.

Ady,

Yes, I saw the Click programme [may be wrong, but I thought he mentioned Sony]

… Very impressive !

… not sure I understand your '10 times more sensitive' figure though.

MichaelG.

…spectrum of available light, sensitivity and spectral range of the observers optical receptors, spectral reflectance/absorption of the object..

I have a vague recollection of a desert flower that reflects ultraviolet from moonlight such that a sensitive moth can see it nearly a mile away..

..is the grass green you see the same as the grass green I see?

Sony did something along that the same lines Michael. I became rather excited till I looked into it a bit more.

150 million and 7.5 stops ! I thought we see in stops as near as dam it. Interesting though many people who are into cameras are well aware that ever increasing pixel counts relate to more noise and less dynamic range and much higher max iso as the buckets fill up more quickly and in real terms it's often a bad trade off – hence until recently most full frame cameras usually having a real greater dynamic range and lower noise figures and higher usable iso's.

I do a lot of photography at times and have switched to m 4/3. With decent pp software it's surprising what can be done with it. I also bought a Nikon V2, step too far but handy in good conditions and oh so easy to carry a number of lenses about as is m 4/3 really but Oly's best lenses are touch expensive and often a bit heavy too.

John

–

.

John,

Bewildered by your numbers

The claim is 'more than 150 times more sensitive' [or some such]

So: 2 raised to the power 7.5 = approx 181

MichaelG.

.

P.S. … I have micro 4/3 too … excellent system !!

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 03/11/2015 17:40:02

I lied… i just checked some shots taken with the camera pointed up a bit more, if you look at the two stars near to right, there is a small light blur just in the frame above and between them. that's the Andromeda Galaxy…

Neil

.

True, Vic … The 'fib' is in the headline's chosen definition of 'the dark'

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 03/11/2015 21:54:30

Every photo of visible light has a 'colour', there are no 'monochrome' photons.

By 'dark' they mean what we as humans perceive as the dark, in the photo above the sky was black except the clouds faintly illuminated by light pollution and the stars. The bush and the grey slabs were just one shapeless black lump to my eyes.aside from when I had to pay a closer visit to the bush

Very little LP coming from behind me so the bush in that photo was effectively lit by starlight alone.

30 seconds at ISO1600, the new camera could have taken the same photo in 1/80 of a second.

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 04/11/2015 10:24:48

Bear in mind my image was 'push' processed in Raw Therapee – the new camera's image would need the same amount of 'push' and could show even more noise.

Neil

.

Vic,

Did you not look at any of the alternative definitions that I linked?

MichaelG.

What is red?

What is red?

.

According to

Goethe, or NASA

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 04/11/2015 21:05:06