A couple of weeks I told you how Sony developed a 2/3 inch and a Full Frame curved sensor. Both are ready for production. We now got our hands on the specs of the 2/3 inch sensor camera (or smartphone) that Sony will launch soon at Photokina. It will be the worlds first curved sensor camera/smartphone!
The 22 Megapixel curved sensor has a dynamic range of 10.8 stop at ISO 640, SNR of 41.1DB at ISO 400 and the astonishing 7.83mm lens f/1.2 G lens is only 6mm thick! This could be the smallest and highest quality compact camera ever made. The 2/3 inch curved sensor has the same signal to ratio of the Canon 5dMarkIII !!!
The chances stay very high that Sony will also launch a Full Frame curved sensor camera with a damn compact Zeiss 35mm f/1.8 lens. Will this be the first Full Frame camera that fits in your pocket???
Here are the lens specs of the 2/3 inch camera:
P.s.: I am not sure the equivalent calc of the rable is right…
You really cannot afford to miss any of the upcoming Photokina rumors! So be sure to not miss any of them by following use here:
RSS feed: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sonyalpharumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SonyAlphaRumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/104216500156717934391/posts
—
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
—
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
via MirrorlessRumors via CNbeta.
0 Responses
So if i read the specs correctly it doesnt zoon but it does include a 1 to 3.6X and a 3 to 10x teleconverter? would be the utimate pocketable 20mm to 200mm cam if true!
It would be great to clarify the teleconverter part.
The teleconverters will be front mounted (that’s the only way to preserve / increase maximum aperture) and thus could be quite large (compared to the lens iteself).
So pocketable 20-200mm maybe… depending on how deep your pockets are (in both senses of the term!)
This is great looking specs.
Any news on the A7m? 🙂
Considering its size could this be a smartphone or QX camera? Just wondering?
Found this Experia Z3…
http://translate.google.co.jp/translate?hl=ja&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F
Nice, but, not for me.
There is something odd: focal length is 7.83mm, equivalent focal length is said to be 20mm (24×36), crop ratio is 20 ÷ 7.83 = 2.55 thus corresponding to a sensor a bit bigger than 1″ (crop ratio for 1″ sensors is 2.7).
Nevertheless, the sensor is supposed to be 2/3″, smaller than 1″.
Huh?
In movie film land, 1″ frame did not mean that the frame was exactly 1″ across diagonally, or 1″ height or width. While 6×4.5 did not have a 6cmx4.5cm frame and so on.
1″ is smaller than the 1″ you imagine. This is just a name for the format size factor, which at x2.7, I believe, is accurate from my research.
You are spot on Hendrick if the 7.83mm lens is a FF equivalent 20mm it would indeed be a 1″ sensor with its 2.7x crop factor 7.83x 2.7=21.4mm with the 4×3 sensor ratio explaining the final 20mm equiv. A 2/3″ sensor has a 3.6 crop ratio which would make the 7.83mm lens a 28mm equivalent { which I think is more realistic}. I think that there may be a mistake in the lens equivalence claim at 20mm.
That is interesting indeed…it would make a bit more sense to have a 28mm instead of a 20mm with teleconverters.
That being said, are teleconverters are easier to make than “wide-converters”? because in that case, then it would make sense image quality and price wise.
The sensor is listed as 6.67mm diagonal, which is 1/2.7″ which I think got confused with 2/3″. The lens is thus a 50mm equivalent.
So the two zoom teleconverters would give:
– 1.0x to 3.6x: 51-183mm equivalent
– 3.0x to 10x: 51-510mm equivalent
No wide angle?
Interesting indeed. I guess we should all be taking these info sheets separate from one to another.
But a 94° angle of view is definitely that of a 20mm on a 24×36 camera…
As written above, nothing adds up here. I would definitely like Andrea to tell us where all of this comes from (except from Mirrorless Rumors).
This is the first instance of it I can find. http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/311487.htm
So they “curved” the RX100III sensor? :/
Indeed, 1″ sensor doesn’t mean that the sensor’s diagonal is equal to 1″, it goes back to the way image sizes of video cameras used until the
late 1980s were expressed, referring to the outside diameter of the
glass envelope of the video camera tube.
But this is not the point. A so-called 1″ sensor (not a sensor with a 1″ diagonal) has a 2.7 crop factor. A 2/3″ sensor has a 3.9 crop factor. The alleged crop factor of this camera (20 ÷ 7.83 = 2.55) is lower than that of a 1″ sensor and much lower than that of a 2/3″ sensor, thus apparently corresponding to a sensor bigger than 1″ and definitely not to a 2/3″ sensor.
The 1″ sensor has a diagonal of 1,6cm and its measurements are 1,28 cm X 0,96cm. The 2/3″ sensor has a diagonal of 1,1cm and its measurements are 0,88cm X 0,66cm.
Source: http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/camera-system/sensor-sizes
> The 1″ sensor has a diagonal of 1,6cm and its measurements are 1,28 cm X
0,96cm.
> The 2/3″ sensor has a diagonal of 1,1cm and its measurements
are 0,88cm X 0,66cm.
We are saying the same thing. A lens with a focal length of 7.83mm mounted in front of a 2/3″ sensor gives the same angle of view as a 30mm lens mounted in front of a 24×36 sensor.
But they are saying it’s a 20mm equivalent, not a 30mm one. Hence my perplexity.
Oh! I’ve read it wrong! First you said a 1/2.7″ sensor. I’ve misread to something else. It was early in the morning here… :p
To add to the current confusion, the curved sensor’s diagonal is said to be 6.67mm, which corresponds roughly to a 1/2.7″ sensor (diagonal: 6.72mm) and definitely not to a 2/3″ sensor (diagonal: 11mm).
If the sensor’s diagonal is actually 6.67mm, the 7.83mm of this camera has the same angle of view as a 51mm on a 24×36 camera.
Holy macaroni Sony is listening! 20mm curved? this is going to be the ultimate landscape camera for landscape travelers!
good bye lens diffraction! hello sharpness! thank you Sony!
tiltable LCD for low angle shot and pop EVF for daylight please. just like rx100iii but with hot shoe please. TY!
it doesn’t undo diffraction.
This sensor (please someone with more tech knowledge correct me if I am wrong) appears to be the same size as the BMPCC sensor (multiplier of 2.8 for focal length equivalent)
It also looks like the output is a bit higher than 4K on video at 24p and too long (horizontally) for 1080 height.
Also, how do you gather the signal to noise ratio of a 5D3 and say this tiny sensor has the same sensitivity? Physics are still physics and tiny pixels will still suffer.
The sensor is less than half the size of the BMPCC, it’s 6.67mm diagonal vs 14.3mm for the BlackMagic.
Also the pixels are not square so you get 4K horizontal resolution but only 2K vertical resolution!
Also it is impossible to reach the same SNR of the 5D3 over the whole sensor, though it could easily match it per unit area.
4K is 4096×2160 so the horizontal res is a bit higher (minimally) than 4K.
Where do you get that the pixels are not square?
The “unit cell” (pixel) size is listed as 1.92 micrometers by 3.84 micrometers. This agrees with the resolution, which is listed as 7680 pixels by 2880 pixels.
The curved nature does result in improved SNR, although I have no idea if it’s enough to justify this claim.
Also: the individual pixels are not sqaure but: 1.9*3.8 um? this coupled with the 7680 X 2880 resolution does yield a 4:3 aspect ratio but with non square pixels? intresting to say the least.
Indeed! It will be interesting to see how such a layout will work in practice…
20mm is useful for landscape photographers but is not a lens you think of for general use. Would imagine 35mm would be much more useful. Maybe they’re saving that for the full frame.
teleconverters
If it can really reach 1:1.6 magnification it’ll be an interesting option for macro! That’s the equivalent of 4:1 in 35mm terms.
Working distance will be terrible but the wide angle lens would make for some unique perspectives.
for macro shots the DOF is going to be very thin anyway, so things before and behind it, where perspective matters, will be blurred. so what does it gain?
This looks like a good sensor & camera but concerned that the FF curved sensor version might be the FF sensor release at Photokina (that the rumors are going on about). Will there be a FF a-mount release as well – so there will be >1 FF sensor release at Photokina from Sony?
In NO WAY this is a 20mm f/1.2 lens.
It is a 7.8mm f/1.2 lens, i.e. a 20mm equivalent-focal-length lens with a real relative aperture of f/1.2 (which is quite meaningless without knowing the sensor format), i.e. a 20mm f/3.1* FF-equivalent lens, nothing else.
* if 20/7.83=2.55 is really the correct “crop factor” here.
The 2/3 inch curved sensor has the
same signal to ratio of the Canon 5dMarkIII !!!
I’m completely flumoxed by this. If “signal to ratio” is signal to noise ratio (SNR), I don’t see anything in the tables above about it. In any case, it would clearly be wrong as the standard 18% SNR measure (at constant output size) is essentially a measure of shot noise and is fundamentally a function of sensor area. It may be that
If, however, what is being referred to is the Quantum Efficiency (QE) of 57%, then that’s top class but not really anything to with it being a curved sensor. It’s more to do with the semi-conductor technology and not the form factor of the sensor (at least for back-illuminated small sensors as front-illuminated ones can have poor fill-factors).
Anybody expecting IQ comparable to an FF sensor from these stats is mistaken (indeed, it would be physically impossible).
The fact it enables a very thin lens to be used is the interesting news. Of course it’s much easier to make a small-factor 6mm f1.2 lens that a 20mm f1.2m but it has to be remembered that the latter actually allows in 11 times the total amount of light.
*** edit *** Just noticed there’s something in the text about SNR, but it’s in dB so I’ll have to check it against the other ways it’s often expressed. 41.1dB is over 10,000:1, but as dB is often used where power, not amplitudes are compared.
I’ve done some follow ups, and I’m at a loss of how to explain the SNR measurement. At 400 ISO the 41.1dB measure is slightly above that of the Canon 5DMk3 (although below it at base ISO). However, it makes no technical sense. SNR (at a given output resolution) is dominated by photon shot noise. That varies as to the square root of signal intensity and an FF sensor will have something like 8 times the signal strength per unit output area (so ought to be perhaps 7-8dB or more better in that respect). This is all a property of light and not the sensor which is why sensors of common size tend to be rather similar in this respect (until you get to higher ISOs where read noise is also significant at the 18% grey level).
If I look at other smaller format sensors (like the Nikon P7800), they are only coming in at 26dB at 400 ISO. To add 15dB (albeit with a slightly larger sensor) is extremely difficult to explain.
The other measures (like dynamic range) are more like what you’d expect. The P7800 comes in at about 11.8EV, or 11.3EV at native resolution.
I think I’d like more information about that SNR test. What’s it actually measuring? Native resolution? Downsized?
I think the claim of a 20mm equivalent lens is wrong. Certainly the numbers can’t all be correct.
7.83mm lens on a 6.67mm diagonal sensor gives a 35mm equivalent of almost exactly 50mm!
just a guess: the 6.67mm is maybe the diagonal lenght on a plane and not the lenght of the curve line (an inward arc) that is the real diagonal and that will be longer than 6.67mm.
Interesting idea.
Good point! They curved that sensor quite a bit then 😉
maybe they don’t need the same lenght as usual plane sensor to cover a given focal due to the curvature. Actually this all conversation may prove that Sony have really disrupt in a huge way the sensor technology and that we have to relearn all we know about optics…or maybe it’s just a typo.
The effect of the curvature on the diagonal will be insignificant. This is not a goldfish bowl that Sony has created, but something to allow for
Petzval field curvature, which, on this size of sensor will be a fraction of its linear dimensions.
But a 94° angle of view is definitely that of a 20mm on a 24×36 camera…
Nothing adds up here. I would definitely like Andrea to tell us where all of this comes from (except from Mirrorless Rumors).
According to your tables, the sensor’s diagonal is 6.67 mm. Then a lens with 7.83 mm would be the equivalent of a 50 mm “full frame” lens, not 20 mm (or did I miss something here?)
I posted the same thing, below. The numbers certainly don’t add up. My guess is the 20mm equivalent thing is what’s wrong.
The 20mm equivalent AND the Type 2/3″ are wrong: 6.67mm diagonal corresponds (roughly) to 1/2.7″, not 2/3″.
Another oddity: a 94° angle of view is actually that of a 20mm on a 24×36 camera!
A standard equivalent focal length of 50mm makes far more sense and would also make for a camera I’d be interested in.
I wonder if this sensor is going to be used in a 4k handycam since the sensor is a 4:3 ratio and has a fixed lens.
what is this for ?
Selfies.
Move along now.
It is equivalent to a 40mm f6.4 in terms of dof.
I don’t get this:
The specs read 20mm (35 mm equivalent), which means a crop factor of 2.55 (20mm/7.83mm lens).
However a 2/3″ sensor has crop factor of 3.93 according to wikipedia, meaning that this should have a fov of 7.83*3.93=30.7mm equiv.
The image size has a 6.67mm diagonal which is way smaller than a 2/3″ sensor, which is around 11mm.
So which is it?!
And the angle of view of 94° corresponds to that of a 20mm (35 mm equivalent) 🙂
Too much confusion here….
I’m pretty sure the 6.67mm figure is wrong, everything else is consistent.
We’ll see one of those in the upcoming iPhone 6, I promise. The iPhone 5S already is 6mm, Nokia goes up to 7.2-11mm … and Apple is know for using the latest in smartphone camera tech.
well since admin tell us that the smartphone will be show at Photokina I think the next Sony Xperia Z3 (which had already been leaked) will probably host that new camera. Apple make their own Keynote to present the next Iphone so no Photokina and Sony, since they dumped Ericksson, is really pushing their Xperia brand.
I bet it’ll take the Z4 for this module, and they would have to abandon the current design philosophy if they’re putting a module this thick inside, the Z3 is rumored to go much thinner than the Z2 at 7mm? Could anybody make a touchscreen 1mm thin?
Photokina is in september so I still bet on the Z3, and don’t forget that the omnibalance design come with 2 larges bezels up an below the
phone (actually this is where Sony put the cam module) where you can put the cam without interferring with the touch screen.
Oh, my guess is that they would leave a few month’s time between the announcement of the sensor and actual application, but what you say is possible too.
This is actually very tempting. I already decided that I’m not upgrading to Z3 from my Z because I was annoyed that from the rumors they left out 805 and stuck with 801, but a camera module this caliber could make up for it.
Don’t you think that components other than the camera would still take up space? At least the screen still has to go behind the camera. This won’t be going into phones that size.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr3-more-bits-about-the-sony-i1-has-g-lens-and-interchangeable-mount-like-on-that-patent/ Hmm…
First thing I noticed is the wide aspect ratio 7680×2880 resolution.
This would account for the confusion about 35mm equivelent.
I also noticed a rather impressive magnification level..
The 3x-10x teleadaptor is another interesting item.
This seems like a really impressive cellphone camera.
I am anxious to see the ff version and anxious to see if this ever finds use in a long tele..macro version.
Or enthusiast compact, or compact super zoom! Imagine having a 20-30x zoom with a large aperture throughout the range in a compact that shoots 4K. Like a HX70 with this sensor… that would be rather impressive for the compact space.
I still do not think this sensor is good for a zoom lens..
The specs describe a fixed lens and zoom tele converter.
This type of converter increases close focus distance.
Canon just patented a 45x zoom with bent lightpath for a waterproof pocket camera.
My old Cybershot T7 also has an angled light path
The aspect ratio is not wide but a standard 4:3, the pixels are not square however, and are twice as tall as they are wide. Why? Who knows!
The specs say bayer and exmor r.
Therefore why do you think pixels are not square?
Because the spec states the pixels are not square – 1.92 um x 3.84 um. It also states the format is 4:3 which wouldn’t be the case if the pixels were square.
Neither Bayer arrays or the Exmor design require square pixels. The Nikon D1X had non-square pixels.
Your correct…I missed that.
Two or more adjacent photosites can be given the same colour filter to get non-square pixels too.
Anamorphic lens perhaps?
On QFHD display it will be simple to display those vertical “pixels”…
Anamorphic, corrected at pixel level, this is indeed very innovative and an easy way for ultra wides everybody love these days.
Will be interesting what manufacturers can do with such a sensor, clearly lens design can be much simpler and much smaller.
Shame they made it 4:3, a lot of space would be wasted compared to 3:2.
The thickness also means that it’s unlikely to be going into Sony’s next flagship(s).
Right, after more digging through the numbers, I believe it is the sensor size 6.67mm that is either wrong or specified in some highly nonstandard way.
The focal length, angle of view and aperture figures all precisely agree.
If you take the pixel size of 1.92um, multiply it by the image dimension of 7680 you get 14.75mm, with a diagonal of 18.44mm, a crop factor of 2.33. When multiplied by the 7.83 stated focal length you get a 35mm equivalent focal length of 18.24mm, which is close enough to 20mm once you take the curvature of the sensor into account.
Maybe it’s highly curved…
Even if it was curved 180 degrees, the diameter on the surface would only be 1.57 times the distance straight across.
You also have to take the different aspect ratio (4:3 instead of 3:2) into account.
The = = horizontal = = angle of view of a 7.83mm lens in front of a 14.75mm wide sensor is that of a 19.1mm lens in front of a 24×36 sensor: even closer to 20mm.
By the way, the 18.43mm diagonal of such sensor is equal to 0.726 inch, close to 2/3″: the plane projection of the sensor could have a diagonal of 2/3″, thus making the sensor a ‘true’ 2/3″ sensor as opposed to a ‘marketing’ one.
The ‘6.67mm’ could be a confusion between inches and millimetres since 6.67mm is two-thirds of a centimetre.
Remember the original source is Chinese http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/311487.htm
I applied the standard convention of using the diagonal when comparing field of view, it’s the simplest way to work with different aspect ratios.
Secondly a 2/3″ sensor doesn’t have a diagonal that is 0.666 inches, 2/3″ relates to the tube size, a 2/3″ sensor has a diagonal of 11mm, which is nowhere near two thirds of an inch.
An 18mm diagonal sensor would be closer to the 1″ type found in the Nikon 1 series.
> Secondly a 2/3″ sensor doesn’t have a diagonal that is 0.666 inches,
2/3″ relates to the tube size, a 2/3″ sensor has a diagonal of 11mm,
which is nowhere near two thirds of an inch.
You read too quickly what I have written or I wasn’t clear enough.
1/ The presumed 18.43mm diagonal of this curved sensor is close to two-thirds of an inch.
2/ The plane projection of this sensor could have an actual diagonal of two-thirds of an inch (16.93mm).
3/ Sony could have decided to market their curved sensors according to their = = actual = = diagonal and, accordingly, the curved sensor would be what I called a ‘true’ 2/3″ sensor…
4/… as opposed to what I called a ‘marketing’ 2/3″ sensor, i.e. a sensor the size of which corresponds to that of the sensitive area of a video camera tube of the eighties, the outside diameter (glass envelope) of which would be equal to two-thirds of an inch (in short: a sensor with a 11m diagonal).
5/ There could have been a confusion (‘lost in translation’) between this actual diagonal of two-thirds of an inch and 6.67mm, which is equal to two-thirds of a centimetre.
If you do the math based on the pixel size, 7680 x 2880 pixels at 1.92 micron by 3.84 micron equals 14.75mm by 11.06mm or a diagonal of 18.43mm. A 2/3-inch sensor should be 6.6mm x 8.8mm with a diagonal of 11mm. At 18.43mm the 7.83mm lens would have a 35mm equivalent of 18.4mm in 4:3 image and 19.1mm in 3:2 image. This lens is small for DSLR, but with a almost 1-inch filter diameter pretty big for a cell phone. Plus you have the complexity of a curved surface that might vary the numbers a bit.
Wait, diagonal 6.67mm IS NOT type 2/3″. Even 1/2.3″ sensors have diagonal of 7.2mm. This sounds more like 1/2.7″ type.
It could be highly, highly curved? Flattened out it would be 2/3″, but curved it would be 6.67mm diagonally? Did anybody do the math how curved this would make it?
You can’t explain away the numbers using curvature (the curvature is relatively mild anyway in the images I’ve seen of the sensor).
I think you have to just ignore the 6.67mm figure as it agree with *nothing else* on the datasheet!
Oh good. At least there’s only one wrong number on the sheet then, multiple mistakes would certainly make it fake lol
what if the curve is not a progressive one (meaning an arc not being a section of a circle) burt a curve that vary along the way to the corner: almost flat in the center and very accute at the edge (based on my interpretation of the image of the sensor as I’m agree with you, the curvature is mild).
does that induce new(s) factor(s) in the calculation?
Genuine question, I’m no expert in optic or geometry math and you seem to be more aware in that field of expertise.
Or maybe you are right and we are all speculating over a typo.
The other data values point to a sensor with an 18mm diagonal compared to the quoted 6.67mm diagonal. That’s a factor of three out, far more than you can attribute to any degree of curvature!
If Fred4d’s calculations below are correct and the diagonal of a true 2/3″ sensor should be 11mm, even a spherical curvature cannot fix the numbers.
I believe Sony provided incorrect specs (with different errors like these) to its various agents to find the leaks, and now somebody is getting fired. 🙂
Aww… He should’ve checked the sheet before leaking it out…
But the thing is: the lens is reported to be 7.83mm f/1.2, with a focal length being equivalent of 20mm. This means that the crop factor is around 2.55, which would make the sensor bigger than 1 inch sensors in Sony RX100, etc… If the sensor was 2/3 inches, the crop factor would be around 4, and the focal length equivalent for a 7.83mm lens would be around 30mm.
7680×2880?!?! super pano format? isn’t supposed to be 4:3? it’s actually a 8:3 if my maths didn’t fail
Rectangular pixels.
already explain by others below: the pixel aren’t square.
This could be the future.
QE of ~58% is the future? LOL!
This rumor is plain BS.
Just like any new technology, it will mature over time after more research and etc. Curve sensor will solve a lot of problems in designing the optics and I can foresee that Sony will launch more and very successful products based on this curve sensor technology.
curved ff sensor cam with fixed 28 1.2 lens this would be amazing/ real revolution…..1.2 for a 2/3 sensor not exceptional…..nevertheless still curved at least…..
What is to say they are one and the same? The sensor spec doesn’t mention the lens, the lens spec doesn’t mention the sensor. Though it worth mentioning over the confusion over crop factors etc that they are, so far as I can tell, spec sheets for two different items.
I thought that but then I noticed the pixel size mentioned in the first table doesn’t agree with the sensor size listed in the first table!
What should they be? And has that factored in the curvature of the sensor?
The pixels are stated to be 1.92 micrometers wide, and there are 7680 of them across the sensor, which gives you 14.75mm for the width (not accounting for curvature).
It’s hard to know exactly how to account for curvature or what figures have already been adjusted, but the 6.67mm figure is out by a factor of 3 which is far to much to be anything to do with curvature!
Unless it’s 3 layer… (yes I’m aware it says bayer).
It’s very unlikely to be a phone camera, for one it has a physical aperture, it could be a first but it suggests it’s something else.
Fuji rumors are claiming now that the X30 will be 2/3″… Interesting that news would come out today…
Maybe a new QX cam, which is at the same time a kind of camera for a smartphone and an almost stand alone camera.
Yeah maybe. I have been hoping someone would come out with a 1″ fixed lens pocket cam with f1.2 or f1 lens for ages, rather than a zoom. I would happily settle on a 2/3″ curved though, so hopefully that’s on the cards.
Also seems a bit narrow for a selfie cam. My guess would be a qx.
funny all the MATH people are doing (for a rumor)
saying that, i will buy it ASAP it hit market if all come true
thank sony for breaking old FORMULAS and keep innovating
while putting OLD math and formulas in the basket
Are they going to put in the bin next to physics? Bottom line – the numbers don’t add up so something isn’t right with the specs.
How can such a small sensor have the same Signal to noise ratio than a full-frame sensor?
Impossible. Or did they mean the per-pixel SnR?
In dpreview’s article about Sony’s curved sensors, you can read ” a 2x increase in photon collection efficiency is reported for the
periphery, with a 1.4x increase in sensitivity in the center of the
sensor as well”
source: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6229436014/sony-s-curved-sensors-may-allow-for-simpler-lenses-and-better-images
This is not enough to make up for such a difference in sensor size.
Hey man, hundreds of years ago lotsa things were not possible. Can you try to not be such a negative nancy?
There’s a difference between “not possible with current technology/manufacturing techniques” and “violates the most fundamental laws of physics”.
Photon noise is an inherent property of light that is not going to change, and photon conversion efficiency is already above 50%, to catch enough photons to match the 6.8 times larger 5DmkIII sensor would require running at 340% efficiency and inventing perpetual motion along the way!
It was already explained… tension changes electric properties of silicon.
Welcome to the future…
if this is true i got just one word to say about it
DAMNNNN 🙂
I tend to use my voigtlander 35 1.2 the most on my a7r. I am really looking foward to the fix 35 1.2 curved sensor camera if its for real.
Won’t help…
I SMELL another mount coming with a flood of aftermarket adapters and crummy auto focus.
That is not what you are smelling…
Its a phone camera………….Sony announced a year or so back they were putting their efforts into pushing Pro cameras and smart phone cameras…Well here is the phone camera…
I have ventured, that to make a projection whole on the RX1s:
I have searched the value of a new comparably sensor -> the RX100mk3 SNR approx. 32db with ISO 400
The Curved 2/3 is in ISO 400 10 db better (although even smaller)
Also the Curved Sensor is approx 10db better as a normal sensor
If I project sensor quite simply on the full format, the RX1s has SNR 52db in ISO 400, in ISO 409000 SNR 22db (in each case simply 10 db in addition counted)
Converted the image quality from Sony a7s in ISO 51000, would have the RX1s with ISO 409000!
…….And the RX1s with ISO 1.6 million at least even the quality of the ISO 409000 from the a7s
incredible!
When I was wrong with my simple projection please write a answer to my post
When you have a better projection to a fullframe sensor please do let me know, write a answer here to the post
That sounds extremely promising!
“Will this be the first Full Frame camera that fits in your pocket???”
Or don’t wear such tight clothes 😛
iPhone 6? (There, I said it!)
quite possible, after all, Apple uses Sony sensors for the most part.
no , ip6 will use imx 220 1/2,3″ sensor , this sensor will be used in z4 next spring probably.
i’ll hold off buying the RX100M3 and wait for this beast in compact form!
Isn’t the crop factor for a 2/3″ sensor around 3.9, which will make a 7.83mm f/1.2 G lens equivalent to 30mm (FF equiv) as oposed to 20mm as the second table reads.
Still sounds like an excellent little camera.