Industry News: Panasonic S5 specifications leak ahead of an official announcement

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,321
1,103
One more thing not directly related to this al9ne. Why is it that after Apple introduced the wider gamut DCI-P3, only the cameras on iPhones and iPads are capable of shooting still and video in that gamut? Unless some other smartphone also does it that I’m not familiar with.

its not as though there aren’t monitors that can show it. That was true, other than for Apple’s equipment, years ago. I can see an improvement when shooting with my iPhone, as opposed to my 5D mk IV.

what’s the holdup?, this is cinema standard, and 4K Tv standard, so it’s not as though it’s an oddball gamut that no one other than Apple uses.
I got fed up trying to make the HEIF files work on my iMac and phone when renting a 1DX3 this weekend, otherwise I could've provided files for comparison :/ Hopefully my R5 will ship soon :)
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
603
396
I think the cost of developing a FF line with lenses implies an optimistic commitment to a long range strategy. The market may have other ideas though.

Sony may be regretting their choice of mount size but it doesn't seem to have stopped people from buying the cameras or from Sony and others delivering a range of interesting lenses. The difference between them and their full frame competitors is not all that different in the actual optical performance. In fact the ratio of diameter to flange distance for Sony is actually comparable to the Canon RF while the Z mount is a lot greater.
That ratio is meaningless. I’ve seen it thrown around a few times on Sony forums. But analysis has shown the deficiencies. It’s going to more difficult for Sony to work around it. Can they? Yes, for a lot more effort, and bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses. they can’t use the larger rear element sizes that Canon and Nikon can, or that the L mount can. They can’t get the same advantageous ray angles. The new mounts allow for smaller front elements as they use larger rear elements. It may not matter too much today, but these new lens designs are just beginning to get started. A couple of years from now, it could be problematic for them.
 
Last edited:

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
603
396
I got fed up trying to make the HEIF files work on my iMac and phone when renting a 1DX3 this weekend, otherwise I could've provided files for comparison :/ Hopefully my R5 will ship soon :)
Most software does work with it now. Heif isn’t dependent on DCI-P3, or other standards. Camera companies should offer a DCI-P3 choice along the old Adobe RGB and the even older srgb, invented by Hp and Microsoft back in the 90’s when Windows pc monitors didn’t even all have 24 bit color yet.
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
665
280
That ratio is meaningless. I’ve seen it thrown around a few times on Sony forums. But analysis has shown the deficiencies. It’s going to more difficult for Sony to work around it. Can they? Yes, for a lot more effort, and bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses. they can’t use the larger rear element sizes that Canon and Nikon can, or that the L mount can. They can’t get the same advantageous ray angles. The new mounts allow for smaller front elements as they use larger rear elements. It may not matter too much today, but these new lens designs are just beginning to get started. A couple of years from now, it could be problematic for them.
Leica M has the same constraints and scarcely seems to be an issue for them or their third party Chinese competitors. In addition, despite the vaunted advantages of smaller, lighter , better lens designs as a consequence of a short flange distance we have, instead, an avalanche of superb but bulky lenses. The smaller ones being f2.8 optics which do not strain the supposed limitations of the mount.
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
665
280
I don't think that ratio means much, does it?The flange distance in general doesn't play all that much of a role as designing a lens that sticks into the body is a possibility. If using an APS-C style mount like Sony E didn't come with significant drawbacks for lens design in the long term, Canon would have just expanded their already established EF-M mount (which has a larger diameter than E mount) rather than come up with RF.

Nikon seemingly got so frustrated with F mount that they felt it was necessary to even go 1 mm wider than Canon EF / RF, just to make sure they'd never have to face those design constraints again.

Sony may not regret their mount choice, as it at least allowed them to establish the FF mirrorless market quickly before any competition arrived. But it will impact them in the long term. What is more frustrating to me is that it will also impact the third party manufacturers if they want to serve all major mounts.
I am not sure that it will be as dire as people think. While there is a ton of armchair engineering opinion out there I have to believe that so much of what we think is settled fact is in fact internet pot boiling for marketing advantage. Yes, there are theoretical differences. However the lenses on the Sony mount, both native and third party do not stink.
 

PerKr

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 11, 2018
91
83
Sverige
Leica M has the same constraints and scarcely seems to be an issue for them or their third party Chinese competitors. In addition, despite the vaunted advantages of smaller, lighter , better lens designs as a consequence of a short flange distance we have, instead, an avalanche of superb but bulky lenses. The smaller ones being f2.8 optics which do not strain the supposed limitations of the mount.
Most M-mount lenses aren't very fast and those that are require that you stop down significantly to have anything but center sharpness. In terms of image quality, Leica M as well as the chinese competitors making manual lenses for E-mount, suffer from the constraints imposed on them by the small mount. There's a reason most manufacturers decided on having larger mounts even in the film days and definitely a reason Nikon decided to increase the size when going from F to Z.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
603
396
Leica M has the same constraints and scarcely seems to be an issue for them or their third party Chinese competitors. In addition, despite the vaunted advantages of smaller, lighter , better lens designs as a consequence of a short flange distance we have, instead, an avalanche of superb but bulky lenses. The smaller ones being f2.8 optics which do not strain the supposed limitations of the mount.
The M series is able to have the rear element almost touching the film, or sensor. None of the others can do that.

those new lenses would be very difficult to do otherwise. The 2.8 series are smaller. The quality of many of these new lenses are well above that of their DSLR versions. New designs are very different than the older ones, and are a consequence of the shorter flange distance, and the. Wider opening.

these companies wouldn’t have come out with these new mounts if they didnt offer any significant benefits. It’s not worth arguing about, because the issue is resolved. They Nate an improvement, and that’s it. Argue all you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
665
280
Most M-mount lenses aren't very fast and those that are require that you stop down significantly to have anything but center sharpness. In terms of image quality, Leica M as well as the chinese competitors making manual lenses for E-mount, suffer from the constraints imposed on them by the small mount. There's a reason most manufacturers decided on having larger mounts even in the film days and definitely a reason Nikon decided to increase the size when going from F to Z.
Considering the fast lenses are purchased by people looking to have everything OOF except the absolute center and the near impossibility of edge sharpness with anything remotely resembling a real world subject this is scarcely a point of contention. We can go on endlessly about the edges sharpness of Canon's RF 85 1.2 but in almost no cases other than test charts is the sharpness or lack thereof visible in any real subject. And if so, then the need for a flat field sharp edge to edge f1.2 lens is possibly once in a lifetime?
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
665
280
The M series is able to have the rear element almost touching the film, or sensor. None of the others can do that.

those new lenses would be very difficult to do otherwise. The 2.8 series are smaller. The quality of many of these new lenses are well above that of their DSLR versions. New designs are very different than the older ones, and are a consequence of the shorter flange distance, and the. Wider opening.

these companies wouldn’t have come out with these new mounts if they didnt offer any significant benefits. It’s not worth arguing about, because the issue is resolved. They Nate an improvement, and that’s it. Argue all you want.
The entire point of mirrorless is that the rear element can almost touch the sensor. The Sony RX 1 lens seems to be about 3mm from the sensor plane. Wide angle lenses and normal lenses may be designed to be more compact but nothing has yet happened even at the f2.8 aperture. As for longer lenses near zero change. The RF 70-200 f2.8 achieves weight savings via an extending design that could have been applied to an EF design but wasn't.

Mirrorless is fine. Lens improvement POTENTIAL may be real and we have seen some improvements. But we have yet to see anything that could not have been done in an EF mount in the next iteration. Maybe when they re-design the 11-24 f4 for RF I will be able to see the results of the potential. But until then I still see the flange distance as a benefit for adapters.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
603
396
The entire point of mirrorless is that the rear element can almost touch the sensor. The Sony RX 1 lens seems to be about 3mm from the sensor plane. Wide angle lenses and normal lenses may be designed to be more compact but nothing has yet happened even at the f2.8 aperture. As for longer lenses near zero change. The RF 70-200 f2.8 achieves weight savings via an extending design that could have been applied to an EF design but wasn't.

Mirrorless is fine. Lens improvement POTENTIAL may be real and we have seen some improvements. But we have yet to see anything that could not have been done in an EF mount in the next iteration. Maybe when they re-design the 11-24 f4 for RF I will be able to see the results of the potential. But until then I still see the flange distance as a benefit for adapters.
No, it’s not. If that was the issue with these mounts, then it would hardly matter that they are different. But non e of these mounts allow that. Look inside the mounts, and you will see parts of the body projecting inside them. There is no way the rear element can fit in there. Canon has some room, but not a lot. That’s why the. Mounts are closer, and bigger. Sony simp,y made a mistake with their mount, and are stuck with it.

will it kill them? No, but it will made some designs more difficult to pull off. Larger, heavier and more expensive than an equivelant lens, if these lenses are faster,, and shorter. It just makes them somewhat less competitive going forwards.
 
Last edited:

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
603
396
The entire point of mirrorless is that the rear element can almost touch the sensor. The Sony RX 1 lens seems to be about 3mm from the sensor plane. Wide angle lenses and normal lenses may be designed to be more compact but nothing has yet happened even at the f2.8 aperture. As for longer lenses near zero change. The RF 70-200 f2.8 achieves weight savings via an extending design that could have been applied to an EF design but wasn't.

Mirrorless is fine. Lens improvement POTENTIAL may be real and we have seen some improvements. But we have yet to see anything that could not have been done in an EF mount in the next iteration. Maybe when they re-design the 11-24 f4 for RF I will be able to see the results of the potential. But until then I still see the flange distance as a benefit for adapters.
The point is to get closer, yes, and with a big opening. That’s a major advantage. Within a small opening, the advantage is much less.
 
Apr 6, 2020
8
9
Tamron 28-200 is $729 and probably has equal IQ to that 20-60 while actually being a useable focal range.
Anything that that starts at 28mm is unusable for me. 24 is the narrowest I'll ever start at. The 20mm focal length is great for landscapes. Getting that a low price is great, having very good IQ at that FL at a low price is equally great. I hope the Tamron is optically great, it might be right for some, but not for me.