Lenshacker Posted March 1, 2015 Share #81 Posted March 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks. Two points of interest, first overview.The sensor offers 5120 x 3840 pixels. A 4:3 relation, not 3:2. It features an HDR mode. There are two steps of comprising, giving three slopes of sensitivity. Jan That works out to 32.768mm by 24.576mm, the pixel size is 6.4um. The sensor is made to the Japanese 32x24 standard of the Nikon I and original Minolta cameras! The CMOSIS page shows this sensor intended for machine vision, scientific work, etc. The manufacturer does not state that Photography is an intended application for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Hi Lenshacker, Take a look here Konost {merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wlaidlaw Posted March 1, 2015 Share #82 Posted March 1, 2015 Thanks. Two points of interest, first overview.The sensor offers 5120 x 3840 pixels. A 4:3 relation, not 3:2. It features an HDR mode. There are two steps of comprising, giving three slopes of sensitivity. Jan .....and some of us remember how well putting a machine vision sensor works in a digital camera - The Contax ND, using a Philips designed Dalsa industrial FF sensor. I was a beta tester for this camera and recall writing a 5 page report saying in the summary, that it seemed to me to be about a year's work away from a public release and in reality, it needed a totally different sensor. It came out the next month! Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 3, 2015 Share #83 Posted March 3, 2015 As I mentioned before, if they are selling it based on it having an optical viewfinder, then by placing the viewfinder so low and close to the lens, they could be compromising the function with several lenses pretty badly. I picture some lenses blocking the entire right edge of the view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 3, 2015 Share #84 Posted March 3, 2015 As I mentioned before, if they are selling it based on it having an optical viewfinder, then by placing the viewfinder so low and close to the lens, they could be compromising the function with several lenses pretty badly. I picture some lenses blocking the entire right edge of the view. Exactly... but maybe they have evaluated that owners of Noctiluxes and similar aren't a typical target... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 3, 2015 Share #85 Posted March 3, 2015 Exactly... but maybe they have evaluated that owners of Noctiluxes and similar aren't a typical target... Below are two images from Leica Rumors with a 35mm Summilux and hood. (Infinity and closest focus.) You can look at the link below to see more. https://www.google.com/search?q=leica+viewfinder+obstruction&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=kfb1VKCKLMypgwTFyILwAQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=2379&bih=1485&dpr=0.67 Now just try to picture what the view will be like with a viewfinder that is considerably lower and closer to the lens. The selling point of the Konost is that it is a coupled M mount camera using a modern optical viewfinder with an updated focusing method. Presumably they are after a viewfinder that is as good or better than the one in a Leica or how are they advancing the art? Since this is the reason for its existence, why would they not see that this design seriously compromises their goal? I know this is a prototype. Thus I assume they could consider this issue more and possibly alter the design. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/241491-konost-merged/?do=findComment&comment=2773942'>More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 3, 2015 Share #86 Posted March 3, 2015 This is a pretty quick and rough illustration of the difference. The Konost is shot from a little higher. I scaled the Biogon to be a little smaller than the Lux but can't be exact. It seems to me that they have two choices... either a smallish camera that has a compromised viewfinder or a larger camera that could potentially have a more advanced viewfinder. (Optical zoom for instance.) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/241491-konost-merged/?do=findComment&comment=2773959'>More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 3, 2015 Share #87 Posted March 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would regard the shown design as a "Strawman" design. When more details regarding the exact design of the sensor, to include the IR absorbing glass and microlens array that must be used, I'm sure they make revisions to the placement of the viewfinder. It will not be the first design that positioned at least one of the windows poorly. The Canon P RF window is easily blocked by a Canon 100/2 and Nikkor 105/2.5. and I just visited their site and Norton Antivirus kicked in with processing/ removing "trojan.gen.2". Not sure if this was just a coincidence or if the site has a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 3, 2015 Share #88 Posted March 3, 2015 This is a pretty quick and rough illustration of the difference. The Konost is shot from a little higher. I scaled the Biogon to be a little smaller than the Lux but can't be exact. It seems to me that they have two choices... either a smallish camera that has a compromised viewfinder or a larger camera that could potentially have a more advanced viewfinder. (Optical zoom for instance.) Fine comparision... but ONE is a REAL camera that WORKS (*) the other a mockup... (*) Very fine, according to many... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 3, 2015 Share #89 Posted March 3, 2015 Just a mockup for raising funds. As convincing as an electoral platform whose candidate is not yet born . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 3, 2015 Share #90 Posted March 3, 2015 Maybe they will figure out that they have to ditch the digital sensor and rear LCD to keep the body this thin, and make it a film camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 7, 2015 Share #91 Posted March 7, 2015 Let's address some possible drawbacks of the Konost camera: 1) The viewfinder is described as an OVF plus an electronic overlay that simulates the RF patch (captured by a secondary sensor). Do I get also a high resolution EVF with Live View ? 2) What is the real advantage of a non-mechanical RF, besides no calibration issues [arguable] ? 3) The simulated RF patch seems to be just a 2D overlay at a preset virtual distance in the OVF. If that is really the case, the subject will be seen through the OVF as a 3D object at the actual distance, but the simulated RF patch virtual distance will usually mismatch preventing my eye to focus on both at the same time. Am I missing something ? 4) How do they match the brightness of the scene and the brightness of the virtual RF patch ? What happens if I am shooting in very low light with high contrast details in the RF spot ? 5) Less buttons and dials than a Leica camera. I hope this is only true for prototypes. 6) Only 20MP and 1/4000s max shutter speed in 2016 (scheduled release date). If it is less than an M, it must cost far less, or compensate with other great features for most people to buy it. That said, these guys have no fear to innovate and must be praised. I will buy one, and wish them all the best ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted May 2, 2015 Share #92 Posted May 2, 2015 Great idea though, so long as it isn't any more expensive than a Leica. Steve +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted May 2, 2015 Share #93 Posted May 2, 2015 I don't care when it's available or what it looks like or if it works at all just as long as they release a cool leather case and strap for it at the same time. Pete. Pete I already contacted Arte di Mano and asked them to make me the red one again...............with matching strap Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted May 2, 2015 Share #94 Posted May 2, 2015 They cannot even use lens coding to automatically apply lens-specific corrections. Same goes for most of the Leica lenses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted May 2, 2015 Share #95 Posted May 2, 2015 I can't take this camera seriously given the lack of discussion regarding the sensor selected for use with an M-Mount. I think the engineering students have underestimated the task. There seems to be plenty of codswallop going on here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted May 12, 2015 Share #96 Posted May 12, 2015 this camera will never work... How will the 'electronic RF patch simulator' work from lens to lens? Will it zoom? Digitally? How will it adjust to parralax? How will it work in poor light? It seems for it to work- it would have to be very complex and would require a great deal of work. Can such a small unknown company achieve this? they should have simply tried to make a classic optical RF M mount alternative. Plus the camera is very ugly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted April 4, 2016 Share #97 Posted April 4, 2016 It is an interesting concept, but I don't see it as the iceberg that will sink the M camera Titanic. The specs say it will have an M lens mount. Would that not require a licensing agreement with Leica and a substantial forking over of Deutsche marks to the gents who are holed up in the fortress at Wetzlar? Also - if this camera were to be viewed as a serious threat to the digital M, could not the Leica board of directors simply decline a licensing agreement request from Konost? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted June 17, 2016 Share #98 Posted June 17, 2016 Um- no- i think that any Patent over the M mount has long since expired. Apparently there is some existing IP protection of the 6 bit system. Voigtlander have been making M mount film cameras for years- I doubt they asked or got approval from Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobitybob Posted June 17, 2016 Share #99 Posted June 17, 2016 Don't know if anyone else has posted on this but over on Leica Rumors there's a mention http://leicarumors.com of a soon to be anounced M mount camera with a unique shape and CCD sensor. No manufactures name is mentioned, perhaps it's a new Leica or perhaps it's the above Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 17, 2016 Share #100 Posted June 17, 2016 Maybe a Zorki revival? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.