Ya, I am totally in accord. I think that we need to give him a chance now to do all the positive things he can do. We can fight against policies he proposes if they are revoking individuals rights and doing harm, but let's not just fight him on every front out of a vendetta towards him.
And let's be honest, Clinton was not a wise choice for the democratic nominee.
Or maybe we'll see a lens accommodating sensor. :) That can bend when needed, to whatever curve needed, and flatten out to work with our old lenses. This would be ideal, probably won't happen.
Good point. haha.
Ya, that's what I'm wondering. Will need to be almost as large to collect the same amount of light?
Although, maybe they could make large metalenses for those who want the depth of field control with the advantage of being lighter. Which I would assume could be possible.
Wouldn't the ability to get a shallow depth of field be very difficult though? Because of the fact that depth of field is directly linked to the size of the front element and the aperture size. The angles from items in the scene to the lens (affecting focal spread) cannot diverge much if the lens is so small. They would be closer to being parallels. Meaning more items would be in focus, causing a wider depth of field. Though maybe some of the internal elements could utilize this tech, I don't believe it will revolutionize the professional film world. I could be missing something here though.