Rumors > PowerShot Cameras
Patent: 24-1060mm Zoom Lens
gmrza:
Likely MTF data on a lens like this? 500 line widths per image height at the long end? How can a lens with that kind of zoom factor not be a huge compromise on IQ?
Dianoda:
Just curious, does anyone know if Canon has put a fluorite element in a p&s lens before? This one is a bit... odd. Maybe targeted for video?
TrumpetPower!:
--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on May 30, 2012, 10:04:00 PM ---Misread. It's 4.3mm - 190.4mm which gives the 44x, and the crop factor is 5.6x, which is a 1/2.3" sensor, the same size found in SX260 HS (and many other P&S cameras).
At the long end it's f/7.1 - that's pretty dark (and likely beyond the aperture where the diffraction penalty starts for a 12-14 MP 1/2.3" sensor).
--- End quote ---
Ah -- thanks. Makes sense.
Your correction, that is...the lens doesn't. Sounds like it originated entirely within the marketing department. "Hey! I know! Let's create a 100x superultramegazoom that tops out at a billion million thousand at the long end!"
I'll guarantee you that every photographer and engineer at Canon who worked on it had to suppress multiple exclamations of, "Just what kind of crack are you smoking?"
Ignore the optics for a moment. Can you imagine the sort of camera shake you'll get with a 1000mm equivalent held at arm's length? Now, add back in the optics, plus the small sensor, plus the fact that there's no mention of mechanical stabilization...we're talking an expensive paperweight here that's only good for making impressionistic blurs barely distinguishable from the high ISO noise.
Cheers,
b&
neuroanatomist:
--- Quote from: TrumpetPower! on May 30, 2012, 10:31:16 PM ---Can you imagine the sort of camera shake you'll get with a 1000mm equivalent held at arm's length?
--- End quote ---
Oh I dunno about that. Even at f/7.1, in sufficiently bright light - say, the Utah salt flats at high noon, or better yet, the dayside on Mercury - one ought to be able to get a high enough shutter speed.
RunAndGun:
--- Quote from: TrumpetPower! on May 30, 2012, 10:31:16 PM ---
Your correction, that is...the lens doesn't. Sounds like it originated entirely within the marketing department. "Hey! I know! Let's create a 100x superultramegazoom that tops out at a billion million thousand at the long end!"
I'll guarantee you that every photographer and engineer at Canon who worked on it had to suppress multiple exclamations of, "Just what kind of crack are you smoking?"
Ignore the optics for a moment. Can you imagine the sort of camera shake you'll get with a 1000mm equivalent held at arm's length? Now, add back in the optics, plus the small sensor, plus the fact that there's no mention of mechanical stabilization...we're talking an expensive paperweight here that's only good for making impressionistic blurs barely distinguishable from the high ISO noise.
Cheers,
b&
--- End quote ---
Lol. I live in the TV world and we actually have 100x zoom lenses. Canon makes two and Fuji makes a 101x. With the 2x engaged, you're talking about a top end equivalent to over 7,000mm. Granted they weigh over 50lbs a piece and cost as much as a small house... :o I'd settle for a quality still lens equal to my "bread & butter" TV lens, 13x4.5 f/1.8(4.5mm-59mm)(2/3" sensor) which translates to about 17.5mm-228mm(full frame 35mm). Plus with the built-in 2x you can go to an equivalent of about 456mm on the top end. Granted we're still talking about something that costs as much as a nice car...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version