Future of DO technology and Canon lenses

[Eric Sorensen]

Who said anything about capturing the photon? You would record it's location, frequency, etc. and let it pass...

All I'm saying is if you think there are limits, then you will be proven wrong in the future. How far in the future, we will see...

But keeping up with Moore's law for semiconductor devices such as
transistors is not the same as cramming more photosites into the
same physical area. I'm sure they can cram more, but is this good?
No, because of noise and diffraction limits.

Also, 3D the way you have described it will not work, because once
you capture a photon at one level, it is not available to any other
level for capture.

Maybe you need to go back to your physics textbook?

I wasn't suggesting we could nulify the laws of physics. But how
many times have we come up against a roadblock in microchips were
we just couldn't get any more transistors on the chip. What did
they do? They went 3-dimensional and layered the transistors. I
believe we will eventually see a 3-dimensional optical sensor that
will capure the light at several different levels of the focus
plane. This would enable us to chose our depth of field and
combine several layers if desired. And, of course, would also
increase the mega-pixal size is more information is gained from the
sensor. I guess I'm just bored and thinking what things might be
like in 30 years....

--
Gonzomatic

P e n t a x - the whole gamut

 

[alistairsyme]

Just a ballpark guess, but I think the upper limit to this
technology will be somewhere around a 14MP full-frame sensor. After
that noise will take over and any extra resolution won't be worth
the noise penalty.

You are 100% correct.

In fact, you hit the roof a bit before 14 Mp. But this does not
matter, as improved methods of interpolation enable us to make
sharper pictures (or bigger prints) even if the number of pixels do
not increase. The accuracy of the interpolation is often overlooked
in the race for megapixels, as is lens performance and build
quality. But all these factors are important, and we would do
wisely in avoiding an excessive fixation on the number of
megapixels.

My guess is that we might see active sensor cooling to reduce noise at some point. This would allow greater resolution without paying a noise penalty. I think we might be approaching the point, though, when most photographers don't really need more resolution. There are exceptions for specialized needs such as landscapes. I'd be happy with 6 megapixels, if I weren't so fond of cropping. Maybe 10 would be enough. Any more, and it's just larger files and less room on the flash card.

 

[banzai]

Who said anything about capturing the photon? You would record
it's location, frequency, etc. and let it pass...

 

[Eric Sorensen]

I guess that Uncertanty principle thing would be a little problem - but only if a photon is a particle . I believe a photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy that has particle-like behavior.

Now that I think about it, it probably is a particle. That would explain the proportional relationship between the number of pictures I take on my 10D and the number of dust particles on my sensor....

( I know I'm an idiot, but I can't help myself!)

Who said anything about capturing the photon? You would record
it's location, frequency, etc. and let it pass...

 

[Robert Gonzalez]

LOL. If you can do that my friend, then you live in a different universe than I do.

All I'm saying is if you think there are limits, then you will be
proven wrong in the future. How far in the future, we will see...

But keeping up with Moore's law for semiconductor devices such as
transistors is not the same as cramming more photosites into the
same physical area. I'm sure they can cram more, but is this good?
No, because of noise and diffraction limits.

Also, 3D the way you have described it will not work, because once
you capture a photon at one level, it is not available to any other
level for capture.

Maybe you need to go back to your physics textbook?

I wasn't suggesting we could nulify the laws of physics. But how
many times have we come up against a roadblock in microchips were
we just couldn't get any more transistors on the chip. What did
they do? They went 3-dimensional and layered the transistors. I
believe we will eventually see a 3-dimensional optical sensor that
will capure the light at several different levels of the focus
plane. This would enable us to chose our depth of field and
combine several layers if desired. And, of course, would also
increase the mega-pixal size is more information is gained from the
sensor. I guess I'm just bored and thinking what things might be
like in 30 years....

--
Gonzomatic

P e n t a x - the whole gamut

--
Gonzomatic

P e n t a x - the whole gamut

 

[Tony SD]

Thanks for the website link. I found the explanation that they use
a diffraction grating "very" interesting. In my humble experience,
diffraction gratings are usually reflective type mirrors, that have
scribe lines that are approx 1mm apart (of course this can change
by design and wavelength) I haven't seen any transparent
diffraction gratings except for acousto optic modulators (which can
behave like a grating) which I'm unsure if these lenses are
designed this way ... I wonder if they were just meaning a
"fresnel" type of lens array .... interesting.

PS - Yeah, my background is in lasers & optics.

Randy

Surely not. Modern spectroscopes are fitted with diffraction gratings which must have lines MUCH closer than 1mm apart. My spectrophotometer copes with a wavelength range of 200nm to 650nm. The grating rulings must be in this order of spacing surely?

IMHO most dg are transparent, allowing light to pass through them, rather than reflective.

But you sound as if you've got a much better background than I have in all this, so I may have it totally wrong!
--
TonySD

 

[Klick]

I think Ben is mainly right. Like in the past, the zoom lens will go to f4 and f5.6 for a lot of lenses. If we have 800 and 1600 ISO with a good quality, there is no reason to have 2.8 telezoom (for non "action" photography). Some people said that the DOF is to wide on those lenses which would be a minus, I agree.
But it definitely is not !!!
If we look at the DOF at a 2.8 70-200 L at 70 and a 70-300 DO at 100 mm
DOF (at 10 meter distance): @70 mm 3.5 m; DO @100 mm 2.72 m
so the DOF of the DO is more shallow
At 300 mm the DOF is 0.36 meter. So that is too much for you?

The DOF is quite relative and I think it is too easy to say the 70-300 4.5-5.6 has a lousy DOF.

BTW the 24-70 2.8 L has 7.5 meter DOF at 50 mm, that is definitely to much, isn't it?

Just speculating here, but I think the trend will be towards
cameras with excellent low-noise/high-ISO performance. Lenses with
very high image quality, but especially in the middle and at f4 and
above. Crop factors settling in around1.3, which makes corner
drop-off less critical.

There will obviously be a need for fast lenses, but they will
become more specialized.

Sports and low-light photographers will still need fast lenses,
although good high ISO performance will help. They will still need
to pay more to get fast lenses.

Anyway, DO could well fit the lens part of this future.

Ben

 

[gregL281]

That's all fine and good until you can't frame your subject at the 100mm FL or longer. Furthermore, ISO 100 or 200 will always look better than ISO 1600 or 3200 and f/2.8 at ISO 3200 will give you faster shutter speeds than ISO 3200 at f/4.

Greg

If we look at the DOF at a 2.8 70-200 L at 70 and a 70-300 DO at
100 mm
DOF (at 10 meter distance): @70 mm 3.5 m; DO @100 mm 2.72 m
so the DOF of the DO is more shallow
At 300 mm the DOF is 0.36 meter. So that is too much for you?
The DOF is quite relative and I think it is too easy to say the
70-300 4.5-5.6 has a lousy DOF.
BTW the 24-70 2.8 L has 7.5 meter DOF at 50 mm, that is definitely
to much, isn't it?

 

[Ben_Egbert]

Want to take the best flying Eagle picture?

Get a high quality prime, say 50mm and fly alongside in a helicopter.

Everything is a trade-off. We use long lenses mostly because we can’t get close enough to the subject. Yes, there may be other reasons, but that is the primary one.

We buy fast lenses because we want a reasonable shutter speed. In the last few years, this out of focus-blurred background became an artistic plus in some schools. I don’t think that was intentional in the beginning. Don’t get me wrong, I like it, I just can’t afford it.

If you can greatly improve the ISO800 performance of the camera, if you have the patience to find a good place to stand and to go back over and over again for good light, and use a tripod. If if if , then you don’t need to sell your home to buy a 500 f4, or 400 f2.8, or even a 300 f2.8

Who will do this? Well people who prefer their home to a fast lens.

Ben

 

[nunyobiznus]

Does anybody have any information about the future of DO technology
and future of Canon lenses? I know with 75-300 IS lens canon made
an entry into revolutionary era of IS lenses back in 95. Now is it
75-300 IS DO? If this is going to be the future then how soon a 5LB
500/4 IS DO will come out?
Is that going to be very expensive or same price as current model?
Any rumors or official statements?

Thanks in advance

I used to work for a newspaper us photographers always talked about the latest gear....shooting situations...how our stuff performed and rumors that have been reported to have been seen as far as new equipment on the horizon..

I have heard that Canon was suppose to come out with a 500mm f2.8 DO lens as well as a 200-400 f4.0 DO IS lens.. I also heard that the 35-350 was going to be replaced by a DO lens.....which appesars to have happened with the 28-300...(I think) I believe all these lenses are suppose to have IS technology if I remember correctly.. This was about two years ago though....what stgarted these rumors, ...apparently one of our photographers who shoots for the Milwaukee Brewers ran into a photographer from another team who was using a Canon prototype lens that he "should have" kept quiet about.. this was the 200-400 f4 IS lens....which I think would be suitable for a daylight game when they had the roof open...but not for a night game / one where that had to rely on the lights....because f2.8 is needed... I have seen guys use 600 with a 1.4 X but that can get messy... This 200-400 is suppose to be some sort of "baseball lens"..Hmmm....I don't know.. oh, and a "3D" was suppose to have arrived by now..oh well........back to work..

http://member.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108

 

[David Kieltyka]

I have heard that Canon was suppose to come out with a 500mm f2.8
DO lens as well as a 200-400 f4.0 DO IS lens.. I also heard that
the 35-350 was going to be replaced by a DO lens.....which appesars
to have happened with the 28-300...(I think)

Canon, like all lens makers, builds prototypes of lenses that never get put into production. Or are put on hold for a variety of reasons. Note that the upcoming 28–300mm isn't a DO lens, though there may well have been a prototype version that did use DO technology.

In the late 1990s a fellow I know in NYC field-tested components of a new rangefinder camera system by one of the Big Four camera companies. The company in question later scrapped the whole project, though some of the lenses designed for it ended up on the market in revised form.

-Dave-

 

[PeaceFrog]

If you can greatly improve the ISO800 performance of the camera, if
you have the patience to find a good place to stand and to go back
over and over again for good light, and use a tripod. If if if ,
then you don’t need to sell your home to buy a 500 f4, or 400 f2.8,
or even a 300 f2.8

Funny thing is that I bought every one of those lenses and a very nice home and didn't even need to sell the home to buy the lenses. Another funny thing is that I have been seeing shallow DOF used artistically for a very long time. Why don't you quit crying about how you can't get every lens you want for pennies and buy whatever lens does the job for YOU.

Greg

--

 

[jeminijoseph]

Intersting discussion..

As you guys may know Nikon already came out with 200-400/4 VR lens. This is great for big animal photography indoor sports I guess. Not for small birds obviously. But I read somewhere that Nikon's old 200-400/4 MF lens was one their best sellers ever. So there will be a market for this lens.

Also Interesting to see that size and weight of big glass is coming down. Nikon's second generation Big glass is lighter than their old version and Canon equivalents. But still anyly of the lenses above 400mm cannot be hand held for long. For example Canon's 400/2.8 is 12LB I guess(11.8). Nikon's 9.7LB. If Canon update their lens with DO, it should be at least 30% lighter which will be close to 8LB. This is the heaviest lens. So if they do it for 500/4 lens it should be less than 6LB which is really light.

If this is a possibility in near future I better jump the ship asap
(not to mention I'm a Nikon user)

Does anybody have any information about the future of DO technology
and future of Canon lenses? I know with 75-300 IS lens canon made
an entry into revolutionary era of IS lenses back in 95. Now is it
75-300 IS DO? If this is going to be the future then how soon a 5LB
500/4 IS DO will come out?
Is that going to be very expensive or same price as current model?
Any rumors or official statements?

Thanks in advance

I used to work for a newspaper us photographers always talked about
the latest gear....shooting situations...how our stuff performed
and rumors that have been reported to have been seen as far as new
equipment on the horizon..

I have heard that Canon was suppose to come out with a 500mm f2.8
DO lens as well as a 200-400 f4.0 DO IS lens.. I also heard that
the 35-350 was going to be replaced by a DO lens.....which appesars
to have happened with the 28-300...(I think) I believe all these
lenses are suppose to have IS technology if I remember correctly..
This was about two years ago though....what stgarted these rumors,
...apparently one of our photographers who shoots for the Milwaukee
Brewers ran into a photographer from another team who was using a
Canon prototype lens that he "should have" kept quiet about.. this
was the 200-400 f4 IS lens....which I think would be suitable for a
daylight game when they had the roof open...but not for a night
game / one where that had to rely on the lights....because f2.8 is
needed... I have seen guys use 600 with a 1.4 X but that can get
messy... This 200-400 is suppose to be some sort of "baseball
lens"..Hmmm....I don't know.. oh, and a "3D" was suppose to have
arrived by now..oh well........back to work..

http://member.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108

--
Jemini Joseph

'Neither be proud or ashamed of your
religion, race or sex because none of
the above was not your achievement, but
just a donation by the GOD'.
http://www.color-pictures.com

 

[Ben_Egbert]

Just telling you what I am going to do, and by reference, what kind of photographers will be interested in high quality but slower lenses. I am retiring in April, no more income for the rest of my life, so I do need to watch expenses.

By the way, you challanged me to post what I did last weekend, but never commented when I did. I was out looking for Eagles, they were gone, so I took some Canadian Geese, just to get familliar with my new lens. The compostion leaves something to be desired, but I was very happy with the results from a technical standpoint and for my first outing.

Ben.

 

[PeaceFrog]

For me the pic might have been nicer if you could have gotten closer to the birds but many times you get what you get. I had also hoped to see an eagle this weekend but he wasn’t around while I was out. I am glad you are happy, isn’t that the most important thing anyway? I know it is for me, especially since this is what I do for fun and not for a living. FWIW I really want to try out the new DO lens and I am sure I will give into the temptation to get one sooner rather than later. I expect that it will be good optically and that it will handle well. It just doesn’t seem that it is priced for value. When I do buy one I am pretty sure that I will be paying more than that I think the thing is actually worth but, hey, I want one so I will get it anyway. There are also some optically very good lenses in this range that are priced for less like the Sigma 100-300mm f/4. Of course the DO lens will have a big size advantage there. I really wish Canon would shave a few hundred dollars off of that MAP.

Greg

--

 

[Ben_Egbert]

They were on an island. Went back the next day and they were even further out and swimming in the middle of the river. Well it is only two miles from home, so I can go back. I wish the thrid goose would have been further away, or close enough to stay in the picture.

On the 70-300 DO. I have a gap to fill, and will do it with the best image quality I can get within reason. I am willing to carry more weight, give up IS and speed, for superior image quality. The 70-200 F4 might be a good one. The 70-200 F2.8 IS is also on my wish list, just one will make it. The DO will need to be really good to knock off one of the 70-200's.

I probably ought to have one fast IS lens in the bag. Oh well, it will be next year.l

Ben

 

[PeaceFrog]

From having owned both I can say that both of the 70-200’s that you are interested in are of outstanding quality and both work VERY well with the 1.4x TC. I haven’t ever owned the Sigma but I have used it a few times and have been very pleased with the results. I am thinking that the new DO lens isn’t going to quite be up there with the 70-200’s and will probably be on par with one of them and the 1.4x TC at the 280mm FL. This is mostly based on my experience with several 400mm f/4 DO lenses that I have compared to several 400mm f/5.6L lenses and a 400mm f/2.8L IS. The DO lens is excellent but not quite up to the non-DO lenses. As far as the 70-200 goes for me, I kept the f/4. I initially bought the f/2.8L IS because of all the rave reviews that it was getting and not really because I needed the f/2.8 for anything. I used it for a while and really liked it and then I came across a really good deal on the f/4L so I gave it a try. The minute I took it out of the box I knew that it was the lens for me. So in this area I guess we are really in agreement, the f/4 was a smaller lighter slower lens and it was the better lens for my needs. The thing that really put me over the top on that lens was the price. This is where the new DO lens loses a lot of its shine for me. I don’t like spending a lot of money on lenses and I had hoped that this one would be priced more in line with the other EF lenses.

Greg

--

 

[Ben_Egbert]

Thanks for the info. I keep hearing how wonderful the 70-200 f2.8 IS is, but the MTF charts don't look so hot. I suspect there is a lot more than MTF charts, and first hand experience really does matter.

So far, I feel like my 400 f5.6 is my best lens. If I were to come into some money. I might even go for the 300 f2.8 IS, but then I would still be needing a zoom.

The 70-200 with 1.4 might meet my needs precisily, and like you say, the DO better have a much lower street price than the initial numbers Canon has put up.

Ben

 

[PeaceFrog]

The 400mm f/5.6L is one of my all time favorite lenses. That thing is extremely sharp and handles like a dream. The 300mm f/2.8 is another optically great lens but it is huge and heavy compared to the 400mm f/5.6 and is 100mm shorter. It is a lens that I only bring with me when I absolutely know I am going to need f/2.8 as it is a pain to lug around. The 400mm f/2.8 on the other hand I gladly lug around since it is optically just as good and gives me 560mm f/4 with the 1.4x TC. I don’t even mind hand holding the lens for extended periods of time. That gallery I had a link to earlier in this thread was mostly shot using the 400 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC and I didn’t even have a tripod with me. I don’t know if there is a shop close to you that has a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS but if there is you should try it out, then again maybe you shouldn’t until next year LOL.

Greg

--