Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

Started Mar 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,431
Like?
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43
In reply to rrr_hhh, Mar 22, 2013

rrr_hhh wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

rrr_hhh wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

rpm40 wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

rpm40 wrote:

As time marches on and sensor tech advances, it is the SMALLER format that will become more accepted as being good enough by a wider range of users, not the larger. At one point, 35mm WAS the smaller format. Now, we have progressed. 35 mm is the older, larger format. So where do we stand?

And what are your beliefs are based upon?

Are you familiar with quantum properties of light? The noise of the camera is in a large degree determined by light intensity and the area of the surface it is collected from. The modern sensors QE is about 50%, there isn't much improvement left in this regard. It's doesn't take a genius to understand that even ideal m4/3 sensor will not achieve SNR of the modern non-ideal FF sensors. When technology is perfected, the 4x difference in area will be the only determining factor and unbridgeable gap between these two formats.

I agree that a 35mm sensor can produce better IQ than an m4/3 size sensor. My point is that eventually, it just won't matter anymore. As technology improves, it benefits both sizes, so yes, 35mm IQ is, and will remain, superior to m4/3. But when small sensors are good enough for most people, most people will buy them.

In the same way that 35mm is superior to m4/3, medium format is superior to 35mm. Why isn't medium format the future?

Answer a simple question. If two cameras have the same size and weigh, ergonomics, cost, but one can have potentially better image quality better technical parameters, larger selection of lenses, etc., which one would you choose?

Your question is flawed because a bigger sensor will always need bigger lenses.

This is interesting. Despite of so much discussion, pictures, references posted people still insist on this myth. So let me ask, why do you believe this?

Hint: think about this:

I'm fully aware of this I've had an Olympus XA for years, which is not bigger than the Minox. But things change when you speak of interchangeable lenses cameras allowing the use of fast lenses and more extreme focal ranges. I have used two RF brands (Leica Ms and Contax Gs). The limits come from the sensors and the need to have incident lights not striking at a too steep angle. Or else, tell me why it has taken so much time to Leica to produce a digital back for their lenses (hint micro lenses with a different orientation at the edge) ? Why I could never get a digital Contax G ? and the brand went down ?

Why don't you answer to the two main issues : the angle of incidence of the light hitting the sensor and the need to collect enough light to lower noise. Your compact film SLR pucture diesn't proove anything.

As a side note, I don't care for compacts with fixed lenses. I have zero interest for the new coming Sony RX1.

-- hide signature --

rrr_hhh

The problems you mentioned with wide & fast lens vignetting are not unique to FF, they are exactly the same for any other format provided you convert the FL and f-stops to the same FOV. It's meaningless comparing 28mm f/1.4 on FF camera to 28mm f/1.4 on m4/3. But if you compare it to an equivalent 14mm f/0.7 you'll get the same problems. And there are solutions with microlenses, and as I mentioned before variable pixel size. Since there were no other arguments I conclude that myth is now behind us.

But here goes even better argument. I posit that FF system is never worse than m4/3 from a technical and weigh/size perspective, because when it works in a crop mode it has exactly the same characteristics as a cropped camera system. And when it works in FF mode it can easily surpass m4/3 and other cropped systems. You'll have a choice. For example, you can choose 25mm f/1.4 lens to work in crop mode, or 50mm f/2.8 lens to work in FF mode. Both will produce the same images. But 50mm f/2.8 will likely to be cheaper and better optically, and maybe smaller/lighter too. When you move to longer focal lengths, you have even more interesting choices. You may choose 75mm f/1.8 in crop mode or 150mm f/3.5 in FF mode. The latter will likely to be a lot cheaper and better optically, but also likely to be longer. Again, you will have more choices, not less.

There is no downside going FF, other than costs of production, which falls rapidly. As my prof. used to say, eventually every chip costs $1. Eventually the cost due to sensor size will become insignificant part of the camera system and keeping separate R&D and manufacturing facilities will be a larger overhead.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow