Now we know the new feature of the future R1.If the guy had just sprung for the $1999 model he'd have been OK.
Upvote
0
Now we know the new feature of the future R1.If the guy had just sprung for the $1999 model he'd have been OK.
It is not a cis laser. CIS means compact image sensor which is damaged by a laserwhat is a CIS laser?
Thank you for a very coherent post.haha...ok, thx.
Now that terminology is an unnecessary constraint then. The sensor's size does not matter when it comes to laser damage. All that matters is the damaging threshold as a function of intensity, wavelength and sensor material (and short pulsed lasers will kill off the sensors even faster but nobody should use pulsed lasers for filming or photography who has no clue about what they're doing)
Maybe that is why I didn't even think twice about CIS having to be some sort of laser type (that I'm unfamiliar with). Any class four laser can damage a sensor. The better (sharper) the lens, the higher the probability of the damage ;-)
1) I do not think that is what is going on here. People are using cameras in places that have lasers.nobody should use pulsed lasers for filming or photography who has no clue about what they're doing
It's the total energy in the light. UV short wavelength light is more energetic than IR. (so violet lasers need more care) For the same apparent brightness, green lasers are safer simply because we see green better so a less powerful laser 'looks' as bright.The green lasers look the brightest. I think the purple ones are the most dangerous, because they do not look very bright, but still have the same power and most of their power might produce invisible light.
true, but you're constructing a scenario that isn't real, IMHO.Even without lasers I don't think that it is a good idea that the sensor is exposed to light all the time if the camera is turned on. With a DSLR you can shoot 1,000 photos with an exposure of 1/200 second each and the sensor will only be exposed for 5 seconds combined. Powering the sensor all the time will warm it up an increase noise and it might also make hot pixels more likely. With my DSLR I even felt bad when I made a short video, because that single video used more sensor time than thousands of photos at daytime.
1) yes, I get that. Some laser show which is probably running way above legal laser safety specs... otherwise it wouldn't harm a silicon chip1) I do not think that is what is going on here. People are using cameras in places that have lasers.
2) There are remote focus systems that use LIDAR but I have never heard of this happening with them.
two things:It's the total energy in the light. UV short wavelength light is more energetic than IR. (so violet lasers need more care) For the same apparent brightness, green lasers are safer simply because we see green better so a less powerful laser 'looks' as bright.
One article said that image sensors are 1000 times as sensible to lasers than the human eye. And if the laser is in focus, it is exactly focussed on a tiny part of the sensor and will cause maximum damage there.true, but you're constructing a scenario that isn't real, IMHO.
First of all, if the radiation is strong enough to damage the sensor, it sure as hell would damage your retina looking through the viewfinder. Secondly, good DSLM like my R5 have a proper mechanical shutter that is closed when the camera is shut down, problem solved. The only real advantage is when turned off without lens-cap while looking towards the sun (or a strong (!) laser), the DSLR will just pass most of the energy through the viewfinder and out the back while the shutter curtain of the mirrorless will absorb at least all the visible light (since it's black) and heat up... possibly beyond the point of permanent damage (not sure about the IR reflectance, if they're smart, it's IR reflective).
So there is no damage threshold advantage of the DSLR over the mirrorless while using them. If you are using your camera in situations with lasers >class3, I'd much rather have that laser damage the sensor than my eye!... at least that's my opinion ;-)
really? hm...One article said that image sensors are 1000 times as sensible to lasers than the human eye. And if the laser is in focus, it is exactly focussed on a tiny part of the sensor and will cause maximum damage there.
That 1000x figure comes from the article posted one page ago: https://petapixel.com/2019/01/12/mans-1998-mirrorless-camera-fried-by-self-driving-car-laserIf you mean "sensitive" as in damageable then I'd like to see that article. As a matter of fact, I'm an expert on laser <-> silicon interaction and damage thresholds and I would LOVE to see this as I do not believe that to be the case.
As was pointed out before, it is not a mirrorless issue. In a DSLR, the laser just gets into your eye instead of onto the sensor, which may actually be worse depending on the laser and how much you value your eyesight.This is mainly a mirrorless camera problem because of the length of time the sensor remains exposed - which is basically all the time you have the EVF or Live View active. DSLR sensor obviously can be at risk as well in Live View, but far lower risk via OVF since sensor is only exposed for a fraction of a second instead of continuously.
Sony likely made this statement to cement future warranty claim denials.