Image courtesy: Sony via Spectrum.
The image of this Sony curved sensor created quite a buzz but some people argued that this tech may not coming any time soon. Well this is wrong. Sony already made a first mass production run and realized 100 sensors. Sony device manager Itonaga said it clearly: “We are ready“.
And as we shared before. The first lens coming along this sensor will be the 35mm f/1.8 Zeiss (Source SAR):
0 Responses
My body is ready.
RX2 here we come!
It’ll be here soon. Good!
So this the lens/sensor system developed for the upcoming Sony RX2. Wonder how many megapixels it will be. Image quality will likely set new standards, can’t wait to see what it can do.
I think my wallet will be empty this year.
So, you mean this is a FULL FRAME!!! My left eye is twitching…. o.0
Does anyone know if this can be used for Zoom Lenses?
It can’t be used with any A-mount or E-mount lens on the market.
Oh you’ve already tried it out right?
Well, all lenses in those mount are designed for a flat sensor.
Yes but in practice it rarely achieved, vignetting and soft edge focus is mainly a result of the lens not fully correcting for this flat film or image sensor plane. Most telescopes are not corrected and focus on a curve, this is fine for viewing by eye but a correction element is usually added when the telescope is used for photography. It would likely be easy to modify existing designs just by removing the correction added to compensate for the flat film plane. Cheaper lenses that are not well corrected may work surprisingly well when focused on a curved surface.
It will be interesting to see the results with some of the current lenses focusing on this curved surface, I was just curious if the poster was speaking from experience and had actually experimented with this new sensor (a design engineer perhaps) but I guess not.
Maybe they can make a semi-curved model just to give the A & E Mounts a slight boost in performance.
If Sony is able to apply this disruptive technology to its current current camera systems (A &E) it will put its competitors at a sever disadvantage, likely placing their futures in serious jepordy, even if its only a 5-10% gain.
Each focal length would need a different curvature.
This will be a tiny light fixed lens FF camera with excellent IQ.
“Each focal length would need a different curvature.”
No. They would need to design lenses for a certain curvature, but there’s no reason why each FL would need a different one. Current lenses work with sensors of the same curvature ( currently zero ), so why would that change with curved sensors? All current lenses would have to be redesigned or would need an adapter with additional optical element to work properly. But this could make legacy ( film camera ) lenses work much better.
You would lose the advantage. The advantage is NOT that the sensor is _somehow_ curved the advantage is that the lens need not be corrected. If you need to correct all the lenses to a given curvature (like now) then it’s simply better to use a plain sensor.
Can you read?
Considering the amount of distortion and bad corner performance that new Sony lenses have, maybe they will be compatible with the new sensor 🙂
Haha… 🙂
I assume this sensor design could be used non-conventionally with existing lenses, for blurring effects etc. I don t know, maybe it would have a pinhole-like image. However, it is a future oriented innovation and rather addresses upcoming lenses and not so much adaptability of legacy glass etc. But who knows what adapters and firmware will be able to achieve…
Only useful for compact cameras or a new ILC system which won’t take any existing lenses.
Its not for a compact camera. Its for a Full Frame… Most likely RX2… Unless you refer to the RX Full Frame series camera as compact camera…
I do, the RX1 is a compact camera. Even Sony calls it a Cyber-shot.
That’s still not a compact camera according to the general acception of the word.
RX1… compact digital camera 🙂
it’s compact and it’s a camera. what else do you want?
Something smaller to fit the common definition.
So what is it according to you? Compact camera doesn’t mean it’s small. There were loads of compact film cameras that were even bigger than the RX1.
Not to me, to the industry: a compact camera is pocketable.
You may ask for a revision of this terminology, but you’ll be in the minority until most of these cams have been replaced by smartphones.
Well, at least for Sony itself it’s a compact camera.
good luck then!
Here slips the mask.
So, the reason to do this is to reduce the cost for the lens, right? Le’ts hope that cost saving also shows in the prices.
That makes so sense. If the resulting image quality is superior the price tag will be bigger. It does’t matter if it’s cheaper to produce or not.
Superb logic – In your own eyes.
That’s how patent works. Charge for the value as long as you can.
Only when the competitors have similar technology, the price can go down. But why, the competitors want the high margin as well. So it will be a long time before customers get the full benefit of the technology.
Much like FF sensor, seriously over-charged for a long time. But as long as customers pay, why change anything? Sony is changing that picture right now.
No, the reason is to increase the compactness of the camera + lens combination. The lenses will probably be much smaller (and simpler and cheaper, yes).
True.
Compactness cannot be bought in the same way.
Very very impressive!!!
please please sony make strobist build in system for one of advantage on RX2. because it has shutter leaf so we can use sync high speed on them. just fix wireless system to support it wireless and HSS, and ratio system and channel so we have system like CLS on RX2
Maybe its gonna come in the new A99 mk II that´s arriving after Photokina
Of course. None of the lenses would work.
so this curve sensor just for fixed lens compact mirrorless?
Probably just for a new lens design. Fixed or not.
However, Sony and lenses is another story.
From the sounds of it, it has to be a fixed lens solution in order for the lens and sensor to align properly. My understanding is that there could be a huge improvement for cameras in mobile phones and it would allow for simpler construction of lenses in compact cameras…
Yes unless they decide to release a new interchangeable lens camera system.
I hope its as good in terms of performance as Sony says it is. In that case I’ll be waiting for RX100 mkIV / RX200 with this tech. Clean ISO 800 on a camera as small as RX100. Now that’d be something. Going to be a perfect backup camera.
And I’m ready to buy that curved sensor on mass scale too, I’m all yours bastards
So, the first RX was just a kind of test how the compact FF-system without interchangeble lenses will meet with consumer’s approval. Seems to be good enough for Sony, they are ready for the nex step now, which bears much more extensive consequences for sure. I hope for deeper impact than Faveon-technology (and one day perhaps they will be even combined together successfully).
100 units isn’t “mass production”.
I hope they put it in an able body, quiet shutter and with a powerful processor to make the best out of it, instead of coming up with a highly compromised camera that lacks a bit in every department.
Innovative sensor, it might be but they do know how to screw up a camera.
Thanks for your great advice. Never been thought before.
“Never been thought before.”
I wish I could say the same about idiotic defensive fanboy comments
Look at your comment above. Utterly devoid of any meaningful input. If it had any meaning you wouldn’t be what you are. I study your types and can recognize your kind easily.
I wonder will Sony next RX series be, RX-15, RX-35, RX-50. the number denotes the focal length. So instead of carrying multiple lenses, you just carry the camera instead and because it’s all fixed, the lens are smaller, better IQ, probably faster as well then interchangeable cameras.
i need it. would love to upgrade my nex 7 + zeiss 24mm combo to RX2 with 35mm 1.8 lens
The a7r + FE 35/2.8 is more than an upgrade for your current combo.
I’m in the same boat as crazydoctor on this one. I love the 35mm perspective. No, the A7r with the 35 f/2.8 is not what I’m looking for. In fact, that’s why I’ve held out. Aside from higher resolution and better low light capability, The images from these two kits look remarkably similar. If I’m upgrading to Full frame, I want to be able to use AF lenses that are functionally faster than I have with my current kit. While the 35 2.8 is a really nice, sharp lens with great rendering, on FF, it feels very similar to my 24 on the NEX 7. Now don’t get me wrong, I love what I’ve got. I’m just waiting for Sony to release a faster 35.
The lack of EVF is the only real reason I don’t already own an RX1
I would sell a bunch of gear to pick up an RX2 if it also came with an EVF.
“Aside from higher resolution and better low light capability, The images from these two kits look remarkably similar. ”
I think you forgot better image quality from the FE 35/2.8. And what are your other requirements and expectations from a lens of this type?
All equipment have plenty of room for improvement and the curved sensor RX2 better be better or else it would be a shame. But the gear you can have now is better than the gear that might realise some day 😉
See, that’s the issue. I don’t think that the FE 35 is significantly better. I’ve tried it out on an A7 with my own SD card, pixel peeped the crap out of it, and it’s difficult to see a difference. The 24 1.8 is a fantastic lens. Sharp all the way to the corners at f/2 and darn close when wide open. It renders beautifully and has a great contrasty pop. It’s really a shame that it won’t cover full frame.
In terms of other requirements? I don’t have any really. Size isn’t a big deal for me. To be clear, I really love my current kit. The only reason I would upgrade to full frame is for the shallower depth of field and low light capabilities. Because they don’t currently have a lens at my chosen focal length that will give me shallower depth of field, the other advantages can wait.
The RX1 lens on the other hand? Leaves my lens and the 35 f/2.8 in the dust. The lack of EVF is tough for me. At this point it makes sense to wait and see if they add one to the next model.
If the new RX doesn’t have an EVF, I’ll probably end up with the next generation A7, but if they don’t come out with a faster 35, I’ll just go with a Voigtlander 1.2 and be ok with manual focus.
Have you used any other Sony FF body with the 24MP sensor? I ask because I haven’t seen impressive results from it. Try the FE 35/2.8 on the a7r. It’s extremely good. The f/1.8 lens shows more aberrations. Are you sure you compared the 24/1.8 @ 1.8 against the 35/2.8 @ 2.8?
As for the rx1(r), again, that 24MP sensor is junk. The lens is good but it’s made to perform best at close distances. I haven’t bothered comparing it to the a7r+35/2.8… the latter combo doesn’t leave anything to be desired in terms of image quality. It’s definitely better than the nex-7 and 24/1.8.
I have not tried the A7r, primarily because it was never a consideration because of the shutter and the slower focus speed compared to the A7.
Yes, I’m sure. That was the whole point of my comparison. Does this 2.8 lens have shallower depth of field on FF than my Zeiss 1.8 on APS-c. The answer I came to was no. It’s pretty much equal.
I’m not saying that the image quality isn’t better. I just find that the primary reason that would actually push me to move to full frame is largely negated by the smallish aperture on the 2.8.
In terms of the RX1, we will have to agree to disagree. I haven’t seen anyone else call the sensor “junk” and in fact I’ve seen quite a few people who own both say the exact opposite. -that the f/2 lens and RX1 pairing is more than the sum of the parts. That there is something magical happening that probably isn’t possible with an interchangeable system.
That said, I agree that the A7r is an amazing body…and I’ll probably end up with it’s successor- or the successor to the RX-1, whichever fits my needs better.
Either way, like I’ve already said, I’m really happy with what I’ve got and love the images I’m able to produce. It’s nice to just be able to dream because an upgrade isn’t even that necessary.
The 24/1.8+aps-c vs. 35/2.8+FF are theoretically equivalent. As you said, the image quality of the FF is greater and therefore the DOF in reality is actually shallower than the theoretical amount. Higher quality means better separation. If 24MPs is perfect for you as is, scale the a7r+35/2.8 image down to 24MPs and it’ll be even better.
As for the 24MP sensor… it doesn’t matter who owns the rx1, this sensor has been crap from the Vg900/d600 days. It’s not up to the standards of what a good 24MP FF sensor can be. A lower MP sensor should be at least as good in noise as a higher MP sensor but it’s even worse than the 36MP sensor. The best example from this side of the fence is the 12mp a7s vs. 36mp a7r. Both are excellent sensors and correctly, the a7s has better noise. The 24mp a7 is just worse than both… because it has a crap sensor.
The patented 35/1.8 design seems to be an indication this push is more about using simpler (= cheaper to produce) lenses than absolute top quality. Caveat emptor? Let’s at least wait for some facts and not swim with the hype. Anyone remember when Kodak used curved film planes in box Brownies to get away with simple plastic moulded lenses?
I think the curved sensor was developed in order to achieve both: simple and small lenses with absolute top quality.
Who cares if it’s cheaper for them to produce if an rx2 ultimately produces better IQ than an RX1?
Sony deserves a return on their R&D and it eventually gives them leeway for steeper discounts.
The lens desighn you are looking at when used with this curved sensor will probably produce the finest image quality ever produced.
Read about…symetrical apochromatic lens…a very old desighn.
This is esentially an asymetrical version of the desighn
I’d like to see them get a bit more adventurous with lenses… Personally I’d take their hand off for a 50/1.8 ff (ideally with WA and telemacro adapters), but the improved corner performance is also crying out for a 24mm version.
we need lenses SONY … anybody at home? What about a non overheating flash?
Sony Sensor and lenses a two separate companies. They do no work together, witch also surprise me.
They should have put that one in FF E-mount line and made even smaller lenses.
I doubt we’ll ever see curved sensor on interchangeable bodies as it’ll probably introduce a new set of problems for 35mm and above focal length.
Not to mention almost certainly needing a new mount…
This technology is only really suitable for fixed lens cameras. As soon as you start varying the distance between the rear lens element and sensor (by changing lenses), you’re back to square one.
Even if they created a completely new line of lenses, the additional complexities and expense involved would make it a non starter.
So nobody really read the source article… Even Admin? 🙂
That’s why fraudsters like ageha can take others for a deliberate ride on misinformation
Ok. So, when does ready become a camera?
I carry more than one camera when I shoot to avoid constantly changing lenses.
Fixed lens cameras like this can be usefull…especially since the quality will be excellent.
I only shoot macro and telephoto so unfortunately this will.not be usefull.for me.
If a 90mm macro version of high resolution were available that would be great for me.
The curve of the sensor in order to match the lens would need to be differrent not only for different lenses but also for different focusing distances.
I dont know if we will ever see this concept used for long lenses or macro lenses.
I also expect the resolution of this camera to be high because the sensor is back side illuminated and the lens desighn should produce superb image quality.
I am anxiouse to know what resolution this will be.
Why would macro not be useful for you? You don’t know the minimum focal distance, and you don’t know the resolution, or crop-ability. Sure, for ultra-macro of jumping spider eyes, it might not be great, but that is not all of macro.
Without any correction a 1/1 image will produce fat field
I have made several posts on this subject suggesting reading about symetrical apochromatic lenses.
If you look it up you will understand this..and my oyher lens comments on this lens.
However you keep asking how do I kmow but you will not read what I have asked you to read.
You obviosly do not not want an answer to your question..you want to reject what I say solely becauese I am the one saying it.
Furthermore..every comment by everyone here is a value judement yet you seem to need to single out my statements to repeatedly make that point.
I am glad to discuss the issues with you.
Start this subect by reading about symetrical apocromatic lemses and any description will then describe how later versions were then made asymetrical.
After you have read that we can at least speak the same language.
I have singled out your post because it raised questions, which you have not yet answered.
Your bravado has started to rub me the wrong way, as it already has many other posters. Unlike some, I don’t find it appealing in any way, you just sound like a blowhard.
I don’t bury you on graphene, although I could–nor do I pontificate here on something I know something about, because I know enough about it to know that work is being done that I have no business commenting on in a forum such as this.
You, however, evidence your layperson status by how you act. I know you don’t know anything about graphene, because that is something about which I know–and for me, the fact that you b.s. about graphene contaminates other topics that you talk about, like this curved sensor and matching lens implementation.
When you b.s. on one topic, it is likely that you b.s. on other topics. With that in mind, I have paid more attention to, and become more sensitive to, the tone and content of your posts, and have discovered that posters critical of you have good reason for being so.
Add me to that list.
I have actually in previous comment thoughrouly exlained the nature of this type of lens.
Where I to do so again I would be acused of being repettitive.
Therefore I have reffered you to readily available refference.
Clearly I know more about some topics than others and by initiating discusions on those topics I as well as others can learn something.
I do not claim to be an expert on everything but like everyone here I enjoy talking about thes topics.
You really are unaware of how you are perceived. It is fascinating.
Do you understand that it is not the FACT that you comment on certain topics that is objectionable, but instead HOW those comments are made?
I realize I don’t speak for everybody here in finding your contributions objectionable; I’m just genuinely curious if you understand the nature of my objection.
If you don’t care, fair enough–but be man enough to acknowledge when you’re flat-out wrong, as in your comment upthread…otherwise I fear I might digress into AA and Kleinfelter’s characterizations.
The more I buy the more I realize the benefits of less gear. I use my Olympus gear just as much as my Sony full frame. I take only one lens with me when I leave the house instead of a whole bag. If Sony’s RX2 can truly offer superb IQ and exploit the advatages of this new tech- you have my money.
Its easier to carry a couple of cameras with different lenses than change lenses during a shoot.
Always with the value judgments.
Just to be sure, you do understand that your experience and opinions are not universal, right?
This is a “comment” section.
I posted a ” comment”.
Just to be sure you do understand that everything you read here is a comment and therefore someones opinion.
False. For instance, this comment I’ve just made. “everything you read here is a comment and therefore someones opinion” is facially false.
That’s not my opinion, it is a provable fact.
My opinion is that the comment is rubbish, because although it maybe useful as evidence of your cognitive or communicative ability (or lack thereof), that’s not of interest to me, and actually somewhat repugnant to consider, and is therefore rubbish.
Once again, you are WRONG, and your incorrectness is exacerbated by your blowhardness.
Your evidence that condition of not knowing how you are perceived by others, I forget the DSM name for it.
Oh, You are back? You should be knowing the DSM name very well. You are the apex of pathology. You are being watched..
For the uninitiated, this person – (Not an everyman, nwimu, ageha, vivek, Rich … etc,) is a full blown psychopath. Psychopathy is so common that you will be interacting with psychopaths on a daily basis. In my assessment, this one has and will continue to commit serious crimes.
When I say a full blown psychopath, it means someone who scores above 30 points on the Psychopathy Check List – Revised (PCL -R). You can find the test online. And when I say serious crimes, it means crimes of forensic nature. What makes Not everyman deadly is his intellect that masks his pathology. Does anyone here remember the episode when he went into an uncontrollable rage against Vlad, a few months ago? Revisit the rumor again for a very tiny glimpse into the mind of a psychopath.
That’s actually pretty funny, I seem to remember railing against Vlad.
However, the rage was actually tightly controlled.
Please post more of your insights so that I can track you and gut you like a fish. I doubt you have a good understanding of what psychopathology actually means.
BTW ktrup, nice talking to you Vlad.
No I am not Vlad. That’s the day I figured you while Vlad had no clue till today. By the way, I am not condemning you for being a psychopath because you can’t help it. I am just trying to inform others.
No, i don’t have deep insights into psychopathy. But I figured Shallow affect is where the key lies. .
One advantagec of the curved sensor is to reduce the incedent angle of light therefore improving sensitivity.
A field correcting lens can be built into the camera allowing use of this sensor with the current A or E mount system.
If multiple correction lenses can be built into the camera that can slide away when not needed then the system could use existing lenses as wall as new curved field lense.
An added benefit is that this camera would work much better with older simpler film camera lenses.
Digital lenses are currently more complex because they require a lower angle of incedence to maintain optimum performance with digital sensors.
This sytem would eliminate that requirement.
In summary..a curved sensor with slde in field correction lenses could work with both existing flat field lenses and new curved field lenses of differrent curves.
Barry, I think you know that’s not going to happen. Good field curvature correction (or, uncorrection in this case) requires multiple elements, and by default would change the focal length and/or focus distance, so you’d be fighting against that. Not something you can slide in between the lens. Besides, when are mechanisms like a consumer choice?
In summary… A curved sensor will be used on fixed lens systems (from cell phones to the RX1), or in the future a line of lenses with the precise field curvature built in.
You are probably correct that it is not likely to hsppen.
As a new texhnology ther are numerouse expensive problens that would need to be overcome to make it ILC.
This is a thought on how it could be done..but I most definitelly believe for the forseable futur we will see this technology used for fixed focal lengths.
That sounds like a complex system that will never happen. Let’s keep it real.
Also, voting up your own post (twice) is just not cricket.
Will this enable smaller better quality lenses?
Absolutely.
Anybody know why Sony settled on f/1.8? Is there some step-function immediately below that, which requires lenses to all of a sudden increase dramatically in size/weight? My Minolta 50/1.8 seems not too much different from my 50/1.4 in terms of size/weight, because they are small lenses to begin with.
So if this is the best system yet, how about an f/1.2 or better, combined with increased sensor sensitivity?
While I’m on it, does anybody have any idea what the bokeh will look like from such a system, and what the focal surface will be in terms of shape and consistency of depth?
I kind of agree with the poster above who wants a 24mm, this seems to scream for wider angle applications, but hopefully sweep panorama will be available when needed.
What a system, I think this is fantastic. If it turns out to be really small–and it could be very, VERY small (imagine if they stick to a 35/1.8 lens, but decrease the sensor size and still maintain the resolution due to backlighting to APS-C or thereabouts, it could be the size of an RX100), they could sell it in a 3-pack: RX24, RX85, and RX200. Yes, I know the larger lenses would need to be larger, but the overall picture is great–3 small, sealed, robust systems. Or maybe just 2–RX24 or RX35, and RX135.
There are many possibilites, especially for those of us who now carry multiple bodies and lenses.
While I’m on it, what do people other than Barry think about the possibility of a very-high-quality retractable 135mm or longer lens? To maintain compactness when in the pocket or bag. Maybe this could be mated to a slow retractable longer fixed FL lens, the slowness compensated for (in part) by the sensor.
In terms of Bokeh, I can’t for the life of me see to much difference between 1.4 and 1.8. Plus, many 1.8’s are sharper throughout their range than corresponding 1.4’s. I’ll give up .4 for that- and I’ll take the smaller size- even if it is minimal.
Given the high price this camera will probably command (see RX1/r), it will be a low volume camera, built mainly for the prestige it will lend the Sony brand. With this in mind, I think the investment needed to design and manufacture multiple versions with various focal lengths (thus reducing the sales of each version even further) counts out anything other than a single focal length.
Awesome
“We are ready” to buy the camera.
I’ve been debating whether or not to buy the RX1 from the day it was announced. The main issue for me is that it’s not that compact with the big lens bulging out the front. If the RX2 lens is more compact AND faster, it’s a no brainer for me.
The main issue is the price. It’s a great camera, but it shouldn’t cost more than $1000.
Stark clearly said ‘the main issue for me’. The main issue for you is the price. I’d love to know how you worked out what it should cost. Please elaborate?
Sony invested the research, development and tooling costs for manufacture. Also, this is a low volume item, even if they sold it at the price you say they should sell it for.
Ultimately, it’s up to Sony what level they price it at. You can choose to buy it or not, based on your own value judgements.
I actually find the body near perfect… thar BIG LENS is its biggest beauty (in my opinion)
I hope that the curved sensor helps to increase the image quality and performance (AF) but not to make a tiny-pancake-lens making impossible to manual focus (like the Focus Barrel from RX100 as a example for a bad thing)
I hope they do NOT add a grip (I’m looking at you A7), but make it optional for the people that like it.
An Integrated EVF (with quality optics, not that Pop-up thing alla RX100III) in the middle like the A7 would be gorgeous! (But make it ascetically adapted to the sexiness of the RX1 please! The one from the A7 doesn’t look right, specially the front)
I’m very excited to see what’s coming in the RX-line 😀
The RX1 is actually very pocketable. With the right clothing, you can carry it comfortably on your person. Try to pick up a pair of jogg jeans(from a Diesel sale) or some other stretchy material.
RX1 is no bigger than HCB’s camera.
I just hope it has an integrated EVF. On the left side. The ugly EVF of A7 series gives me nightmares.to put it mildly Sony needs to hire world class designers for their superb products. I keep imagining how Apple would have presented the A7 visually.
I’ve seen many comments about the hump on the A7. It’s not merely an aesthetic choice. The FF sensor takes up room where the viewfinder components would sit if it were placed in the corner. That’s the main reason for the A7’s viewfinder repositioning.
The A7 isn’t meant to be pocketable. Then why make it so ugly by trying to be small? Why not make it a tad larger and reconfigure the space. My earlier comment means that Apple wouldn’t present an A7 in the form so sloppily presented by Sony. Even today, it’s the design aspect of Apple that commands a premium for its products in price as well as in the minds of the public. May be this is the phase where Sony will keep iterating with newer tech. And then once the tech is in place they will probably improve the design. But then again, Sony never had great design in the DNA of their product line.. Except RX1 to an extent. Hence the need to hire world class designers.
Aesthetics is an individual thing. What you don’t like, someone else might love. You can’t please everyone. I don’t mind the aesthetics of the design myself, although there are things I’d change ergonomically.
Ultimately, for me, the bottom line is simple. Does it do what I want it to do, and can I afford it?
Yep. Agreed, the design should be ergonomically right first. Since the weight of A7 was distributed along the horizontal axis, in a shutter slap,it causes a stronger swivel around the Z axis of the camera (image blur at the edges), than if the weight was distributed more ergonomically- In this case, making the camera a little taller and redistributing the weight. Plus a horizontal weight causes more stress on your wrists, during long work hours ,than a near square shaped weight.
Keep the Rx1 form, and make it bigger by whatever amount you require to integrate an EVF. That way Sony will have a distinct looking product
It’s not just you!
The hump on the A7 is a bit ugly. Even if they absolutely could not relocate it- they could have made it more appealing. The camera in general is very plain looking as well.
Aesthetics is an individual thing. What you don’t like, someone else might love. You can’t please everyone.
I agree- I still don’t like the look of it. It’s not even the hump really. It’s the giant eye cup protruding off of the back.
That is why most people prefer and buy the new Fuji XT1 or the Oly OMD series. Strange that when Oly or Fuji does a hump, no one complains. For sure, I would also prefer a side EVF like on NEX-6 and 7, or better a Pana GX7 style, but we have to take what they give it to us and live with the hope they will change that some day.
Completely agree. I shoot an E-P5 and absolutely love it. The other factor is that you can add a thumb grip into the hot shoe with no EVF hump. It completely changes the camera in terms of handling. I’d love to see a GX7 style with the A7- I’d be first in line for that.
Mass production yielding 100%, which is impossible, or just 100 sensors out of god knows how many? It would be nice to know the yield since it will determine the cost.
You are not prepared!
The actual lens and sensor combination is so small that this could be clipped onto a cellphone and operated via an app on the phone.
is there anyone who know the basic material of the sensor? organic? or silicon? i have no idea how to make those sensors by semiconductor technologies…