armen

armen

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jun 27, 2003

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
In reply to:

Fredrik strm: Yes it is a stretch that a 25% sensorsize can be as good. Sensors can't become much better than they are. They already read 99% of all incoming photons. There is no way to make up data unleass you gather more photons.

/F

hmm... sensors can't become much better than they are?
I believe it's not about how much light is gathered but rather the signal to noise ratio.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 20:31 UTC

This new mount and form factor is going to give us some sweet cameras in the years to come.

Though these first two are clearly disappointing, for me the disappointment is the body and interface design not the new mount and form factor.

There are many valid reasons for this mount and sensor size. I'm guessing that in 5 years time this will give us all the IQ we want, including low light performance and variable depth of field.

With advancements in sensor tech there won't be much reason to carry around FF or even APS-C sized sensors in a few years time.

Just look at the 4/3 as an example, Panasonic's best has IQ on par with APS-C, though it's much smaller.

Now this new format from Nikon iis only half the size of 4/3rds. Is it such a stretch to think it can't be as good?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 20:07 UTC as 175th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

armen: Nikon made a smart move here, much like Olympus and Panasonic did when they introduced 4/3rds years ago.
In this digital age, small and portable always wins over big and unwieldy.

This debate reminds me of how 35mm film dominated even though it was inferior in image quality to medium or large format film.
There was simply no arguing the benefit of a portable camera.

The difference today however, is that film resolution remained static for decades.
This is not so with digital sensors, now the limiting factor has become lens resolution.
And if I understand correctly small lenses can be made more precisely and at lower cost than large lenses.

So when these small sensors improve their low light and video capabilities there will be no advantage to larger sensor formats.
Image quality will simply become a mute point for 98 percent of the population.
When that happens what will happen to the DSLR production?

Manufactures all better be on board with a reasonably small form factor.

Isn't depth of field a function of the aperture relative to the image circle? That being said small format can also have shallow depth of field when ultra fast lenses are used. By ultra fast, I mean sub F1.0

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 07:52 UTC
In reply to:

armen: Nikon made a smart move here, much like Olympus and Panasonic did when they introduced 4/3rds years ago.
In this digital age, small and portable always wins over big and unwieldy.

This debate reminds me of how 35mm film dominated even though it was inferior in image quality to medium or large format film.
There was simply no arguing the benefit of a portable camera.

The difference today however, is that film resolution remained static for decades.
This is not so with digital sensors, now the limiting factor has become lens resolution.
And if I understand correctly small lenses can be made more precisely and at lower cost than large lenses.

So when these small sensors improve their low light and video capabilities there will be no advantage to larger sensor formats.
Image quality will simply become a mute point for 98 percent of the population.
When that happens what will happen to the DSLR production?

Manufactures all better be on board with a reasonably small form factor.

I'll admit that I drool over the image quality of the medium format Pentax 645D but all the good it does me if I can't afford to buy it or even if I could would I really want to carry it around?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 07:47 UTC

Nikon made a smart move here, much like Olympus and Panasonic did when they introduced 4/3rds years ago.
In this digital age, small and portable always wins over big and unwieldy.

This debate reminds me of how 35mm film dominated even though it was inferior in image quality to medium or large format film.
There was simply no arguing the benefit of a portable camera.

The difference today however, is that film resolution remained static for decades, but this is not so with digital sensors. Now the limiting factor has become lens resolution.

If I understand correctly small lenses can be made more precisely and at lower cost than large lenses. So when these small sensors improve their low light and video capabilities there will be no advantage to larger sensor formats. Image quality will simply become a mute point for 98 percent of the population.

When that happens what will happen to the DSLR production?
Manufactures all better be on board with a reasonably small form factor.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 07:41 UTC as 42nd comment | 3 replies

Nikon made a smart move here, much like Olympus and Panasonic did when they introduced 4/3rds years ago.
In this digital age, small and portable always wins over big and unwieldy.

This debate reminds me of how 35mm film dominated even though it was inferior in image quality to medium or large format film.
There was simply no arguing the benefit of a portable camera.

The difference today however, is that film resolution remained static for decades.
This is not so with digital sensors, now the limiting factor has become lens resolution.
And if I understand correctly small lenses can be made more precisely and at lower cost than large lenses.

So when these small sensors improve their low light and video capabilities there will be no advantage to larger sensor formats.
Image quality will simply become a mute point for 98 percent of the population.
When that happens what will happen to the DSLR production?

Manufactures all better be on board with a reasonably small form factor.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 07:30 UTC as 365th comment | 7 replies
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6