Would you buy a Nikon version of Sony RX1 with smaller/sharper

>>3118631
I have a feeling that Sony will be the first to make a version of Sony RX1 with smaller/sharper lens and better sensor processing

>>3118632
I have a feeling this Nikon patent is more vaporwave than the DL line.

>>3118631
IT'S-A RISKY-A GAMBURU!

>>3118631
they should just make an aps-c cam mirrorless with a built in speedbooster and market it as full frame

>>3118631
Will the sensor bend more when there's a wider lens atached?

>>3118631
nikon doesn't make sensors. they buy them from Sony...

>>3118643
lol retard.
that's just a faster apsc lens.

>>3118631
why make a sensor curve when you can put a curved lens on the sensor?

>>3118715
Supposedly lenses would require less elements.

>>3118722
i'm saying it would be a simple solution to get the job done.
bending a piece of silicon is like magical unicorn.

>>3118631
It is only an optical Patent so SOP to secure first rights if a market develops. It does not mean they will put out a camera with a curved sensor.

Can the lens also function properly with a flat sensor?

Because this sounds like one of those tweaks like some plastic cameras have, where the single-element meniscus thing produces a curved focal plane -- so they compensated by having a curved bit of plastic in there to similarly curve the film. I.e. a tweak for curvature in lenses that they can't be arsed to try and fix optically anymore (within reasonable economics anyway).

>>3118724
You just need to make the waffers curved.

>>3118715
The RX1 has such a curved element almost touching the sensor.

But it requires so much precision to hold it in place, it would never work on an interchangeable lens camera.

>>3118631
>still concedes room for mirrorbox
This is shortsighted of Nikon.

It's like they haven't recognised that mirrorless AF has caught up to speed of DSLRs.

>>3119092
this would be a great excuse to start an entirely new line of mirrorless-specific lenses. and with a curved sensor, the lenses would also be smaller, not just the body.

>>3119098
Yes, it would be like swatting two flies at once.

Unfortunately it looks like Nikon has another plan. These 80 year old CEOs are so goddamn stubborn.

File: D3S_8152-left-1200.jpg (360KB, 1200x987px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1200x987px

>>3119092
Should've looked to their own classic Nikon S rangefinder for design...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1200
Image Height	987
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:20 13:25:29
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	987

>>3118654
>Will the sensor bend more when there's a wider lens atached?

It's the distance to the rear element that matters, not the focal length.

>>3119092
>>3119132

>"the patent does not provide sufficient technical information to determine if this is a mirrorless or a DSLR lens," especially since Nikon has patented curved sensors in the past—but the 35mm F2.0 lens described is definitely made to work with a full-frame curved sensor.

OP's image is just an illustration and most likely not made by Nikon themselves

>>3119140
Nikonrumor admin can be a bit of a moron sometimes.

Anyway he made a post featured, which explains why he is wrong.
Patents always feature the length of the sensor plane as seen from above. From there, you can estimate whether it's SLR or mirrorless.

erryone hopping on the 35mm eqv compact train.

How long until Leica Z?

>>3119092
>It's like they haven't recognised that mirrorless AF has caught up to speed of DSLRs.

Why would they? It hasn't.

>>3119289
https://youtu.be/KX1sfy__7A4?t=1335

The D5 lost the AF battle during the night. By a very large margin.

>>3119292

5 F P S
F
P
S

Regardless of the specifics of how/if they pull it off, to answer the OP question, I would buy a full frame 35mm f/2 fixed lens camera if it was made by Nikon. I've tried using a Sony RX1Rii and it just isn't as great as it could have been. I wish they had kept it 24MP like the first but just added the EVF/upgraded AF. Having the a7rii sensor is completely unnecessary for both price and performance of that small a camera.

>>3119296
The speed the D5 shot at was more like 0.1 DPS.

Its AF module was the bottle neck in that situation.

>>3119300

No, I mean the A9 can only shoot 5 fps with most telephoto lenses.

You don't even know about the camera you don't own, yet defend?

>>3119305
All cameras are slow if you use focus priority mode with large and heavy focusing elements..

>>3119296
>>3119305
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgFSjAINsOw
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3419304944/metabones-firmware-adds-af-support-for-sony-a9-burst-modes
More like 10-15FPS. You don't know shit dude.

>>3119328

link says 10 fps my dude

i think flagship dslr's were at 10 fps like what, 10 years ago? try again.

>>3119332
>5FPS suck it sony
>n-no 10FPS. D-d-slrs had it f-for years
>nn-o-o 15FPS
keep backpedaling. you can count the frames yourself and compare to actual 15fps if you're still not satisfied.
https://youtu.be/KmlAOwT4TFA
https://youtu.be/y6iHmGp4nMo?t=33

>>3119332
And I know you're going to ignore the video if I don't spoonfeed the exact time so here
https://youtu.be/KmlAOwT4TFA?t=88
compare that to the second video at the time here
>>3119336

>>3119336
>>3119337

>electronic shutter

kek'd and chek'd. try again sonybrony.

>>3119344
And he backpedals YET AGAIN! This is hilarious.

>>3119345
>>3119344
Actually this is more moving goalposts, but still stupid nonetheless.

>>3119347
>>3119345

i'm sorry the camera you want can't keep up with a dslr. maybe some day, kiddos.

>>3119348
>he keeps going
embarrassing

>>3119349

For you. Enjoy your jelly shutter slow-as-fuck-no-battery-life form factor. Nice that it matches your playstation.

File: 1383459412733.png (162KB, 284x281px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 284x281px

>>3119289
>gets so triggered, he ends up derailing the whole thread
It's going to be so fun to poke you guys in the future.

We've only just begun.

>>3119352
(You)

>>3119354

It's not like I don't already own a mirrorless camera (I own 2), I just don't delude myself about their performance.

>>3119362
Do you also call this test>>3119292 a delusion?

>>3119362
>It's not like I don't already own a mirrorless camera
Either Fuji or M4/3. Or maybe even both. Topkek.

>>3119367

m4/3 is faster than sony tho

>>3118631
Not at first. I'll wait the some rich kiddo's reviews and samples.

Then maybe if I get some money, I'll buy, but not gonna sell my bodys or even the lenses

>>3119375
>faster
I assume you mean the EM-1 MK2 since everything else m4/3 is dogshit slow and lacks PDAF. Not even mentioning that tiny sensor, don't forget that for bursts only Sony has blackout free shooting. Everything else drops to shooting speed framerate. Good luck tracking at 18FPS (which for AF-C is still slower than Sony).

>>3119384

you don't even shoot the camera that you're arguing for, my man. why would you presume to have any authority on other brands?

>>3119092
>It's like they haven't recognised that mirrorless AF has caught up to speed of DSLRs.

I mean, the a9 comes close, and even beats many DSLR bodies.

But the fastesr DSLR still beats the fastest MICL.

The average does too.

For everyday use, though, everyone but Fuji (and even some of their bodies like the X-T2) is fast enough.

>>3119443
I'm not sure I can trust you Anon.

Max Yuryev 's test showed the A9 beat the D5 in night time focusing.
Jared Polin's test showed the A9 is perfectly capable of tracking movement in the field, if perfectly nailed focus for 20FPS speed as the ball was rolling towards him, and approaching the corner of the frame, yet was still tracked.

>>3119404
Because you would be WRONG otherwise? Don't spread fake news here.

>>3119478

Those tests both fail basic rigor, but who needs that when the first test gives you the results you want?

>>3118631
I would sell my RX1 to get one, obviously. I would get 2 for the money so when it gets the usual "lens error" I can just take out the second one and continue shooting.