D1X E-10 Dynamic Range

Frank B

Veteran Member
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
37
Location
New England USA, US
Even with it's much larger CCD the figures in Phil's tables for dynamic range indicate that the E-10 's is greater at ISO 80 than the D1X at its slowest ISO of 125. Quite a good showing for the E-10. I suspect it is because the E-10 is full frame, in that the lens was designed for the size of the CCD.

I'm not suggesting that the E-10 is as good as the D1X, which has superior detail, far less noise and probably better color, although the E-10 is very good- and dustless.

--Frank B
 
Yes it's a trade off isn't it. Get a camera that has a better output potential yet is vunerable to dust, which is worse than dead pixels, noise and less detail. Dust is the Pro SLR Digicams worst enemy. Not the E-10 it works very well in dusty enviorments.
Even with it's much larger CCD the figures in Phil's tables for
dynamic range indicate that the E-10 's is greater at ISO 80 than
the D1X at its slowest ISO of 125. Quite a good showing for the
E-10. I suspect it is because the E-10 is full frame, in that the
lens was designed for the size of the CCD.

I'm not suggesting that the E-10 is as good as the D1X, which has
superior detail, far less noise and probably better color, although
the E-10 is very good- and dustless.
 
I really don't understand this dust problem at all. Sure, I've seen the nice fuzzy circles on pictures I've downloaded (which I assume are dust particles) and I know a charged device (ie. CCD) will attract dust (is it less with CMOS?), but what I don't get is...

Why can't you just put a piece of transparent optical glass in front?

Yours, confuzed...
Excal
 
I don't know. Someone on the Nikon forum said they asked Nikon that question and Nikon said "don't you think we have thought of that". I guess there must be a problem with reflections or something else as it seems as if it would be a simple low cost solution.

Frank B
I really don't understand this dust problem at all. Sure, I've
seen the nice fuzzy circles on pictures I've downloaded (which I
assume are dust particles) and I know a charged device (ie. CCD)
will attract dust (is it less with CMOS?), but what I don't get
is...

Why can't you just put a piece of transparent optical glass in front?

Yours, confuzed...
Excal
 
Excal

actually most of the dust isnt on the CCD anyway

If it is on the CCD it would be pretty much dark balck and not blurry

Most dust problems are from dust on either an IR or AA filter in front of the CCD

It doesnt really matter how much protection you put on there will always be that last layer that can have dust on. And of course a piece of glass would be easier to clean but if you think about the size we are talking about it is rather hard for somebody at home to get something clean especially when you operate in a normal environment that has dust in the air. It may be clean the moment after you clean but the first time the mirror flips it will move anything around that is inside the camera.

I think you see the solution isnt easy if you want interchangeable lenses. One day there will be a solution to this and i could bet that as we speak there are lots of engineers ripping their hair out to try and find a good solution to this.

Mike
I really don't understand this dust problem at all. Sure, I've
seen the nice fuzzy circles on pictures I've downloaded (which I
assume are dust particles) and I know a charged device (ie. CCD)
will attract dust (is it less with CMOS?), but what I don't get
is...

Why can't you just put a piece of transparent optical glass in front?

Yours, confuzed...
Excal
 
I have an idea

what about windshield wipers at 1/2000s of a second

Jason we need a picture of that

Mike
Frank B
I really don't understand this dust problem at all. Sure, I've
seen the nice fuzzy circles on pictures I've downloaded (which I
assume are dust particles) and I know a charged device (ie. CCD)
will attract dust (is it less with CMOS?), but what I don't get
is...

Why can't you just put a piece of transparent optical glass in front?

Yours, confuzed...
Excal
 
Wild conjecture, beware!

If anything, I bet it'll be a reverse polarity electrostatic charge dumped onto the filter/glass/etc.(whatever is protecting the CCD) and then require some sort of vacuum purge to remove the dust zapped off the "glass". A real kludge, if ever there was one. Or maybe instead of vacuum they could place an anode, or anodes, somewhere near the CCD and cause it to attract the dust directly.(think electrostatic air cleaner) I do wonder if it could be done in close proximity to the rest of the electronics without causing havoc? What kind of power requirements would it have even if it only had to be turned on when a lens was removed, and wouldn't it effectively suck dust into the camera while operating... Lots of problems to overcome.

Might even require a VERY light coating of a metallic compound on the anti-aliasing/IR element and would probably also play hell with the angle of incidence of whatever light is trying to get through the glass.(which is probably why they don't just use glass... it rtefracts.:-)) Maybe that's why they don't have anything out to do it yet?

I'm VERY sure that at least some of their engineers are smarter than we jackleg engineers. :-)

Just as a final thought, wouldn't it be much simpler if they could use one permanently installed final lens element on the camera and leave the final element off the lenses? Probably a lot easier to clean a lens that doesn't electrostatically attract dust than a CCD that does... :-) Or just continue to provide very good lenses like the E-10 add-ons?
actually most of the dust isnt on the CCD anyway

If it is on the CCD it would be pretty much dark balck and not blurry

Most dust problems are from dust on either an IR or AA filter in
front of the CCD

It doesnt really matter how much protection you put on there will
always be that last layer that can have dust on. And of course a
piece of glass would be easier to clean but if you think about the
size we are talking about it is rather hard for somebody at home to
get something clean especially when you operate in a normal
environment that has dust in the air. It may be clean the moment
after you clean but the first time the mirror flips it will move
anything around that is inside the camera.

I think you see the solution isnt easy if you want interchangeable
lenses. One day there will be a solution to this and i could bet
that as we speak there are lots of engineers ripping their hair out
to try and find a good solution to this.

Mike
I really don't understand this dust problem at all. Sure, I've
seen the nice fuzzy circles on pictures I've downloaded (which I
assume are dust particles) and I know a charged device (ie. CCD)
will attract dust (is it less with CMOS?), but what I don't get
is...

Why can't you just put a piece of transparent optical glass in front?

Yours, confuzed...
Excal
 
I don,t know of one lens that does it all. A 14 to 1200 f 1.8 would really make me happy.
If anything, I bet it'll be a reverse polarity electrostatic charge
dumped onto the filter/glass/etc.(whatever is protecting the CCD)
and then require some sort of vacuum purge to remove the dust
zapped off the "glass". A real kludge, if ever there was one. Or
maybe instead of vacuum they could place an anode, or anodes,
somewhere near the CCD and cause it to attract the dust
directly.(think electrostatic air cleaner) I do wonder if it could
be done in close proximity to the rest of the electronics without
causing havoc? What kind of power requirements would it have even
if it only had to be turned on when a lens was removed, and
wouldn't it effectively suck dust into the camera while
operating... Lots of problems to overcome.

Might even require a VERY light coating of a metallic compound on
the anti-aliasing/IR element and would probably also play hell with
the angle of incidence of whatever light is trying to get through
the glass.(which is probably why they don't just use glass... it
rtefracts.:-)) Maybe that's why they don't have anything out to do
it yet?

I'm VERY sure that at least some of their engineers are smarter
than we jackleg engineers. :-)

Just as a final thought, wouldn't it be much simpler if they could
use one permanently installed final lens element on the camera and
leave the final element off the lenses? Probably a lot easier to
clean a lens that doesn't electrostatically attract dust than a CCD
that does... :-) Or just continue to provide very good lenses like
the E-10 add-ons?
actually most of the dust isnt on the CCD anyway

If it is on the CCD it would be pretty much dark balck and not blurry

Most dust problems are from dust on either an IR or AA filter in
front of the CCD

It doesnt really matter how much protection you put on there will
always be that last layer that can have dust on. And of course a
piece of glass would be easier to clean but if you think about the
size we are talking about it is rather hard for somebody at home to
get something clean especially when you operate in a normal
environment that has dust in the air. It may be clean the moment
after you clean but the first time the mirror flips it will move
anything around that is inside the camera.

I think you see the solution isnt easy if you want interchangeable
lenses. One day there will be a solution to this and i could bet
that as we speak there are lots of engineers ripping their hair out
to try and find a good solution to this.

Mike
I really don't understand this dust problem at all. Sure, I've
seen the nice fuzzy circles on pictures I've downloaded (which I
assume are dust particles) and I know a charged device (ie. CCD)
will attract dust (is it less with CMOS?), but what I don't get
is...

Why can't you just put a piece of transparent optical glass in front?

Yours, confuzed...
Excal
 
You forgot to mention that the size, weight and cost of that lense should
be as low as possible :-))
 
HI,

Maybe they can use the new "self cleaning" glass that has just been developed by Pilkington :-)

See ya,

Richard
Even with it's much larger CCD the figures in Phil's tables for
dynamic range indicate that the E-10 's is greater at ISO 80 than
the D1X at its slowest ISO of 125. Quite a good showing for the
E-10. I suspect it is because the E-10 is full frame, in that the
lens was designed for the size of the CCD.

I'm not suggesting that the E-10 is as good as the D1X, which has
superior detail, far less noise and probably better color, although
the E-10 is very good- and dustless.

--
Frank B
 
Frank,

What tables are you refering to? I can't seem to find one for the E-10.

Regards,
Mark K
Even with it's much larger CCD the figures in Phil's tables for
dynamic range indicate that the E-10 's is greater at ISO 80 than
the D1X at its slowest ISO of 125. Quite a good showing for the
E-10. I suspect it is because the E-10 is full frame, in that the
lens was designed for the size of the CCD.

I'm not suggesting that the E-10 is as good as the D1X, which has
superior detail, far less noise and probably better color, although
the E-10 is very good- and dustless.

--
Frank B
 
Why not that before the lens is changed that a door inside closes to seal the chamber against dust entering and that as long as the lens itself is clean, then very little dust should enter - providing the photographer is careful. So, not a cure but a lessening of.

I think a few have saiud that with a zoom lens there will likely be dust entering since the zoom acts like a pump. Does this affect the E-10?

But the real problem, I think, is the design of the CCD. Is it not composed of pits which hold the dust? Better then to have a completely smooth CCD which would make cleaning much easier.

PP
 
Mark,

Here is the link to the Dynamic Range Table for the E-10.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse10/page14.asp

Frank B
What tables are you refering to? I can't seem to find one for the
E-10.

Regards,
Mark K
Even with it's much larger CCD the figures in Phil's tables for
dynamic range indicate that the E-10 's is greater at ISO 80 than
the D1X at its slowest ISO of 125. Quite a good showing for the
E-10. I suspect it is because the E-10 is full frame, in that the
lens was designed for the size of the CCD.

I'm not suggesting that the E-10 is as good as the D1X, which has
superior detail, far less noise and probably better color, although
the E-10 is very good- and dustless.

--
Frank B
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top