Ross
Veteran Member
Along with the Minolta Vectis, there were also Nikon's Pronea 6i & S and Canon's EOS IX & IX Lite APS SLRs. So, 3 mfrs. have some experience in "Honey I shrunk the SLR" game.
--Bob Ross
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D-SLR CCD Size
- Thread starter Les Moss
- Start date
--Bob Ross
Karl Guttag
Senior Member
I'm a big on computer manupalation as anybody. But it can take a lot of effort and still look "fake" to simulate DoF in say Photoshop. Somebody taking a bunch of shots cannot afford to put that much effort into each pixel.
Basically what the Point and Shoot Cameras do it move the Lens closer to the image plane thus making wide angle lenses easier at say F2. But this works only up to a point. There is a problem with the image accepting very low F-number angle lenses as Olympus points out (the light comes in a too steep and angle which can cause diffraction as well as sensing problems). Compare any of the small sensor Cameras to the 35mm from Canon or Nikon and the images are less noisy at ISO400 than the P&S are at ISO100.
While I belive there will be a market for a smaller than 35mm DSLR system, I also recognize that there are pro's and con's.
Karl--Karl
H
Heinz
Guest
Well, like many others (thousands) in Germany/Austria/Switzerland I have bought an E-100 RS in it's sell-out for less than $500, which has a perfect lens (at least at this resolution) and "only" 1,4 MPix: It is really fun using this camera, even knowing that the Canon PowerShot Pro90 IS has almost double the resolution of the E-100 - at twice the price at the end of 2001.
That's absolutely right. Better be happy with an affordable 1,4 MPix camera with razor sharp images at any focal length than buy an expensive 6 MPix camera with the high CCD-resolution showing the poor resolution of many zoom lenses.
Well, I suppose that the new digital SLR cameras will turn out about the size of the SLR vectis, a little smaller than a compact 35mm SLR, and certainly smaller than the E-10/20. AF lenses will vary in size from that of the Vectis V-macro 3,5/50 (equivalent to about 75mm for 35mm format) to much larger ones. I guess that the eqipment will weigh in at about half the weight of comparable 35mm equipment. (This should be acknowledged from an ergonomic point of view also: In my younger days I used to hike with a 2 kg photo bag on my shoulder, and it was no fun after an hour or two!) That would be about the size and weight of a Leica M, right?
Leica of course will have to offer something like a digital Leica M in the near future to avoid the fate of so many other renowned German camera producers. At least I hope that they will not end as a mere supplier of lenses to Panasonic, or - worse - seller of just their brand names for lenses produced in Asia (as seems to be the case with a line of "Zeiss" Sonnar lenses for Sony camcorders and digital still cameras). Competitors like Cosina/Voigtlaender or Kyocera (Hexar) could take the lead, too.
Could the new Olympus with exchangable lenses be a digital substitute for the Leica M? Within a few days probably we will know a lot more. We certainly will not see a range finder camera, but it could be compact and silent, if it does not turn out to be a small SLR...
HeinzM
H
Heinz
Guest
But Minolta were the only to offer a new line of lenses (with the new V-mount), more compact than any 35mm SLR lens, and splash-proof. It really would be a pity if all the manpower they have invested in this large project would be lost with the cancellation of the SLR Vectis line announced by Minolta a few weeks ago.
I cannot believe it and hope they will give it a new life as a digital Vextis dX or something like that. (I am an old Minolta fan and still keep my MD-equipment - the X-300 for example is a very reliable camera...)
HeinzM
C
Chris Brown
Guest
[And then]
Which just goes to show that one should never say, "watch this". ;-)
This is, um, "brave" of Olympus. The announcement I read suggested a range of 5 lenses (presumably all zooms?). That's pretty pathetic compared to what's available for EF and Nikon mounts.
Why should they bother? Let's assume you're a lens manufactuer. You've just been told of a completely new lens mount that is alien to the 35mm stuff you're used to (so you can't really adapt existing designs from another mount, as Sigma do), and which has doesn't exist in the marketplace yet. You have the choice between spending lots of R&D money up-front for a product which may not sell, and even if it does, it will be slow to gather momentum.
On the other hand, you could just wait and see if it becoimes a success, making money from the Canon and Nikon compatible lenses you already develop (and for which there are millions os existing customers) in the meantime. If things work out, you could look at making lenses for this mount later. The market isn't going to go away if it becomes extablished.
But the problem is, if people take that view, the market won't become established because people won't buy into an interchangable lens system with next to no lenses in sufficient numbers. Sure, it may be smaller, lighter, etc., but if all you can get is a handful of low-end zooms, why bother giving it the time of day? Might as well just go and buy a decent zoom-compact like the G4 and Sony 707s of this world - the choice of lenses won't be radically different.
Ah, another reason not to buy it.
[35mm lens adapters]
Nope, you're back to the focal length magnifier effect again, particularly since you're emphasising small sensors. They'd be more likely to spend their money on a larger sensor DSLR that takes their lenses natively and gives a field of view much closer to what they're used to.
Sorry, but Canon and Nikon are hardly likely to be quaking in their boots - this idea is to DSLRs as APS is to 35mm.
H
Heinz
Guest
An APS format CCD is several times larger than those CCDs now in use in the "better" digital P&S. In the Olympus project the 3/4 Kodak CCD has four times the area compared to the E-10. The pixel size is comparable to that of the 35mm professional SLR-bodies, giving similar light sensitivity.
The "revolution" will be to construct a new compact body with new lens mount and new compact lenses for the smaller than 24x36 format (e.g. smallest APS frame), not use bulky and heavy 35mm equipment with a focal multipier.
Everyone argues that old lenses should still be usable. This certainly could be done with an adapter (the Minolta RD-3000 had one for Maxxum lenses), possibly without AF, but still usable for many tasks. I see mostly pro's, for both sides: A large new market for producers and large advantages for the user in terms of size, weight and possibly some more resulting from new construction of a whole system.
E.g. an EVF, of high definition and fast, I hope: with very low light framing and focussing capabilities, cf. Sony's F707, or remote framing etc., e.g. using a TV/monitor in the studio, or with macro- or micro-equipment. To give an example: Leica offers a Coolpix adapter for capturing images with several microsopes. It's absurd because you have more than double the number of optical elements between object and CCD compared to a system which uses the microscope lens for "direct" imaging to the CCD or film - as was standard with 35mm microscope cameras for decades. (The Minolta RD-3000 seems to have been aimed at this special market, too, but with little success, being very expensive and much larger than a 35mm SLR body off the shelf, e.g. the Nikon F-301 used some time ago with several Nikon microscopes.)
The Olympus-Kodak-project is just logical, overdue I think. To create a new standard format is a sizeable task (think of the long time from the first Leica early last century until 35mm cameras really gained ground), but Olympus and Kodak are large enough to give it a good start, I hope. And from 2002 onward the revolution will not take decades - with all the necessary components/technical capabilities ready for the construction of a new system and the internet to spread the goog news...
HeinzM
Yes!!! That would be lovely. One of the most beatifull cameras ever made. But the lenses were not autofocus-ones. How could that be fixed?
--Ole
Do not forget the whole array of movie-lenses. Very powerfull zooms. Lenses with large apperture. And small frames: Think of 16 mm film. Fantastic d-cameras could be build around them!
Vin Rigby
Active member
Many 35mm users who are looking at going digital already have expensive lenses. It would make sense to purchase a digital camera body that accomodated these lenses but presently not at the cost of losing-out via the 1.5/1.3 multiplier. Again, 35mm users are looking for the quality they have become accustomed to which will only be matched I think with the advent of a true 12 mega pixel sensor or greater that will allow the full use of pre-owned lenses. I don't think we'll have long to wait!
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
The 4/3" Kodak sensor in question has an image area of 17.8 x 13.4mm. That's moderately smaller than the APS format. The APS image size is 30 x 17mm.
The terms used to specify sensor size -- "4/3 inch", in this case -- don't relate directly to the actual dimensions of the sensor. It's tricky.
Karl Guttag
Senior Member
I would agree that there is proabably a sweet spot around a APS sized sensor, which by the way, is about the same size as a D30 sensor. By going to a new body and lens design, they would move the Lens closer to the sensor which would make designing wider angle lenses (at least the same FoV as a 28mm lens on a 35mm SLR) much easier.
A agree that they can't be a little bit pregnant. For the system to standardize they need to commit to it. I think that many of the D30 is a stop gap for people that will eventually be moving closer to full 35mm size sensors with their lens collections.
While it might only require an extension tube like device to move the old lens farther away from the mount, it would be kind of an awkward mess.
I think they had to wait until they could build an APS sized sensor in a camera body for less than $1,000 which is probably this year. Canon's D30 just 18 months ago was considered a bargain at $3,000.
There is an old saying that "technology moves very slowly in the short term and very fast in the long term."
Recognize also that an APS sized DSLR interchangable lens system will have to compete against cameras that have about the same size sensor but without interchangable lenses. It becomes an issue of how finely they can carve the market for people that will buy a lens system but not go all the way to Nikon or Canon. How many people will buy interchangable lenses that would not be satisfied with a built in lens that has the FoV of 28-200mm on a 35mm camera? Definitely there will be some people.
The virtue of capitalism is how all these companies will be working so hard to get the consumer to buy their products.
Karl
--Karl
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
Yes, and this could be a deal-breaker for a lot of us. On the other hand, how many people actually use more than a handful of lenses. I'm a pretty experienced photographer, and for eight years I could buy Nikon lenses at or below Nikon Inc.'s landed cost, and I own a total of six Nikon lenses.
Same reason that Olympus is bothering: because the system is enough different that it has the potential to chip a chunk out of the entrenched market leaders. I think a company like Cosina, for instance, might look at this as an opportunity to make at least a modest impact on the marketplace. Cosina, after all, recently developed a lens-interchangeable rangefinder camera system with seven or eight lenses. (www.cosina.com/Voigtlander.htm). What sense does that project make? But it's interesting stuff, and it's different, and it's helping Cosina establish their name and presence in the marketplace. I noted with amusement at the news stand the other day that Pop Photo just rated one of Cosina's lenses for that system as one of the top 3 primes the magazine has ever tested. Lens testing is a dubious business, so you can't make too much of it, but I was amused because I get so tired of the blathering nonsense about the ineffable optical magic of their own brands from users of Canon "L", Nikon, and (most absurdly overwrought) Zeiss and Leica. (One of the other top 3 primes was a Pentax, incidentally.)
All of this is just to say that good new ideas, and good products, can come from anywhere.
I agree with you completely that Olympus faces an uphill battle if it wants to take a significant chunk of the professional/serious amateur market away from Nikon and Canon. It won't be easy, but this conclusion ...
doesn't strike me as inevitable yet. I've said this before in relation to the Olympus/Kodak project, but if Olympus does the job right -- a highly usable camera in a compact package, with great image quality, and interesting lenses to go with it -- I may well be trading in my three Nikon bodies and six lenses. I've been using a D1x for three weeks now, and, though it's a great camera, I can't help resenting all that extra weight and bulk I'm carrying around because the camera's geometry matches an image size it doesn't use or need.
Mike Diamond
Leading Member
While you could find many questions and answers to the lens/chromatic aberration subject, and many more about the problems of correcting them with the lens/CCD/CMOS sensor size issue, the reason for not producing an APS sized camera/CCD/CMOS combo with removable lenses is essentially COST. Currently, using smaller sensors than the standard 35mm frame, has forced the manufacturers to cut back on the quality of the lenses used on consumer digital cameras. The reality is that to produce a nine element lens with Aspheric elements that matched the optical field of the current lot of Digicams CCD/CMOS size, would cost more than the equivalent 35mm lens. This is due to the need for more critical polishing and processing of the smaller piece of glass that is needed. Additionally, the quality of the raw silicon/specific impurities to render the exact optical results would require finer quality control. All this adds up to HIGHER cost for the SMALLER lens. It is much easier for the Manufacturer to say:
Here is a very high quality 35MM lens (That I have already recovered the research and development costs on), buy what you want keeping in mind the Multiplier based on CCD/CMOS size.
MDiamond
Here is a very high quality 35MM lens (That I have already recovered the research and development costs on), buy what you want keeping in mind the Multiplier based on CCD/CMOS size.
MDiamond
C
Chris Brown
Guest
But the likes of Sigma can already do that for existing 35mm lens lines, and the market is there. They get to spread R&D for new lenses across all manufacturers as well, because they release each lens for each of the popular lens mounts.
This is different though - there is no established market for lenses using this mount, and if their 35mm lens lines can't be easilly adopted for this new mount, there's not a whole lot in it for them - costs them in R&D and there are few customers compared to the millions of film and DSLR users they already target (don't forget that Sigma's DSLR lenses can be used with 35mm film too).
This is a 35mm camera, so they can reuse the optics in these lenses in their other ranges. Interchangable lens rangefinders are also a fairly specialist market where people are prepared to pay a lot of money for what they get (look at the prices Leica charge). What we're talking about here is a different beast though - it's not just a new 35mm lens mount, and the target audience may not be prepared to pay enough for these lenses to justify producing them, particularly since this new mount seems to be aimed at those wanting a DSLR on a budget.
Primes are one thing. What the L range gives you is a range which includes many zooms with excellent optics and large apertures, and getting that right is tricky.
I rather suspect that primes for this new DSLR mount are going to be pretty thin on the ground as well. AFAICS, the target audience for this kind of DSLR tends to want zooms.
I quite agree. I'm just far from convinced that this is a remotely good idea - it looks like they're going after the sort of people who currently buy cameras like the G2. What's not clear is what this new system gets you over such a camera - you get a bit more choice in lenses, but certainly nothing like the established lens ranges from the big manufacturers.
From Olympus' point of view, I can sort of see why they're doing this - they don't have an (interchangable lens) SLR range anymore (never managed to compete in the 35mm autofocus market and have recently scrapped their manual focus system), so as long as they don't bet the company on this, they may see it as worth a punt. At worst, they just throw their money away and can the project after a few years. At best, they may be able to take a slice of the market from Canon and Nikon, and manage to get themselves back into the SLR market.
I'm not optimistic about their chances though.
OK, I agree that it's not inevitable, but it does look, to my eyes, like a bit of a hopeless cause. Perhaps Olympus see this as their only chance to reestablish themselves in the SLR market, and are willing to take the gamble.
I wish them luck, they're going to need it.
I just bought myself a zoom-compact as a backup and general carry-around camera. I fully expect that there will be 35mm full-frame DSLRs on the market at some point, and I'll then be able to use my existing lenses with them. There's also the point that with smaller pixels for a given pixel count, this new system is going to run up against the limits of resolution and image quality much earlier. Ultimately you can't beat increased ilm/sensor area if you want image quality. Smaller sensors demand more from optical and semiconductor technology.
Alan Shutko
Well-known member
Since it's compatible with the reknowned Leica M lenses, it makes a whole lot of sense. Now people who want to use those lenses don't have to buy a Leica body.
This is different from a company who wants to start an entirely new system, compatible with nothing.
Mike'M
Active member
Just an idea,
You have mentioned the Minolta "Vectis" RD3000 earlier in this thread.
Using two vertical Foveon sensors and a prism to separately
image each half of the frame you would get a 6MP 28x21 frame
with a factor approx 1.2 relative to 35mm.
Note that i don't advocate or even like this method, i would like photography to develop and hope to see smaller high quality cameras, if necessary with interchangeable lenses...in some way. We need cameras where things happen, news as well as artwise
There will always be a place left for those who prefers old and "much better" technologies (medium and large format, leica rangefinders, Vinyl LP's vs. CD, vaccuum tubes etc) but since the money is elsewhere with the masses it will be at a premium.
The future will surprise us, that's the only thing we can be sure of: The worlds lightest (50kg, 5m diameter) lens is today produced with the help of an origami-expert! (the lens itself folds out)
Mike
You have mentioned the Minolta "Vectis" RD3000 earlier in this thread.
Using two vertical Foveon sensors and a prism to separately
image each half of the frame you would get a 6MP 28x21 frame
with a factor approx 1.2 relative to 35mm.
Note that i don't advocate or even like this method, i would like photography to develop and hope to see smaller high quality cameras, if necessary with interchangeable lenses...in some way. We need cameras where things happen, news as well as artwise
There will always be a place left for those who prefers old and "much better" technologies (medium and large format, leica rangefinders, Vinyl LP's vs. CD, vaccuum tubes etc) but since the money is elsewhere with the masses it will be at a premium.
The future will surprise us, that's the only thing we can be sure of: The worlds lightest (50kg, 5m diameter) lens is today produced with the help of an origami-expert! (the lens itself folds out)
Mike
H
Heinz
Guest
I'm not a specialist, can only judge from what I see with my own eyes. Take the Canon 10x zoom lens used in the Olympus C-2100 UZ, the E-100 RS and the Canon Pro90 IS with sensors of + - "1/2" size (something like a quarter of the 35mm format, or 1/16 in area): That lens is surprizingly sharp at full aperture of 2,8...3,5. The mass market camera models C-2100 and Pro90 are or rather were at about $1000 (with the Olympus prices, starting with the E-100 RS PAL model, dropping to less than $500 summer/fall 2001 in a sell-out in German-speaking countries). I think it's production numbers which ultimately will determine whether a lens produces profits or losses.
Repeating arguments: Minolta has a whole range of high quality Vectis V-mount lenses. They just would have to produce a digital Vectis body better than the RD-3000 (also sold out in the second half of 2001, at least in Germany).
The success of the Olympus-Kodak 4/3-project depends on the availability of reasonably priced high quality lenses. Olympus has experience with the format from the half-size 35mm Pen decades ago and a range of APS models with built-in zoom lenses. APS obviously has no future, but the know-how collected in producing APS lenses will have, I am sure, not only at Olympus. Adapters for other high quality (35mm-) lenses would help to convince potential customers owning such lenses to buy the new cameras. Olympus definitely aims at mass production (just as Sony with the F707, as an example) by announcing a price around $1500 for the body with one lens. The lens price issue will decide for a large part whether the project will be successful, that for sure...
It is hard to see why the D-SLRs derived from 35mm bodies are so expensive if larger CCDs are relatively cheaply produced. All what I have heard up to now tells the contrary: Large sensors are extremely expensive. If this is not true and prices for these cameras will sharply drop as soon as a few competitor models of APS size with interchangeable lenses are available at a price around $1500 the success of the project is open. But if a price of $1500 is announced it means that profits are possible at a lower price once mass production can be achieved.
Don't forget that new people interested in "serious" photography can be recruited (not owning a Nikon or Canon or Minolta... 35mm SLR system). If they are offered a compact sysem (cf. Vectis, or the former Olympus Pen SLR; or Leica M, Hexar, Voigtlaender Bessa, even for 35mm format but without the bulky mirror housing) most of them will prefer it to the digital clones of 35mm SLRs, I suppose, especially if it is more affordable, as may well be the case judging from current price ranges and the announced Olympus price projection for the new model.
In 2003 we will know better. I just pledge to give the project of a new standard format for "professional" digital cameras a fair chance. I myself stuck with small 35mm models without AF in the eighties (e.g. Minolta X-300 etc, or Olympus OM, or Pentax ME..., to name a few) and never will buy a digital clone of a current 35mm SLR, not even at $1500.
HeinzM
H
Heinz
Guest
Sure. But two giants, Olympus and Kodak, decided to try to make the "4/3" format a new standard. Consider the pixel size argument: light sensitivity, noise...
If the new models will be equipped with an EVF/electronic viewfinder and short distance from bayonet mount to the image plane, an adapter for c-mount lenses might be possible, using just the center of the CCD sensor, I guess.
It depends on what type of viewfinder Olympus will decide on, inner mount diameter, and possibly patent restrictions. It certainly would be wise for Olympus to offer several possibilities to use existing high quality lenses (without modern comfort like AF, therefore no serious competition to the new lenses dedicated to the new model, just possibilities to play with existing glass...).
HeinzM
Mike Diamond
Leading Member
Heinz:
I am an UZI (Oly C21OO) owner and enthusiast. I agree that the Lens is sharp and worthy of use in many other cameras (It is a Canon Design, and the Pro90 is using it). However, both the Pro90 and C2100 are much larger cameras than the standard APS camera, and of course the lenses are not interchangeable. The lenses are also much larger (surface area) than the standard APS lens, and if we were to assume that both the lens size and body size of the cameras were to match the current crop of APS camera bodies and lenses, (which is indeed the size of the body and lens on the current standard consumer targeted digital camera), we run into the production cost factors that I spoke of. One of the best examples I can give of quantity not always offseting production costs in the Photographic arena is the Miranda Autofocus Pocket Camera. A friends father was the manager for Allied Impex who were the main distributors in the US for Miranda, Soligor/Jobo, and Bauer cameras, darkroom supplies, movie cameras and lenses. Miranda actually came to market with the first fully automatic autofocus pocket 35mm camera. The targeted market caused them to price the camera (this was back in the early 1970's) at $89.00 US. They had so many orders that they were back ordered for almost a years production, when they went bankrupt trying to fill the orders. The cost of producing the camera (even in huge numbers), was greater than its list price. At that time, The 35mm Autofocus SLR that they produced, was ranked among the top 10 SLR's by Popular Photography magazine. I still have 3 Miranda Backs and about 2 dozen automatic and manual lenses, (which by the way were manufactured by Soligor under the Miranda name) and they still all work perfectly, but quality comes at a price. I don't believe that it was lack of Market that caused Olympus to discontinue the half frame cameras, I believe it was cost.
MDiamond
I am an UZI (Oly C21OO) owner and enthusiast. I agree that the Lens is sharp and worthy of use in many other cameras (It is a Canon Design, and the Pro90 is using it). However, both the Pro90 and C2100 are much larger cameras than the standard APS camera, and of course the lenses are not interchangeable. The lenses are also much larger (surface area) than the standard APS lens, and if we were to assume that both the lens size and body size of the cameras were to match the current crop of APS camera bodies and lenses, (which is indeed the size of the body and lens on the current standard consumer targeted digital camera), we run into the production cost factors that I spoke of. One of the best examples I can give of quantity not always offseting production costs in the Photographic arena is the Miranda Autofocus Pocket Camera. A friends father was the manager for Allied Impex who were the main distributors in the US for Miranda, Soligor/Jobo, and Bauer cameras, darkroom supplies, movie cameras and lenses. Miranda actually came to market with the first fully automatic autofocus pocket 35mm camera. The targeted market caused them to price the camera (this was back in the early 1970's) at $89.00 US. They had so many orders that they were back ordered for almost a years production, when they went bankrupt trying to fill the orders. The cost of producing the camera (even in huge numbers), was greater than its list price. At that time, The 35mm Autofocus SLR that they produced, was ranked among the top 10 SLR's by Popular Photography magazine. I still have 3 Miranda Backs and about 2 dozen automatic and manual lenses, (which by the way were manufactured by Soligor under the Miranda name) and they still all work perfectly, but quality comes at a price. I don't believe that it was lack of Market that caused Olympus to discontinue the half frame cameras, I believe it was cost.
MDiamond
H
Heinz
Guest
The new Kodak sensor has four times the area of the E-series sensors, that's not "small". Who really "needs" 6 MPix (even more)? 4/3 size is large enough for that resolution.
Ultimately you CAN BEAT sensor area if you want image quality, I am convinced. In dedicated microscope cameras, for example, sensor cooling has been standard for years. No one ever offered a "mobile" general purpose camera with sensor cooling, as far as I know. Why not? It takes energy, and there is the problem of condensation in case of humid air.
Both problems almost "disappear" if you manage to cool just the pixels for the moment of exposure and readout. That's an engeneering problem which seems to have been solved already with thermoelectric on-chip cooling, if I understood a recent article in SCIENCE magazine ((or NATURE?)) correctly. Of course the US military pushed this development.
You need littel energy to cool part of a square inch for a few seconds at most (put a vacuum in front of the CCD, behind the IR filter?). I guess it will take three to four years until we will be offered such technology...
HeinzM
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum