I thought about that (the fact that a lens+sensor without out the rest of the camera is slightly more "positionable" than a full camera), but I don't buy it. A full-fledged camera that can be slaved to a smart phone easily is a cool idea, but I don't see how this product is going to succeed. It's not that small and it's not at all cheap.
Try that in real life and you won't have it. Much more versatile in positioning as I stated above
So wouldn't you consider this "high end" as a camera? Yes it's not DSLR quality, but it's at the very high end of the "not a DSLR" range. $750 (retail/Amazon price) for a camera is pretty high end -- except for professionals.
lol then that would be mid-range, not high-end as reserved for professional. A high-end body is >$2,500; high-end glass is >$1,000. Mid-range is below that and low-end is below that. Why try to change the definition, just call it what it is.
You know nothing about photography
I am waiting with bated breath to try this, and hope the implementation (particularly the *sync*) is as good it seems. But, as I mentioned elsewhere, someone else will perfect this, because it opens new ways of capturing images and video.
No mention, I believe, for 3rd party APIs? Imagine if/when that becomes available. Imagine being able to control multiple cameras simultaneously. If that possibility alone doesn't change some of the cynical minds here, not only do you not know photography or video, you lack imagination altogether.
If done right, this is a potential game-changer in photography.
I just hope Canon does this as well. I can see attaching glass to a helium balloon* and capturing some great shots. And the ability to put this onto a mono-pod for very unique, or hard to get angles will be a big deal. I'm excited, although, wishing it was Canon.
*hopefully the wifi will be strong enough.
I just hope Canon does this as well.
Now that Sony has fired the first shot, Canon and Nikon will follow. I wonder if Apple has something in the works, too. You'd think POV camera makers like GoPro should be jumping into this, too.
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
I can see attaching glass to a helium balloon* and capturing some great shots. And the ability to put this onto a mono-pod for very unique, or hard to get angles will be a big deal.
Excellent examples. Wonder if you can use one smartphone to control multiple QX units (even if not simultaneously).
This and other implementation issues might make the 1st gen version less than successful. But I'll gladly eat my words if this doesn't turn into a very successful category in the long run.
Obviously, you've never used a Digital SLR camera. At least, not extensively. There's a BIG difference in the image creation capabilities of a Digital SLR versus a point & shoot. Not the least of which is tighter control over depth of field thanks to the SIGNIFICANTLY larger image sensors in Digital SLRs. And recent Digital SLRs can focus and take a photo in a fraction of the time and in a fraction of the light needed for point & shoot cameras.
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.
Edit: There does seem to be an eyepiece on the lens. That, combined with a way to manually snap pictures without using the phone at all, should eliminate any lag.
Uh, did you miss the part about it storing the images to a memory card on the lens? The auto-transfer feature is only to get the pictures to your phone (if you need that).
Please, all you pro photographers, enlighten us unwashed masses on how this is not a reasonable DSLR (obviously not for professionals, but for most others)?
Wow, why are you getting so whiny? I simply corrected the post as this is not a high-end camera. It is lower to mid-mid.
Full frame sensor1, adjustments, ability to add different lenses, focus tracking, metering, speed (for the size of the sensor), ISO, ability to reduce noise. Look at the 5D MIII and that camera (body only) is only $3500; not even top end. So not even close. Is this a great product, could be, and I am going to look into buying one as I think it has some great uses as I pointed out already. However, calling this high-end like is just irresponsible.
1Imaging Sensor : 1.0" (13.2 x 8.8mm) vs. 24 x 36mm
Larger image sensor, not large. And at that small sensor, sure, it will do 10fps probably and for what this product is, that is great. But when I am on a wildlife shoot or a wedding, this would not be used unless for some fun stylized images such as I pointed out with the balloon.
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.
There is NO EYEPIECE ON THE LENS! Yes, you can snap photos with the QX10 and QX100 without a smartphone linked. But you WILL NOT be able to see what you are shooting. There is no viewfinder.
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.
Again, obviously, you've never shot images with a digital SLR. Even the fastest point & shoot is a slug (speed-wise) compared to a modern digital SLR. And I'm not talking about rapid-fire successive images either (though, that's another area where digital SLRs are king). I'm talking about how long it takes for a camera to autofocus and snap a photo once the user looks through the viewfinder (or LCD back panel) and pushes the button. No point & shoot (and certainly not the QX10 or QX100) can touch a modern digital SLR for speed.
The QX10 and QX100 are lacking a boatload of features found on a digital SLR. Namely, no manual modes! They can't shoot in Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, or full Manual.
The ISO on the QX100 goes up to 6400 (the QX10 goes up to ISO 3200). On my 5D Mark III the ISO goes all the way up to 25,600, allowing low-noise images to be shot in extremely low light without the need for a flash. And even at equivalent ISOs (6400 compared to 6400), I guarantee you the 5D will have less noise.
The ability to shoot in RAW mode doesn't exist on the Sony Lens-Style cameras.
In fact, now that I think about it, these new Lens-Style cameras are lacking many features that ARE found on high-end point and shoot cameras. So, even though they are a clever design and add much versatility when paired with a smartphone, they aren't as capable of cameras as equivalent point and shoots.
Here's another example shallow depth of field. This one was shot with a full-frame Canon digital SLR, with a 135mm lens, at f /2.0.
To achieve that same artistic depth of field (at the same perspective), a camera with a 1-inch sensor would need to be at 49mm (well within the QX100's zoom range) but with an aperture of 0.7 (well OUTSIDE of the QX100's capability). With the QX100 at 49mm, not only won't you get f/ 0.7, but you can't even get f/1.8! At 49mm I'd estimate the best you could get would be about f/3. Not even close.
Okay, enough of me trying to get auxio to understand the capabilities of a digital SLR.
From my comments, one might get the impression that I think the QX10 and QX100 are worthless. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I'm pretty confident that I will be asking Santa for one of the two for Christmas this year. As point & shoot replacements/substitutes, particularly with the link to my iPhone (which I always carry), these two Lens-Style cameras look pretty darn nifty. They should be fun little accessories that take up a minimal amount of space, yet give my iPhone much improved photographic possibilities (both in zoom range, and image quality).
But they aren't replacements for—or even comparable to—a digital SLR.
I think he tapped out a few posts ago
mark booth wrote: »
they aren't replacements for—or even comparable to—a digital SLR.
Just so you know, price and zoom depth are not correlated. When marketing to casual photographers (i.e., the average consumers), the zoom ratio is usually what gets advertised, because it's the easiest concept to grasp (that, and megapixels). But the price is based on other factors that have equal bearing on the quality of the picture.
Photographers who know their lenses will recognize these numbers:
QX10 - 3,3-5,9/4,45-44,5
QX100 - 1,8-4,9/10,4-37,1
The numbers mean: aperture range (f-stop) / focal length range (mm)
The focal length range is just another way to express the zoom factor, written out as minimum and maximum focal lengths. For example, 4.45mm - 44.5mm means 10x zoom. You already knew that. So it's the aperture that makes the difference: the QX100 is capable of f1.8, which is much wider than the QX10's f3.3, and should (at shortest focal length) allow about 3x the amount of light to hit the sensor. Larger apertures also creates a shallower depth of field, which is sometimes desirable for artistic effect. In the DSLR lens market, if all else was equal and two lens differ only in aperture, the larger aperture version would cost more, sometimes double or triple.
I don't know which irritates me more, Nokia calling cropping a high resolution image "zoom" or attaching a huge appendage to a camera to accompolish a similar feat--for $500 nontheless. Here's hoping a future iPhone blows both out of the water.
I might get me one of these things, would be fun to try out.Just throwing this out there, some decent enthusiest camera have good sensors & most mirrorless cameras of do of course, the QX10 & 100 are basically the top enthusist camera out there (RX100 II), i dont think this is treading on DSLRs toes, the thing people have to rememeber, they look at mega pixels they look at ISO sensitivity, the look at the appiture but miss one big thing, the QXs can't shoot in RAW, so thats something you can't really overlook if you are really into photography beyond happy snaps, that should tell people how serious you can get with this, so if you are happy with JPGs then this thing will rock, if you require more detail & quality, you need a camera that can shoot in RAW, then you can edit the pics, do whatever you want, save it into a format that can keep the quality like a TIF or something.Lets face it. most people don't own DSLRs & they dont need one, they can use their phone & it will work well, the people that own DSLRs will keep buying them, they have a use & this type of camera can't replace it.Im not giving my DSLR & mirrorless cameras away anytime soon, but this thing looks like a fun little camera. people need to chill out, these things find their markets, if its a good idea, it will sell, if it sucks, it will bomb.