Hendrik
8MP is at least the limit - if not over the limit - for pixels in a 2/3" sensor. Much of my current work is equal portions of "decisive moment" and "available darkness". Sony has told of the next generation of sensor - with their own camera being the first announced. It has an APS-sized sensor that will allow ISO800 with similar noise to ISO50 to ISO100 with my current rig. It looks like ISO3200 will be still useable in situations where I am now pretty much restricted to ISO400.
It is designed for mirrorless cameras and is 10.2MP. The resolution is marginally greater than my 8MP camera, but resolution is actually a fairly minor factor other than in marketing digital cameras. As long as people buy by numbers rather than defining their own photographic needs, more pixels and longer zooms will attract the naive.
All my life, I have worked in "available darkness" situations, and I am not allergic to noise or grain. Sometimes it is a defining element, but I would like that to be my choice. I can always add speckles in Photoshop or PSP, if I want the effect, just as I could shoot Kodak SO2475 if I wanted grain with film.
The new Sony sensor is only marginally higher in resolution, but after a decade and a half of digital darkroom experience, I know this is not a deciding factor. Having usable sensitivity beyond ISO800 is. Certainly there are work-arounds. Using Best Shot Selector off a monopod, I was able to shoot some pretty fine interior shots at ISO50 and street stuff at night at ISO400. Given my "druthers", I would have druther have shot the interiors at ISO800 and the street stuff at ISO3200. http://www.larry-bolch.com/las-vegas/ http://www.larry-bolch.com/CP8400/
At least I was shooting with an f-2.6 ED lens rather than so many SLR lenses that start at f-3.5 to f-5.6. The results can look quite effortless, and that is what one is after. The effort that it took to get this level of quality was anything BUT trivial.
The Sony CMOS sensor is designed for mirrorless cameras, so the lens can be almost in contact with the sensor, letting the rays strike the sensor at as close to 90° as practical, eliminating light and sharpness fall-off in the corners of the image, as well as minimizing chromatic abberation.
From the shooter's perspective, it means a bright view in dark environments. The era of the beloved f-1.0 Leitz Noctilux or Nikon Noct seems to be over, and the view of the dSLR ground glass with most zoom lenses is very dark. Of course, this is of no relevance for the fat tourist lining up the ugly family in front of the national wonder with the sunlight pouring over the right shoulder for the traditional memory shot. For someone who is trying to reveal to the viewers that which they can not otherwise see, the prospect of low-noise/high sensitivity/bright LED is very exciting.
My industry source tells me that the SLR was the profit-leader for the traditional camera makers. The production lines were paid for in the '80s and '90s by the 35mm SLRs built on them, and the technicians had years of experience, requiring little training to build digital SLRs. It was natural to put all the major goodies into them, since the margin of profit was MUCH higher. They could promote the old design as "professional" and charge a premium price, in spite of the inherent problems with SLR shooting. There was also an additional profit centre in the sale of lenses.
As I - and many others have discovered - mirrorless designs open new vistas that move us far ahead of the limits of SLRs, and even though the large sensors may provide better technical quality, the camera design lends itself to better content creation. My source said that the Sony was the breakthrough and from here on in, the 20the century SLR will be allowed to diminish while the mirrorless 21st century camera will catch up and surpass the old design rather quickly.
There is no reason that a mirrorless design should be less technically capable than a SLR, other than the profit has been in building cheap cameras on old production lines - and being able to charge premium prices for them. Economic rather than technical.
The revolution has begun. If you have doubts see what the restricted technology allowed me to shoot - see the URLs above. Most of these shots simply would have been impossible or greatly weakened had I been restricted to the SLR design. The downside has been having to use small sensors, with inherent high noise and low ISO ratings.
The highside has been the ability to see in near darkness and to capture people being people without imposing upon them. It is very easy to relax and ignore a mirrorless camera when it is out of the sightline, while a bit SLR with huge zoom lens pointing at you evokes the ultimate in camera shyness. See also http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/
larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504
8MP is at least the limit - if not over the limit - for pixels in a 2/3" sensor. Much of my current work is equal portions of "decisive moment" and "available darkness". Sony has told of the next generation of sensor - with their own camera being the first announced. It has an APS-sized sensor that will allow ISO800 with similar noise to ISO50 to ISO100 with my current rig. It looks like ISO3200 will be still useable in situations where I am now pretty much restricted to ISO400.
It is designed for mirrorless cameras and is 10.2MP. The resolution is marginally greater than my 8MP camera, but resolution is actually a fairly minor factor other than in marketing digital cameras. As long as people buy by numbers rather than defining their own photographic needs, more pixels and longer zooms will attract the naive.
All my life, I have worked in "available darkness" situations, and I am not allergic to noise or grain. Sometimes it is a defining element, but I would like that to be my choice. I can always add speckles in Photoshop or PSP, if I want the effect, just as I could shoot Kodak SO2475 if I wanted grain with film.
The new Sony sensor is only marginally higher in resolution, but after a decade and a half of digital darkroom experience, I know this is not a deciding factor. Having usable sensitivity beyond ISO800 is. Certainly there are work-arounds. Using Best Shot Selector off a monopod, I was able to shoot some pretty fine interior shots at ISO50 and street stuff at night at ISO400. Given my "druthers", I would have druther have shot the interiors at ISO800 and the street stuff at ISO3200. http://www.larry-bolch.com/las-vegas/ http://www.larry-bolch.com/CP8400/
At least I was shooting with an f-2.6 ED lens rather than so many SLR lenses that start at f-3.5 to f-5.6. The results can look quite effortless, and that is what one is after. The effort that it took to get this level of quality was anything BUT trivial.
The Sony CMOS sensor is designed for mirrorless cameras, so the lens can be almost in contact with the sensor, letting the rays strike the sensor at as close to 90° as practical, eliminating light and sharpness fall-off in the corners of the image, as well as minimizing chromatic abberation.
From the shooter's perspective, it means a bright view in dark environments. The era of the beloved f-1.0 Leitz Noctilux or Nikon Noct seems to be over, and the view of the dSLR ground glass with most zoom lenses is very dark. Of course, this is of no relevance for the fat tourist lining up the ugly family in front of the national wonder with the sunlight pouring over the right shoulder for the traditional memory shot. For someone who is trying to reveal to the viewers that which they can not otherwise see, the prospect of low-noise/high sensitivity/bright LED is very exciting.
My industry source tells me that the SLR was the profit-leader for the traditional camera makers. The production lines were paid for in the '80s and '90s by the 35mm SLRs built on them, and the technicians had years of experience, requiring little training to build digital SLRs. It was natural to put all the major goodies into them, since the margin of profit was MUCH higher. They could promote the old design as "professional" and charge a premium price, in spite of the inherent problems with SLR shooting. There was also an additional profit centre in the sale of lenses.
As I - and many others have discovered - mirrorless designs open new vistas that move us far ahead of the limits of SLRs, and even though the large sensors may provide better technical quality, the camera design lends itself to better content creation. My source said that the Sony was the breakthrough and from here on in, the 20the century SLR will be allowed to diminish while the mirrorless 21st century camera will catch up and surpass the old design rather quickly.
There is no reason that a mirrorless design should be less technically capable than a SLR, other than the profit has been in building cheap cameras on old production lines - and being able to charge premium prices for them. Economic rather than technical.
The revolution has begun. If you have doubts see what the restricted technology allowed me to shoot - see the URLs above. Most of these shots simply would have been impossible or greatly weakened had I been restricted to the SLR design. The downside has been having to use small sensors, with inherent high noise and low ISO ratings.
The highside has been the ability to see in near darkness and to capture people being people without imposing upon them. It is very easy to relax and ignore a mirrorless camera when it is out of the sightline, while a bit SLR with huge zoom lens pointing at you evokes the ultimate in camera shyness. See also http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/
larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504
