Why not a Super Camera?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mel
  • Start date Start date
M

Mel

Guest
I posted this once already in the wrong place but am curious about more discussion now that I have corrected a typo initially made. The lens aperature could actually be anything from 2.0 to 2.8 changing of course at the various focal lengths. The important thing would be to create a very sharp lens with a wide range. Obviously size may or may not be a major factor depending on the technology used (DX vs FF vs 4/3, etc.). My question is whether others would/could see such a beast as a viable option? This is if it could be built at no greater cost than mentioned?

1.) Why not a unique combination of body and lens with a 2.0 aperture, (creating the best configured glass combination to date ever built or implemented by Nikon), 14mm to 450mm AF-S with the newly developed VR we are likely to see in the next generation of lens. Then add a separate macro mode, with an extended zoom top end high speed crop mode retaining 12.5 MP resolution out over 600 mm, with possibly an industry first unique infrared mode capability. All in one body! One combined compartment! Physical size and weight no greater than the current “general” dimensions of the D2Xs & 28-70AF-S combination and made of magnesium alloy and/or aluminum. Weather sealed to a degree never before attained and capable of withstanding a pouring rain or the camera being held under a continuous waterfalls.

2.) A Specially developed 24 megapixel sensor that is specifically tuned and mated to the superior glass elements in front of it. Situated in a sealed compartment with the rear lens element, eliminating any possibility of an outside pollutant introduction.

3.) An industry first “additional hot shoe” on the side of the camera for vertical shooting (under a securely constructed sliding door)

4.) Onboard storage of 16 gigabytes of solid state memory either developed by Nikon or subcontracted from a superior developer like SanDisk Extreme IV media. The camera could also include a 16 gigabyte CF media card in the box.

5.) A newly developed image transfer capability possibly using cell phone frequencies. (whatever necessary image size reductions automatically made in camera) Basically a PJ mode to get the image out quickly and easily. The technology is available to make it work as easily as a cell phone.

6.) A versatile and specially designed camera bag specifically created for this Super DSLR (possibly by a contracted manufacturer like Lowe Pro), black and yellow with the Nikon label.

7.) Priced at $6995.00 US . . . This new Super camera would have the ability to hand hold a 600mm image at 12.5 MP or capture a 14mm landscape at 24 MP, all in a matter of seconds. Imagine minimal equipment in one bag to cover anything. Plus the bag!

Keep in mind that this camera would not make obsolete any current offering in lens or bodies. The professional and high end amateur DSLR and lens line ups will stay viable in the same manner as the point and shoot line up coexists with them now. This new super camera will only add another level in image capture capability. Its development and existence would eliminate nothing.

--
Mel
 
1.) Why not a unique combination of body and lens with a 2.0
aperture, (creating the best configured glass combination to date
ever built or implemented by Nikon), 14mm to 450mm AF-S with the
newly developed VR we are likely to see in the next generation of
lens. Then add a separate macro mode, with an extended zoom top end
high speed crop mode retaining 12.5 MP resolution out over 600 mm,
with possibly an industry first unique infrared mode capability.
All in one body! One combined compartment! Physical size and weight
no greater than the current “general” dimensions of the D2Xs &
28-70AF-S combination
Let's see ... you want a 14-450 f/2.0 zoom for a APS-size sensor, with VR and macro modes ... and it can't be any larger than a 28-70 zoom?

How is it supposed to collect the light needed for its specifications? Keep in mind that the required front element size grows both as (a) maximum focal length increases ("the field of view from which the camera draws light shrinks") and as (b) maximum aperture increases.

If an 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom is a lot bigger and heavier than a 28-70 zoom, then how is this supposed to be lighter? (Even assuming that you pocket whatever gains are possible by only projecting enough light for a DX DSLR.)
 
The 80-200 2.8 of which I ownS size sensored for several years is definitely a beast. But why would such a design be limited this way? Why couldn;t the old push pull method apply? Why not similar technology as has been used in the 70-300 VR which is much smaller?

And where did I say it had to be an APS size sensor? I would think 1:1 minimum or FF. These would certainly accomodate 24MPbetter than APS.

I guess one would have to think "outside of the normal box" restrictions so far as physics amd cost will allow. We have all of the technology available right now IMO to accomplish what I suggest. The only question is how to apply it to a platform that is cost effective for the consideration that this Pro DSLR will/can/may give maximum accomodation to a variety of pro photographers.

This camera isn't going to appeal (or should it), to novice photographers. The cost alone will dictate that.
--
Mel
 
Further . . . a FF sensor would not be restricted by the mount size with such an offering and the capability to "fine tune" the relationship between the sensor and glass elements offers up a unique singularity not currently enjoyed because of the multiple types, sizes and manufacturers putting glass in front of existing Nikon DSLR imagers.
--
Mel
 
I guess one would have to think "outside of the normal box"
restrictions so far as physics amd cost will allow. We have all of
the technology available right now IMO to accomplish what I
suggest. > Mel
Yes, and I want a car the carries 6 and tows a 3000 lbs trailer while getting 60 mpg. All we have to do is think outside the box of the laws of thermodynamics.
 
Nikon is not trying to bend us over as is the fuel (pardon the pun) behind the auto industry and internal combustion engine technology . . .Petroleum companies.
--
Mel
 
A 450mm f/2 requires that the lens barrel be, minimally, 225mm diameter at its narrowest point.

So much for compactness.
 
I thought thaty explained above about the 2.0 aperature? Please read first.
--
Mel
 
"Explained", as in you clearly want a 14-450mm f/2 despite your suggestion that f/2.8 'might' be acceptable.
Why not a unique combination of body and lens with a 2.0 aperture,
(creating the best configured glass combination to date ever built or
implemented by Nikon), 14mm to 450mm AF-S with the newly
developed VR we are likely to see in the next generation of lens.
 
Why not stay open minded as in . . .what will the coming few years bring as far as new technology for lens? Do you really think they/we are restricted to 70 plus mm for having a 2.8 lens as an example? Everything is changing electronically and optically. That kind of thinking won't hold true for very long. Indulge me for a moment and consider that the 70-300VR is 5.6 in length at 67mm and the lens I mention as an "example", the 28-70 is 4.9 and 77mm. Are you suggesting that it cannot be done to create a lens diameter between these two and obtain more focal length and better aperature without the lens being gigantic? Not to mention the most important factor (as my numbers are seemingly hanging folks up), resolution? Exact numbers and sizes and the like are unimportant to the concept I am trying to get across. Optical technology may well already be taking a significant step if even a tiny portion of the rumors about new Nikon glass would transpire in the coming weeks.
--
Mel
 
The 80-200 2.8 of which I ownS size sensored for several years is
definitely a beast. But why would such a design be limited this
way? Why couldn;t the old push pull method apply? Why not similar
technology as has been used in the 70-300 VR which is much smaller?
There are clever things you can do to fold lenses up when not in use (as on various film and digital point-and-shoot cameras). But, at some point, light gathering is a matter of physics.

I believe the 70 - 300 VR lens is significantly larger than the smaller zoom whose size you gave as a target. Its maximum focal length is less than the 450 mm you wanted for the "Super Camera" lens. And, at 300 mm, it is a f/5.6 lens. That is, it is three full stops slower than the lens you want. To get the speed that you want, you'd need eight times the front glass area of the 70 - 300 VR lens -- at the 300 mm setting on your lens. My guess is that to maintain f/2.0 at 450mm, you'd need yet another 50% increase in the area (forgive me if my math is off).

If a 14 - 450mm f/2.0 zoom lens required 12x the front lens area of a 70 - 300mm f/5.6 zoom lens, would it still be small enough and light enough to serve as your only lens?
And where did I say it had to be an APS size sensor? I would think
1:1 minimum or FF. These would certainly accomodate 24MPbetter than
APS.
The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lens. (Although here, the 70 - 300 VR lens is a FF lens, so the 14 - 450 calculations based on it would already take the needs of a FF sensor into account.)
 
My question is whether
others would/could see such a beast as a viable option?
No.
This is if it could be built at no greater cost than mentioned?
I think NASA or the US military could afford it.
1.) Why not a unique combination of body and lens with a 2.0
aperture, (creating the best configured glass combination to date
ever built or implemented by Nikon), 14mm to 450mm AF-S with the
newly developed VR we are likely to see in the next generation of
lens.
Because 450mm f/2.0 means the entrance pupil (i.e. the image of the aperture as seen from the front of the lens) must be 225mm in diameter. That's simply the definition.

To get an entrance pupil of 225mm, the front element needs to be at least 225mm. It can be larger (and often is, on wide angle lenses), but it cannot be smaller.

And you want an f/2.0 32x zoom, where f/2.8 or faster zooms are limited to 3x. Good luck!
Then add a separate macro mode, with an extended zoom top end
high speed crop mode retaining 12.5 MP resolution out over 600 mm,
That's not much of crop mode, given you already have 450mm optical. You could do "600mm cropped 12.5mp" with a 15mp sensor.
with possibly an industry first unique infrared mode capability.
It's not an industry first. The problem is having the IR filter easily removable.
All in one body! One combined compartment! Physical size and weight
no greater than the current “general” dimensions of the D2Xs &
28-70AF-S combination and made of magnesium alloy and/or aluminum.
I think the 225mm entrance pupil precludes this. It'll be a monster, much bigger than a 400/2.8.
Weather sealed to a degree never before attained and capable of
withstanding a pouring rain or the camera being held under a
continuous waterfalls.
This part isn't that difficult, if that's your goal. Check out UW housings. But I've never seen an UW housing for a monster lens.
2.) A Specially developed 24 megapixel sensor that is specifically
tuned and mated to the superior glass elements in front of it.
Situated in a sealed compartment with the rear lens element,
eliminating any possibility of an outside pollutant introduction.
Have to make sure the entire lens is sealed. But I think you covered that in the previous point.
3.) An industry first “additional hot shoe” on the side of the
camera for vertical shooting (under a securely constructed sliding
door)
Most folks who need this just use a flip bracket, which has other advantages.
4.) Onboard storage of 16 gigabytes of solid state memory either
developed by Nikon or subcontracted from a superior developer like
SanDisk Extreme IV media. The camera could also include a 16
gigabyte CF media card in the box.
SanDisk doesn't make flash memory, they buy it just like everybody else. It's better to have it external, so you can buy what you need. And in case of failure, you are tossing out one card, not sending the camera back to Nikon.
5.) A newly developed image transfer capability possibly using cell
phone frequencies. (whatever necessary image size reductions
automatically made in camera) Basically a PJ mode to get the image
out quickly and easily. The technology is available to make it work
as easily as a cell phone.
I'm sure we'll see this sometime. Oh wait, we already have. It's called a camera phone.
6.) A versatile and specially designed camera bag specifically
created for this Super DSLR (possibly by a contracted manufacturer
like Lowe Pro), black and yellow with the Nikon label.
Also, embroider "steal me" on the main flap.

I prefer inconspicuous consumption, tends to help me hold onto stuff longer.
7.) Priced at $6995.00 US . . . This new Super camera would have
the ability to hand hold a 600mm image at 12.5 MP or capture a 14mm
landscape at 24 MP, all in a matter of seconds. Imagine minimal
equipment in one bag to cover anything. Plus the bag!
Super-telephoto lens prices roughly scale with the diameter of the front element. The Canon 1200/5.6 has a slightly smaller front element than 450/2.0 would have. Rumors are this lens sold in the $80k to $100k ballpark.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
The 80-200 2.8 of which I ownS size sensored for several years is
definitely a beast. But why would such a design be limited this
way?
200mm/2.8 = 71.2mm. You could potentially build this lens with a 72mm filter size.

450mm/2.0 = 225mm.
Why couldn;t the old push pull method apply?
It could, but it won't help.
Why not similar
technology as has been used in the 70-300 VR which is much smaller?
70-300VR is f/5.6. 300mm/5.6 = 53.6mm. This should explain why it is much smaller.
I guess one would have to think "outside of the normal box"
restrictions so far as physics amd cost will allow.
Yes, let's not have physics get in the way of dreaming. Entrance pupil is the size of the aperture as seen through the front of the lens. If you are looking through the front of a lens that has 58mm filter threads, the largest possible entrance pupil is 58mm. That's a long, long way from 450mm f/2.0.
This camera isn't going to appeal (or should it), to novice
photographers. The cost alone will dictate that.
You've underestimated cost by at least an order of magnitude.

The weight will dictate that it will only appeal to professional american football linemen.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
Indulge me for a
moment and consider that the 70-300VR is 5.6 in length at 67mm
...and f/5.6.
the lens I mention as an "example", the 28-70 is 4.9 and 77mm.
...and f/2.8. It's also a wide-to-telephoto lens, which is retrofocus on the wide end.
Are
you suggesting that it cannot be done to create a lens diameter
between these two and obtain more focal length and better aperature
without the lens being gigantic?
Yes. Look up the definition of aperture ratio to figure out why (or just look at the responses you got here).
Not to mention the most important
factor (as my numbers are seemingly hanging folks up), resolution?
Yes, let's not get hung up on facts.
Exact numbers and sizes and the like are unimportant to the concept
I am trying to get across.
I'd like to build a elevator that fits into a broom closet 2' square, and can hold 50 people.
Optical technology may well already be
taking a significant step
This has nothing to do with technology, it has everything to do with reality. You can't build a 450mm f/2.0 lens in a barrel 70mm in diameter. It's be at best 450mm f/6.4.

You can't stuff 50 people into a room that is 2 foot square. At best you might be able to squeeze 3 or 4, if they are skinny and don't smell bad.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
Lots of good points in nickleback's post.

That Sony "prosumer" camera with the 24-120mm (equiv) lens is the closest thing that has come out to date. It used an APS sized sensor (I believe) and was a fairly large camera. Yours will be bigger if you insist on a FF (24x36mm) sensor.

It could be smaller if you were happy with a 4/3's sized sensor. Then a 400mm (equiv) f2.0 lens is really 200mm FL so the diameter is "only" 100mm or so. Still pretty huge. If you could live with f2.8 at the long end then the minimum diameter of the front element drops to 72mm. If you could live with 300mm (equiv) f2.8 at the long end then the diameter drops to 54mm (actual lens FL of 150mm) which is a pretty reasonable size. Use a bit of sensor crop to get 400mm (equiv) and give up on 600mm.

I doubt anyone would build that much storage into a camera. Pros want to shoot, swap, and shoot some more. Not connect to a laptop or whatever in the middle of a session to download.

All that said I don't think anyone would build such a camera. The "prosumer" cameras didn't seem to sell that well and your idea is similar, but higher priced. The limited market for it would drive up the price even higher since the millions of dollars in R&D would have to be amortized of thousands of units, rather than hundreds of thousands or millions of units.

Cheers - Greg
 
Hummm, apparently you missed my post after this that states that the 2.0,2.8 whatever, is an example. It is and remains the concept that I am addressing here. Forgive my misstating and misunderstanding the ridiculousness of suggesting a 2.0 continous aperture in actual applications. As I stated in my last thread here, and what you took wrongly as aperature numbers. . .5.6 for the 70-300mm is the "LENGTH" of the lens. I own the lens and am well aware of the aperature. Same with the 28-70, 4.9 is the "LENGTH", I am speaking of. AGAIN, what I asked and stated was if we can have these two lens TODAY, is it that far from reality to invision a lens with a diameter between these two (72mm) as an example? With enough diameter and length to be in the ball park? Heck the 18-200mm is almost in the ball park. It is exactly a 72mm lens and under 4 inches. What could it be at say 5.6 inches as I gave in example and comparison to the 70-300 VR?

If you want to straighten me out on this (after correctly reading what I have wrote), please explain why the above in example, are the miles away (as you suggest) from the 14 to 450mm I initially mention? I just did a quick check and Sigma has a 28-300mm 3.5 inches in length at 90mm. Yes it is 3.5 and not 2.8 or certainly not 2.0, but AGAIN, the exact aperature is not my point and was only an example to indicate wanting to obtain the best image quality one can get with a proposed DSLR like this.

My mistake for throwing out numbers with the design. But now you have some definite exacts and actual realities to work with.

Would love to hear your thoughts with the above if you read it correctly now that I have tried to explain it more corectly?

--
Mel
 
Thanks Greg!

Again though. No lock in on APS size sensor. I never mentioned that as a size, someone else did or "asumed". 1:1 or FF would be the sensor I would propose. 4/3 also not out of the question.

Considering those two sensors, the definite need for storage becomes apparent. On board is just a possible option.

The other cams you speak of were not pro built and while similar to what I am suggesting. In reality, this new example would be in a totally different league with trying to accomodate and cover a "much" wider range of focal length and capability.

If anyone would have said Nikon would be producing a camera with a 1:1 sensor, say, 18 months ago. I would bet many would have jumped on it as a ridiculous concept being so close to FF. Also in complete denial at that time, that the F mount was an issue regarding FF.

My camera suggestion eliminates any issues with matching (perfectly) the lens elements and a sensor described above.
--
Mel
 
Why bew so limiting?

Why not go for FF circular with a 3cm radius?
Then there is no reason to hold vertically?

Why not include fuel cell to generate power and a cell phne to xmit the images to the home planet?

Oh yeh, a helium ballon to decrease the carry weight?

--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top