Originally Posted by auxio
ok, and so what of those features is missing in Sony's offering? The larger image sensor is there. Fraction of the time remains to be seen. It depends on what all is done on the lens side vs the phone side. However, it seems like the phone is purely a viewfinder and so there's no image processing being done on the phone side at all. Thus, it should take pictures at nearly the same speed as a DSLR. Especially if it never has to transfer the photos to the phone.
I think the confusion the photography folks are having with this is the fact that the lens is the camera. The phone is just an accessory so that you can see what the lens is seeing (since there's no display on the lens itself). So I don't see how the lens can't have the same features a DSLR has.
I'm not remotely confused about these new Lens-Style cameras from Sony. The only confusion here is that you think they are somehow equivalent to a digital SLR. They are not.
I mentioned depth of field. Depth of field is the area within an image (the depth of area) that is in focus. With larger apertures (which, BTW, are designated by LOWER numbers), the depth of field (area that is in focus) decreases (becomes narrower). Depth of field is a very important creative tool for photographers. Here is an example of a very shallow depth of field:
That image was shot with a Canon digital SLR using a 50mm f/1.8 lens. The new Sony QX100 has an aperture of 1.8 at its widest angle of 28mm (35mm equivalent). But the moment you start zooming the lens, the aperture starts getting smaller, the f number goes higher all the way up to an aperture of 4.9 at full zoom of 100mm.
But even though the QX100 can do f/1.8 at 28mm, it can NEVER shoot the equivalent of the image I've linked above. It's not possible for it to have that shallow of depth of field. Why? Because the image sensor size is a factor in determining depth of field.
Go to this site and use the Depth of Field calculator near the middle of the page:
Canon Rebel DSLR (This camera has a 1.6 crop factor. Meaning, a SMALLER sensor than a full-frame 35mm sensor, but it's still a LARGER sensor than the 1-inch sensor in the QX100.) Aperture: f /1.8, Lens: 50mm. To achieve the same depth of field, a camera with a 1-inch sensor would need to have a of 29mm lens (very close to QX100) and an aperture of f/1.1. Oops... the QX100 only goes as low as f/1.8. Sorry! Plus the QX100 would need to be a lot closer to the subject.
Now, let's compare the same settings to:
Canon 5D Mark III DSLR (This camera has a full-frame sensor, the exact same size as a frame of 35mm film, and significantly larger than the 1-inch sensor in the QX100.) Aperture: f /1.8, Lens: 50mm. To achieve the same depth of field, a camera with a 1-inch sensor would need to have an 18mm lens (far wider than the QX100 can go) and an aperture of 0.7 (the QX100 isn't even close).
To top it off, there are dozens of different lens choices for digital SLRs. Lenses that will provide an even wider angle of view, wider apertures, and an even narrower depth of field. Plus macro lenses, and telephoto lenses, etc., etc.
The creative possibilities of a removable-lens digital SLR far exceed what is possible with any point and shoot fixed-lens camera. And that's exactly what the QX10 and QX100 basically are, fixed-lens equivalents. The fact that they can be attached to a smartphone doesn't change that.
Yes, digital SLR systems are more expensive. You can spend thousands (trust me, I know). But there's simply no comparing the capabilities of a digital SLR system with point & shoot cameras. Sure, you can take some terrific pictures with a point & shoot. But there are lots of photographic possibilities with a digital SLR system that simply aren't possible with ANY point & shoot camera (at least, not any of the current models).
Bottom line (which is where this discussion started): The QX10 and QX100 are not remotely close to being a digital SLR. And if you continue to believe that, you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what you are saying.
Edited by Mark Booth - 9/4/13 at 5:06pm