D-SLR CCD Size

[Les Moss]

Quoting Phil on the new Sony CCD. "This sensor is ideally sized and specified to be used in a 35 mm SLR bodied D-SLR (it would produce a 1.5x focal length multiplier)."

Why does everyone think of D-SLR in terms of 35MM lens capability? To me the ideal D-SLR would be an interchageable lens system camera based on the existing common 1/1.8" CCD size. It is clear that this size CCD today has pleanty of resolution for most uses. It will only get better in the future. Lenses for this size of CCD would be much smaller, lighter and cheaper than 35mm lenses.

When will a major manufacturer provide us with this camera system and a matching set of lenses based on their existing fixed lens digicam electronics and CCDs?

 

[synp]

Quoting Phil on the new Sony CCD. "This sensor is ideally sized and
specified to be used in a 35 mm SLR bodied D-SLR (it would produce
a 1.5x focal length multiplier)."

I don't get this one either. It seems to me that an APS sensor is ideally sized to be used a an APS body with no focal length multiplier.

Why does everyone think of D-SLR in terms of 35MM lens capability?

Because 35mm cameras take darn good pictures.

To me the ideal D-SLR would be an interchageable lens system camera
based on the existing common 1/1.8" CCD size. It is clear that this
size CCD today has pleanty of resolution for most uses. It will
only get better in the future. Lenses for this size of CCD would be
much smaller, lighter and cheaper than 35mm lenses.

Yeah, but a 1/1.8" CCD is kind of small, so relatively little light falls on it. If you try to divide it into too many pixels, you get very small pixels (I think they're called photocytes) that receive very little light, so you have to use a lot of amplification, which also amplifies noise, etc.

When will a major manufacturer provide us with this camera system
and a matching set of lenses based on their existing fixed lens
digicam electronics and CCDs?

Rumors circulate that Olympus has a joint venture with Kodak to develop an SLR with a smaller-than-APS sensor with matching lenses. I believe it's only a matter of time before other manufacturers like Nikon, Canon, Minolta and even Sigma follow suit with cameras that are built as digital rather than retrofitted 35mm bodies. Note that Minolta had an APS SLR (the Vectis it was called) so they could conceivably use this new Sony CCD in a retrofitted Vectis body and have matching lenses ready.

Yoav

 

[Chris Beney]

Rumors circulate that Olympus has a joint venture with Kodak to
develop an SLR with a smaller-than-APS sensor with matching lenses.
I believe it's only a matter of time before other manufacturers
like Nikon, Canon, Minolta and even Sigma follow suit with cameras
that are built as digital rather than retrofitted 35mm bodies.
Note that Minolta had an APS SLR (the Vectis it was called) so they
could conceivably use this new Sony CCD in a retrofitted Vectis
body and have matching lenses ready.

Yes, a nice camera (I still have mine, barely used since G1, but I miss the showerproofness of it, why aren't all cameras showerproof?) and Minolta did a digital camera using those lenses, but it was absurdly expensive for what it was.

The Minolta lenses were very good but poor aperture eg f4 to f5.6. They never made a f1.9 or 1.7, which is commonplace on 35mm although only with fixed focal length (usually 50mm).

The equation for trade off for pixel area and lens aperture is complex. The smaller the image (with its loss of sensitivity) the easier it is to get wide aperture (with its gain in light and so enhanced sensitivity).

What we want is more sensitive sensors without increased noise, ie higher 'film speed', something analogue film people have taken nearly 200 years to get up to some 400ASA from goodness knows how small an ASA in the early nineteenth century.

My bet is that since zoom is expected by most users to be their standard lens, then eventually a very small format will arise. With wide aperture zoom lenses. And interchangable too.

Chris Beney

 

[Karl Guttag]

The overall answer is that there appear to be camera makers that will be offering smaller lens systems. The issue will be how many people will buy these systems versus say a camera with a fixed lens with a large zoom range.

1. The 1.5X "Multiplier" is actually a cropping factor for DSLRs. An image is generated by the lens on the film/sensor plane just like a film camera, the smaller sensor just takes the center portion of the image. Any magnification/multiplication is done by the computer when you view/print it. It really is a cropping/reduction of the Field of View (FoV).

2. 35mm is a very common format and good, bad, or indifferent, people have become used to the (FoV) they get with a 35mm lens. A longer/higher focal length also results in a FoV reduction. For the more casual user they get used to thinking of this as the magnification/zoom amount. They talk in terms of 35mm "equivalent" because this is how the camera will frame the picture.

It should be noted that it is ONLY "equivalent" in terms of FoV. Focal lenght is a LENs property and has other optical effects other than FoV or what is thought of as magnification.

3. Definitely, for point and shoot picture takeing, smaller has its advantage. But there are limits to the quality of image you can get. With a small imager, small imperfections in the lens design result in problems. For example the small cameras of famous for having chroma aberation problems.

4. Another issue is Depth of Field. For taking snapshots, you may want a large Depth of Field so you don't have to worry about focus. Pro's and advance amateurs like to control the DoF to make the subject sharp and the background soft. Depth of Field goes up roughly by the amount that the imager is made smaller (for the same framing taken from the same distance). With a small little sensor, it is a matter of optical Physics that the DoF will be large.

5. Light collection. Bigger pixels are better at collecting light with lower noise. Thus bigger sensors collect more light in lower light.

Karl

Quoting Phil on the new Sony CCD. "This sensor is ideally sized and
specified to be used in a 35 mm SLR bodied D-SLR (it would produce
a 1.5x focal length multiplier)."

Why does everyone think of D-SLR in terms of 35MM lens capability?
To me the ideal D-SLR would be an interchageable lens system camera
based on the existing common 1/1.8" CCD size. It is clear that this
size CCD today has pleanty of resolution for most uses. It will
only get better in the future. Lenses for this size of CCD would be
much smaller, lighter and cheaper than 35mm lenses.

When will a major manufacturer provide us with this camera system
and a matching set of lenses based on their existing fixed lens
digicam electronics and CCDs?

--Karl

 

[GURL]

Rumors circulate that Olympus has a joint venture with Kodak to
develop an SLR with a smaller-than-APS sensor with matching lenses.

In the sixties Olympus made an appealing half-frame slr (then color film was expensive).

Pen F camera: 35 mm film, 24 x 18 mm frame, camera hold verticaly to shoot in landscape format, many interchangeable lenses, no protuding prism but a Porro prism, rotary titanium focal plane shutter, about 50 patents. The originality of the Pen-F design was admired by the Leitz engineers !
Hope they retained some knowledge from that !

http://www.cameraquest.com/olypenf.htm http://www.geocities.com/maitani_fan/maitani_pen_2.html , etc.

 

[Keith25106]

Quoting Phil on the new Sony CCD. "This sensor is ideally sized and
specified to be used in a 35 mm SLR bodied D-SLR (it would produce
a 1.5x focal length multiplier)."

I don't get this one either. It seems to me that an APS sensor is
ideally sized to be used a an APS body with no focal length
multiplier.

Why does everyone think of D-SLR in terms of 35MM lens capability?

Because 35mm cameras take darn good pictures.

To me the ideal D-SLR would be an interchageable lens system camera
based on the existing common 1/1.8" CCD size. It is clear that this
size CCD today has pleanty of resolution for most uses. It will
only get better in the future. Lenses for this size of CCD would be
much smaller, lighter and cheaper than 35mm lenses.

Yeah, but a 1/1.8" CCD is kind of small, so relatively little light
falls on it. If you try to divide it into too many pixels, you get
very small pixels (I think they're called photocytes) that receive
very little light, so you have to use a lot of amplification, which
also amplifies noise, etc.

When will a major manufacturer provide us with this camera system
and a matching set of lenses based on their existing fixed lens
digicam electronics and CCDs?

Rumors circulate that Olympus has a joint venture with Kodak to
develop an SLR with a smaller-than-APS sensor with matching lenses.

rumour has it it will be shown at PMA 2002 too !

It's only slightly smaller than APS since it has a x1.89. You won't get a very small form factor with that.

I believe it's only a matter of time before other manufacturers
like Nikon, Canon, Minolta and even Sigma follow suit with cameras
that are built as digital rather than retrofitted 35mm bodies.
Note that Minolta had an APS SLR (the Vectis it was called) so they
could conceivably use this new Sony CCD in a retrofitted Vectis
body and have matching lenses ready.

Yoav

 

[Chris Beney]

4. Another issue is Depth of Field. For taking snapshots, you may
want a large Depth of Field so you don't have to worry about focus.
Pro's and advance amateurs like to control the DoF to make the
subject sharp and the background soft. Depth of Field goes up
roughly by the amount that the imager is made smaller (for the same
framing taken from the same distance). With a small little sensor,
it is a matter of optical Physics that the DoF will be large.

Yes. That is a loss but modern computer manipultion can largely replace selectve focus. You can choose which bit to focus on after taking the picture, a big advantage. And full depth of field allows quicker shooting.

5. Light collection. Bigger pixels are better at collecting light
with lower noise. Thus bigger sensors collect more light in lower
light.

Yes, but smaller focal lengths allow bigger apertures which compensates for the loss of light, does anyone know if that cancels out or if there is gain or loss?

Chris Beney

 

[synp]

4. Another issue is Depth of Field. For taking snapshots, you may
want a large Depth of Field so you don't have to worry about focus.
Pro's and advance amateurs like to control the DoF to make the
subject sharp and the background soft. Depth of Field goes up
roughly by the amount that the imager is made smaller (for the same
framing taken from the same distance). With a small little sensor,
it is a matter of optical Physics that the DoF will be large.

Yes. That is a loss but modern computer manipultion can largely
replace selectve focus. You can choose which bit to focus on after
taking the picture, a big advantage. And full depth of field allows
quicker shooting.

Using modern computer manipulation I find it better to either reduce the saturation or just darken the things I want to de-emphasize rather than blurring them. I don't mean de-saturate all the way to black-and-white, just enough to make the colorful part stand out. It's surprising how natural the result looks.

 

[Chris Brown]

Quoting Phil on the new Sony CCD. "This sensor is ideally sized and
specified to be used in a 35 mm SLR bodied D-SLR (it would produce
a 1.5x focal length multiplier)."

Why does everyone think of D-SLR in terms of 35MM lens capability?

It's called "lock in". If you are a 35mm SLR owner who has spent lots of money on lenses, and wants to make the jump to digital, are you going to be more incliuned to buy a camera which can use your existing lens collection, or one where you have to start from scratch again?

The likes of Canon and Nikon are not fools. Their DSLRs use their 35mm lens ranges because these are extensive ranges of very good lenses. When you buy a DSLR you are buying into a complete system, and the lenses are likely to be an important part of your purchasing decision.

I was happy to go with the D30 because the EF range of lenses is extensive and well regarded. Had the lens mount been new and incomaptible, and the range of lenses limited, I would have probably had second thoughts.

When will a major manufacturer provide us with this camera system
and a matching set of lenses based on their existing fixed lens
digicam electronics and CCDs?

I wouldn't hold your breath - most of them probably regard such an action as commercial suicide.

 

[Chris Beney]

Using modern computer manipulation I find it better to either
reduce the saturation or just darken the things I want to
de-emphasize rather than blurring them. I don't mean de-saturate
all the way to black-and-white, just enough to make the colorful
part stand out. It's surprising how natural the result looks.

Thanks for that, sounds a good way
Chris

 

[Heinz]

Quoting Phil on the new Sony CCD. "This sensor is ideally sized and
specified to be used in a 35 mm SLR bodied D-SLR (it would produce
a 1.5x focal length multiplier)."

Why does everyone think of D-SLR in terms of 35MM lens capability?

It's called "lock in". If you are a 35mm SLR owner who has spent
lots of money on lenses, and wants to make the jump to digital, are
you going to be more incliuned to buy a camera which can use your
existing lens collection, or one where you have to start from
scratch again?

The likes of Canon and Nikon are not fools. Their DSLRs use their
35mm lens ranges because these are extensive ranges of very good
lenses. When you buy a DSLR you are buying into a complete system,
and the lenses are likely to be an important part of your
purchasing decision.

I was happy to go with the D30 because the EF range of lenses is
extensive and well regarded. Had the lens mount been new and
incomaptible, and the range of lenses limited, I would have
probably had second thoughts.

When will a major manufacturer provide us with this camera system
and a matching set of lenses based on their existing fixed lens
digicam electronics and CCDs?

I wouldn't hold your breath - most of them probably regard such an
action as commercial suicide.

Hi folks,

Olympus and Kodak, two giants in the digital field, have decided to make 4/3-sensors the new standard, and Olympus will display a new model on this basis with interchangable lenses at the PMA and probably start to sell it later this year. The decision is reasonable, and the proposal seems to work, with both Foveon and Sony offering new sensors of similar size.

It is reasonable for several reasons: 35mm SLR bodies and lenses are to bulky and heavy for many people. With 1/2 sensors the pixle size at high resolution is too small for acceptable light sensitivity. So they decided that four times the size of the E-10 sensor would be a good compromize, similar to the historic Olympus Pen or the present APS format.

Minolta had a digital version of the SLR-Vectis, named RD-3000. In Germany there was a sell-out for something like 1300 or 1400 Euro, starting last summer. The main drawback of that camera was its internal optical system which reduced aperture to 6,7 - regardless of a wider aperture of the lens attached. (There was an adapter for Maxxum-lenses...) Minolta has a range of AF Vectis V-lenses from 17 mm to 400 mm of high quality: When they started "teasing" us with their X-announcements a few weeks ago I speculated that it would be a RD-3000 successor with the Kodak 4/3 sensor. I still expect that Minolta will present such a camera with one of the sensors mentioned above, probably earlier than the new Olympus model.

Olympus has difficulties to produce a whole range of new lenses for their new cameras and asked others to help provide optics for the new standard format. What's not yet known (to us): What type of viewfinder will become "standard"? A new digital Vectis certainly would have the Vectis SLR finder. I guess that Olympus will use an EVF, which allows the bayonet to move close to the CCD. I hope that Olympus will provide (or allow) adapters for 35mm-lenses, perhaps even including Leica-M-lenses which are excellent and compact. This would be an ivitation to tens of millions of 35mm fans to start using their lenses on a compact and relatively lightweight $1500 digital body, but with enough arguments - size, weight etc. - left to buy new lenses dedicated to the new mount sooner or later. (Of course they want us to spend lots of money on new equipment over many years to come...)

Pentax stopped their D-SLR project. They probably "know" that it may take just two years or so to have the new format ahead of those expensive D-SLRs cloned form 35mm Nikon or Canon bodies. I also expect JPEG 2000 to be incorporated into the new digital SLRs. Everything we have bought up to now will look quite old within half a year or so, I guess. Just wait and see...

HeinzM

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi Heinz

I think that your last paragraph relating to Pentax giving up on their full frame DSlr is the clue to this whole issue. I have long suspected that the reason Nikon and Canon do not produce full frame sensors is that the edge definition of lenses designed for film use just do not cut the mustard for digital Joe H had inside information that this was, indeed, the problem. Sensors prefer light to hit them at right angles - this is not an issue with film, and the angle of 'impact' will become further and further from the vertical as you get to the edge of the lense. Contax would seem to be able to do it, but presumably this is because they have designed a whole set of new lenses for the N series - presumably with digital in mind.

I'm sure that by the end of the year we'll have a whole new series of lense 'standards' coming out, to fit with smaller sensors. Olympus were the first to announce, but As you state - Minolta are already there, with the excellent vectis lenses. Nikon are already talking of 'special lenses' for digital. I just can't believe they are going to carry on making us put up with the multiplier factors for 'professional' slrs.

So - maybe you're right and Minolta will be the first off the blocks, with a vectis optical system, the new sony 6mp aps sized sensor and the vectis lense range - an exciting proposition. I can't see OLY using an EVF viewfinder though - the lag between what you got and what you saw makes them completely useless (IMHO). Personally I hope that OLY stick to the prism technique used in the Exx series - it's an easy way of keeping dust off the sensor, and it makes for the 'silent camera' we all used to pay Leica small fortunes to posess.

I think it's an exciting year ahead, but if 35mm stays as the standard for lenses for professional dslrs . . . . . . I'll eat my hat!

kind regards
jono slack

Quoting Phil on the new Sony CCD. "This sensor is ideally sized and
specified to be used in a 35 mm SLR bodied D-SLR (it would produce
a 1.5x focal length multiplier)."

Why does everyone think of D-SLR in terms of 35MM lens capability?

It's called "lock in". If you are a 35mm SLR owner who has spent
lots of money on lenses, and wants to make the jump to digital, are
you going to be more incliuned to buy a camera which can use your
existing lens collection, or one where you have to start from
scratch again?

The likes of Canon and Nikon are not fools. Their DSLRs use their
35mm lens ranges because these are extensive ranges of very good
lenses. When you buy a DSLR you are buying into a complete system,
and the lenses are likely to be an important part of your
purchasing decision.

I was happy to go with the D30 because the EF range of lenses is
extensive and well regarded. Had the lens mount been new and
incomaptible, and the range of lenses limited, I would have
probably had second thoughts.

When will a major manufacturer provide us with this camera system
and a matching set of lenses based on their existing fixed lens
digicam electronics and CCDs?

I wouldn't hold your breath - most of them probably regard such an
action as commercial suicide.

Hi folks,
Olympus and Kodak, two giants in the digital field, have decided to
make 4/3-sensors the new standard, and Olympus will display a new
model on this basis with interchangable lenses at the PMA and
probably start to sell it later this year. The decision is
reasonable, and the proposal seems to work, with both Foveon and
Sony offering new sensors of similar size.

It is reasonable for several reasons: 35mm SLR bodies and lenses
are to bulky and heavy for many people. With 1/2 sensors the pixle
size at high resolution is too small for acceptable light
sensitivity. So they decided that four times the size of the E-10
sensor would be a good compromize, similar to the historic Olympus
Pen or the present APS format.

Minolta had a digital version of the SLR-Vectis, named RD-3000. In
Germany there was a sell-out for something like 1300 or 1400 Euro,
starting last summer. The main drawback of that camera was its
internal optical system which reduced aperture to 6,7 - regardless
of a wider aperture of the lens attached. (There was an adapter for
Maxxum-lenses...) Minolta has a range of AF Vectis V-lenses from 17
mm to 400 mm of high quality: When they started "teasing" us with
their X-announcements a few weeks ago I speculated that it would be
a RD-3000 successor with the Kodak 4/3 sensor. I still expect that
Minolta will present such a camera with one of the sensors
mentioned above, probably earlier than the new Olympus model.

Pentax stopped their D-SLR project. They probably "know" that it
may take just two years or so to have the new format ahead of those
expensive D-SLRs cloned form 35mm Nikon or Canon bodies. I also
expect JPEG 2000 to be incorporated into the new digital SLRs.
Everything we have bought up to now will look quite old within half
a year or so, I guess. Just wait and see...

HeinzM

--Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Wing2]

It takes decades for the biggest optics companies like Nikon or Canon to build a whole familiy of 35mm lens (plus many compatibles)

This is also biggest advantage they own against competitions like Sigma. If they develop new lens system standard, eveybody starts almost from sketch, they are not much better than others.

It is hard to imagine that optics can change like electronics. So the easy way is to adapt the electronics to optics not the other way around.

If lens were like electronics, there would probably be an industry standard established years ago such that all 35mm lens from any manufacturer are compatible and can be used on any 35mm SLR.

Dream on.

.

I think it's an exciting year ahead, but if 35mm stays as the
standard for lenses for professional dslrs . . . . . . I'll eat my
hat!

kind regards
jono slack

 

[Jay]

Another thing that people never seem to mention is ergonomics. I have never understood the push in the camera market for smaller cameras. I have held some of them in the store and get cramps in my hand just trying to compose the picture and snap a shot. I am somewhat biased about this because I'm a relatively large guy with hands to match. It's a pretty neat trick to fit a great camera into a package the size of a deck of cards but not what I would consider practical. As an example I would like to point out the Olympus E-10/20. It fits my hands comfortable and is very easy to keep steady at lower shutter speeds. Next, logic would follow that if you have this much room to work with inside the camera, take advantage of it for the obvious reasons. Larger sensors offer greater detail with less noise and more accurate color.

Granted, I know that not everyone wants the bohemoth of a camera that the E-10/20 is. I myself am fond of the Fuji 2600 as a take anywhere, pocketable "fun" camera, but wouldn't use it for large prints.

All that being said, this entire thread points out valid arguments for both larger and smaller sensors, and if you have paid attention to trends over the last couple of years, manufacturers realize this and are marketing different sensors towards the group of photographers they best fit. I feel quite confident that sensor development will continue strongly in both directions.

 

[Heinz]

Hi Heinz

I think that your last paragraph relating to Pentax giving up on
their full frame DSlr is the clue to this whole issue. I have long
suspected that the reason Nikon and Canon do not produce full frame
sensors is that the edge definition of lenses designed for film use
just do not cut the mustard for digital Joe H had inside
information that this was, indeed, the problem. Sensors prefer
light to hit them at right angles - this is not an issue with film,
and the angle of 'impact' will become further and further from the
vertical as you get to the edge of the lense. ...

Hello Jono,

can you tell me what happens in case of non-vertical illumination? Is it just that the light sensitivity decreases, or what else? If it were just decreased sensitivity by a little it might be corrected by digitizing at higher resolution (bitwise) and correcting for varying sensitivity over the sensor surface, depending on the lens used. (That should be done generally to correct for minor degrees of vignetting, or for distortions, or even for small degrees of color aberration: Of course the camera must "know" the lens used and the parameters necessary for correction. That would be another strong argument to buy new lenses specially designed for a new digital camera system: digital correction of many imperfections of a certain lens at a certain focal length - if variable -, etc. by software.)

Well, programmers could offer correction software even for older lenses, to be used on the stored images, not on the raw data before storing in the camera...

If correction would not be possible for wide angle lenses with the rear lens only a few millimeters away from the CCD, the type of ?retrofocus construction known from SLR wide angle lenses would have to be used for digital cameras, too, even with electronic viewfinder. That of course would reduce the EVF advantage an might tip the scales to the SLR type finder.

The type of viewfinder used in the E-10/E-20 is not "ideal" because a third of the incoming light is directed to the finder (which cannot be as bright as in a "normal" SLR), decreasing the light sensitivity of the whole imaging system by about half a stop. If the light splitting prism could be built with a variable factor of reflection, perhaps by use of liquid crystals...: That would combine the advantages of a true SLR viewfinder and the almost silent operation of a non-SLR Leica, without vibrations from mirror movements.

Oh well, I think we should get used to the idea that the present digital cameras still are far from what will be possible in the near future. Concerning EVFs I am convinced that eventually they will have more advantages than disadvantages compared to true SLR(eflex) finders. I am dreaming of EVFs attached to my glasses for framing without lifting the camera to my face or looking at the display attached to the cameras back. The know-how for such "remote view-finders" and pre-production models seem to be available already, but at present there is no mass production and prices probably are prohibitive.

Several Sharp camcorders have TFT displays which can be used detached, at a distance, with a cable connection to the camera. I wonder how long it will take until this simple trick will be available with a few digital still cameras. Or a reflective LCD display in a wrist "watch" to be used as a coarse finder, either by cable or some wireless technique. All these are "EVF dreams". I was very fond of 35mm SLR cameras for decades. But with the larger depth of field of digital cameras (shorter focal length) there is less advantage to a true SLR viewfinder. So my wishes/priorities changed.
HeinzM

 

[Walter Freiberger]

And how big is it? APS size?

Hi folks,
Olympus and Kodak, two giants in the digital field, have decided to
make 4/3-sensors the new standard, and Olympus will display a new
model on this basis with interchangable lenses at the PMA and
probably start to sell it later this year. The decision is
reasonable, and the proposal seems to work, with both Foveon and
Sony offering new sensors of similar size.

Walter

 

[synp]

That's 4/3" or 1.33333"
34.1 mm for people living east of the Atlantic ocean.

Any of Phil's camera reviews has a link to a "basic terms" page that explains what this means.

Hi folks,
Olympus and Kodak, two giants in the digital field, have decided to
make 4/3-sensors the new standard, and Olympus will display a new
model on this basis with interchangable lenses at the PMA and
probably start to sell it later this year. The decision is
reasonable, and the proposal seems to work, with both Foveon and
Sony offering new sensors of similar size.

Walter

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi Jay

I agree completely - as far as I'm concerned the Exx camera is as near perfect ergonomically as any camera I have owned.

But . . . . . If you want a 35 mm body with a 35-140 F2 zoom, you're talking more like 5 kg than the 1kg of the E series camera - which is where the crunch is. Surely what we all want is something which weighs around a kilo with a fast versatile lense. That suggests a camera body of around 600g.

kind regards
jono slack

Another thing that people never seem to mention is ergonomics. I
have never understood the push in the camera market for smaller
cameras. I have held some of them in the store and get cramps in
my hand just trying to compose the picture and snap a shot. I am
somewhat biased about this because I'm a relatively large guy with
hands to match. It's a pretty neat trick to fit a great camera
into a package the size of a deck of cards but not what I would
consider practical. As an example I would like to point out the
Olympus E-10/20. It fits my hands comfortable and is very easy to
keep steady at lower shutter speeds. Next, logic would follow that
if you have this much room to work with inside the camera, take
advantage of it for the obvious reasons. Larger sensors offer
greater detail with less noise and more accurate color.

Granted, I know that not everyone wants the bohemoth of a camera
that the E-10/20 is. I myself am fond of the Fuji 2600 as a take
anywhere, pocketable "fun" camera, but wouldn't use it for large
prints.

All that being said, this entire thread points out valid arguments
for both larger and smaller sensors, and if you have paid attention
to trends over the last couple of years, manufacturers realize this
and are marketing different sensors towards the group of
photographers they best fit. I feel quite confident that sensor
development will continue strongly in both directions.

--Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Heinz]

It takes decades for the biggest optics companies like Nikon or
Canon to build a whole familiy of 35mm lens (plus many compatibles)

This is also biggest advantage they own against competitions like
Sigma. If they develop new lens system standard, eveybody starts
almost from sketch, they are not much better than others.

It is hard to imagine that optics can change like electronics. So
the easy way is to adapt the electronics to optics not the other
way around.

If lens were like electronics, there would probably be an industry
standard established years ago such that all 35mm lens from any
manufacturer are compatible and can be used on any 35mm SLR.

Dream on.

.

Would it be possible to just scale the optimal constructions down? (I am thinking of the Zeiss Tessar from tiny versions e.g. for the Rollei SL26 for 126 type film, to a huge version, about four inches in diameter, which I bought at an eBay auction - of Zeiss Jena post war production for a huge plate type camera. The Tessar at least was such an "industry standard", copied a hundred times, with Zeiss T* coating in late versions to have an advantage over the copies - for a short time...)

The swing around to digital cameras is here, no doubt, and companies renowned for their lenses will get into serious trouble if the market saturates with used high quality lenses for digital clones of their 35mm SLR bodies. I guess they have, or will develop, keen interest in a large new market for selling lenses not (yet) available at eBay etc. Of course there are a few other tricks to make people buy new lenses, e.g. by incorporating AF technology in the past. (I personally did not follow that trend, simply kept on focussing myself. With digital cameras now I have no choice any more...)

Optical image stabilization, the "built-in tripod", is another means to sell the same type of lens once more. To me this is the greatest progress to "hand-held photography" in decades. For 35mm format these lenses are bulky, heavy, expensive and battery eaters. For camcorders image stabilization is almost a standard - mass production has made it affordable. I guess that image stabilization has great potential in digital still photography, as demonstrated by the excellent 2,8-3,5/7-70mm Canon zoom lens (Pro90 IS, among others) - potential demonstrated technically, not yet in market share, since few have recognized the tremendous possibilities opened up by such a lens with image stabilization, e.g. http://www.digitalfan.de/insekt.htm

Last but not least I believe that the person using the equipment is far more important for the results than the best lenses money can buy. Boring images can be produced with a 5.000$ lens, and really great photographs have been shot decades ago, before multicoating and aspherical lenses etc. had been invented. No one ever will convince me to buy a Nikon or Canon lens because those are renowned producers. I will consider buying a new compact digital SLR if a lens similar to the bright 10x Canon zoom mentioned above will be available for it - for image stabilized "tele power" in a light-weight high resolution camera (with, hopefully, good low light capabilities), not because I believe that Canon does a recognizably better job in optics than Olympus or Zeiss (Sony) or Minolta or a few others. And certainly I will go on dreaming, to show that there is more to ask for than 6 MPix instead of 4 or 5!

HeinzM

 

[Fabio Amodeo]

There is one more point. Lenses and sensors must work together - it is useless to have a world beating lens and use it with a 1.3MP sensor, but it starts to be useless to have a 6MP sensor if the lens cannot deliver. And today zoom lenses, apart from some 28-70, are not that good. I happened to put my hands on a 70-300 Vario Sonnar for Contax, which may have a digital future, and it was not a lens I would long for. My trusty Nikkor 80-200 is often wonderful, but at 200 I must discard all architectural lines from my frame, or know that I will have to work on them in the box. What I mean is that it is much easier to build a sensational lens-sensor couple from scratch. After all sports and wildlife photographers need all sort of eccentric glass, but normal people, even earning a living with images, should be able to work with much less: a very wide, a moderate wide, a macro and a telezoom should do it.So if somebody is going to give us a "digital Leica M" I'll be very glad for that.
Fabio