Your rebuttal illustrates Falk's point perfectly: To suggest that the Harvard thin film lens is applicable to photography requires that you ignore how it works. Of course it has no chromatic aberration - it works only with a single wavelength of light!

And isn't it also only working in IR and microwave spectrum?

[yen800]

some update: the FF will look very different from the MZ-D (MR-52)... the kit lens is going to be a * lens

[LamyTax]

some update: the FF will look very different from the MZ-D (MR-52)... the kit lens is going to be a * lens

Are you really sure they're not just going to reuse the >10 year old model and put a DA-zoom on it?

[Pål Jensen]

Sony isn't an issue (except for MILC) particularly on FF. the rumor to worry about is nikon and canon both looking at sub $2000 FF.

Do you find that rumor credible in ligh of the rumor that the Sony cost $2800? Something doesn't add up here and so far the cheap FF camera is a rumor I haven't seen substantiated anywhere. Apart from being circular rumors, the source seem to simply state entry level. That might mean $2500.
I've yet to understand which processes makes FF sensor the same price as APS sensors. So until that fact happens, the discussion is rather fruitless.
A price of about $1400 for a Pentax with the latest generation APS sensors seems about right and what to expect.
All of these rumors cannot be true....

[Pål Jensen]

True, technology can do a LOT, but it can't just deny or change the laws of physics.

No, but the laws of physics doesn't prevent smaller sensors to make excellent images technically. Thats what matters.

[yen800]

Are you really sure they're not just going to reuse the >10 year old model and put a DA-zoom on it?

I am pretty sure about that... so far the source has updated with correct info for all other cameras...

[LamyTax]

I am pretty sure about that... so far the source has updated with correct info for all other cameras...

I wouldn't have needed a source for THAT kind of idea .

[stormcloud]

Your rebuttal illustrates Falk's point perfectly: To suggest that the Harvard thin film lens is applicable to photography requires that you ignore how it works. Of course it has no chromatic aberration - it works only with a single wavelength of light!

from the article i read it said it worked on a HUGE spectrum of light including the visable spectrum - there may be limitations but this is a new concept in focusing light and i dont think many people today can comment on where it will be in 5 or 10 years from now - perhaps you can layer them for different frequencies perhaps you can have multiple hmmm gold hm gates? on the lens so it focuses dfiferent frequencies in different places - and thats jsut 2 options i thought up in 2 seconds

“In the future we can potentially replace all the bulk components in the majority of optical systems with just flat surfaces,” https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/flat-lens-offers-perfect-image

ok maybe i'm being optomistic but to me cameras be it video or still are a fairly major part of optical systems

[glanglois]

An article that I read this AM New Flat Lens Could Revolutionize Cameras as We Know Them | Raw File | Wired.com noted that this device worked at a single wavelength but that the investigators believed that they could eventually create a model that would cover, at least, the visible and near-visible spectrum.

Now, I'm not sure what "eventually" might mean and I have no clue whether such a device could be manufactured and placed into a lens barrel with a reasonable price/performance ratio. I suspect that they are not sure, either.

Like fusion, of any temperature, we'll keep an eye on developments whilst getting on with our business.

[Medium FormatPro]

No, but the laws of physics doesn't prevent smaller sensors to make excellent images technically. Thats what matters

The inventors of the Kodak disc cameras and film format would all be proud of smaller image sensor devices