Cameras with no proper lenses: DSLR's

It´s like selling wonderfull cars without tires...but you can use truck tires!

An APS sized chip, using 35 mm film camera lenses!!! Highly Recomended! (In my opinion only for those with many good 35 mm lenses)

Carlos, I tried this topic before in the forums...

No one wants cheper, faster, smaller better performing lensses made for the 1.5 factor. They want to keep trowing their money on truck tires. I talked about jet engines being retrofited to Second World War inventory propeler bodies, but no one got the similariti.

I also sugested that the budies could be made smaller --like the E-10,20-- but someone said that smaller cameras are not desirable becaude you could not hold them...

You will see....

Carlos Heiss said:

It´s like selling wonderfull cars without tires...but you can use
truck tires!
An APS sized chip, using 35 mm film camera lenses!!! Highly
Recomended! (In my opinion only for those with many good 35 mm
lenses)

Click to expand...

--Frank Barret

sorry, not budies, but bodies..

frank barret said:

No one wants cheper, faster, smaller better performing lensses made
for the 1.5 factor. They want to keep trowing their money on truck
tires. I talked about jet engines being retrofited to Second World
War inventory propeler bodies, but no one got the similariti.

I also sugested that the budies could be made smaller --like the
E-10,20-- but someone said that smaller cameras are not desirable
becaude you could not hold them...

You will see....

Carlos Heiss said:

It´s like selling wonderfull cars without tires...but you can use
truck tires!
An APS sized chip, using 35 mm film camera lenses!!! Highly
Recomended! (In my opinion only for those with many good 35 mm
lenses)

Click to expand...

--
Frank Barret

Click to expand...

--Frank Barret

I totally agree. A specific set of lenses for the 1.5x FOV crop factor of most DSLRs would weigh ony 1/3 as much and cost half as much as the 35mm equivalents. This would make DSLR systems much more attractive.

I think we need special lens for special cameras (DSLR).

It will happend the only question is when??

I think first imager size has to stabilize (nikon??) and then the new generation lens will start to show up.

frank barret said:

Carlos, I tried this topic before in the forums...

No one wants cheper, faster, smaller better performing lensses made
for the 1.5 factor. They want to keep trowing their money on truck
tires. I talked about jet engines being retrofited to Second World
War inventory propeler bodies, but no one got the similariti.

I also sugested that the budies could be made smaller --like the
E-10,20-- but someone said that smaller cameras are not desirable
becaude you could not hold them...
--E-20, C-3030 and E-100rs happy owner

Click to expand...

The sensor size in the Kodak DCS pro backs is 35mm so medium format camera makers shoud make adaptors to 34mm lensses.

Les Moss said:

I totally agree. A specific set of lenses for the 1.5x FOV crop
factor of most DSLRs would weigh ony 1/3 as much and cost half as
much as the 35mm equivalents. This would make DSLR systems much
more attractive.

Click to expand...

--Frank Barret

So it's not just me, then? I keep hoping the digital camera makers will form a consortium for a new standard so we can all win with light, fast, cheap lenses...

Until then, I'll stick with the ZLRs and wait out these albatross DSLRs with truck tires.

Is there any hope for sanity?

frank barret said:

Les Moss said:

I totally agree. A specific set of lenses for the 1.5x FOV crop
factor of most DSLRs would weigh ony 1/3 as much and cost half as
much as the 35mm equivalents. This would make DSLR systems much
more attractive.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Isn't this the same argument that created APS, and the long
forgotten 110 SLR? How many times do we have to go down
the same road to the same dead end before people realize that
there is a standard in place, and it has outlived all of the attempts
to dethrone it without even sweating? We don't need smaller
lenses, we need larger imager chips and consumer prices for them.

thabear said:

Until then, I'll stick with the ZLRs and wait out these albatross
DSLRs with truck tires.

Is there any hope for sanity?

Floating_Fotoman said:

Les Moss said:

I totally agree. A specific set of lenses for the 1.5x FOV crop
factor of most DSLRs would weigh ony 1/3 as much and cost half as
much as the 35mm equivalents. This would make DSLR systems much
more attractive.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bob, you bring up a good point, and I still think the modern cassette tape was a poor concept over its earlier, better performing ancestor.

However, one of the largest singular characteristic of the semiconductor industry since the dawn of the transistor has been constant miniaturization. Today's 1/3 sized 5MP CCD is next years 1/3 10MP CCD and so on. Looking at the short history of digital cameras, the CCD size has remained constant as the resolution has gone up.

Why artificially enlarge the CCD and take away one of the strongest strengths of this new format called digital? Small, light, fast lenses. Although there have been slow, tangible increases in film resolution, the digital sensor promises to gain resolution densities that surpass everything.

The only reason to stay with the old guard is to grandfather in a bunch of inappropriate, heavy, overbuilt lenses that aren't being fully utilized. That, or fear of starting a new convention and failing.

If a new standard is to come in, it needs a good reason. I think this technology is ample reason.

Bob Williams said:

Isn't this the same argument that created APS, and the long
forgotten 110 SLR? How many times do we have to go down
the same road to the same dead end before people realize that
there is a standard in place, and it has outlived all of the attempts
to dethrone it without even sweating? We don't need smaller
lenses, we need larger imager chips and consumer prices for them.

Click to expand...

The failure of 110 and APS has nothing to do with digital cameras. It was the failure of the film format and your analogy is inappropriate. On the otherhand I can understand those owning a bunch of 35mm lenses and getting worried about an entirely new lens format - they should not be worried because there will be attempts to create cameras with full-size sensors for years to come (contax N) - for a lot of money.

But the future is inevitable and they will adjust the size of the optics to these APS-size (unfortunate term) sensors. And it will be a big hit this time. And it will be for the masses - just like 35mm has been. And it will take a little longer for the professional photographers to switch.--Best wishes,Zoli

Bob,
Canon D30: 3 MP, 1,6 FOV
Canon D60: 6 MP, 1,6 FOV, better image than Nikon 6 MP, 1,5 FOV, and
Foveon chip: 3 MP X 3, 1,7 FOV

Aren't they getting even smaller with increasing resolution/better images? O.K., there is the Phillips 6 MP on the $ 7 K Contax and her $ XK lenses. But, like APS, soon CCD chips (at last the "big" ones) will be nothing but beforetime... Regards,
Carlos

Actually, the digital trend has supported exactly what has happened
in the past so far. As of today, there is a limit to how close they
can pack those small photosites together without having major
problems, and there is also a limit under the current tech as to
how small the photosites can be and still provide good light
reception. The current trend is to make the actual photosites
a little larger, and to spread them a little farther apart. This
is why we have today's close to failed 5 mp chip in the 707, with
image smoothing on camera, or the D7 with the noise intact
until you process it out. The current, "best", is a cmos chip,
not a CCD, and the photosites are larger still because of the
masking caused by the noise reduction circuits. The current
new tech uses a three layer design with even larger photosites
than the current CMOS chip does.
If you are right, and they continue to make things smaller, that
still does not address the lenses needed to support such an
imager, and their cost. On the new D60, it has been said that
you can see the advantage of L glass over other glass. If that
chip was half that size, and you were trying to use the whole
lens, how good do you think the lens resolution would need to
be? You are not talking smaller and cheaper. You are talking
smaller and much more expensive. Actually, even with the
fine glass people now own, a 10 or 12 mp ensor that is full
frame will put the hurts on most of the lenses out there today.
So that direction leads to more expense also, but it doesn't
need to make the lenses 4 times better, like the smaller lens
theory would require.
Before we reach the place you are pointing to, there will have to
be a revolution in the lens manufacturing business, and then
sensors to take advantage of the new lens tech will be developed.
None of this will reach the cheap end for some time.

If you want cheap, good quality, and now, then there is one
real answer. Someone needs to take the new 3.5 mp
Foveon, or even the chip in the D30, and make a manual
focus consumer grade camera, with a meter and little else.
There are tons of good glass out there already that would
work just fine. Of course, they would not be selling a lot
of new lenses that way would they?

Zoltan Csuka said:

The failure of 110 and APS has nothing to do with digital cameras.
It was the failure of the film format and your analogy is
inappropriate. On the otherhand I can understand those owning a
bunch of 35mm lenses and getting worried about an entirely new lens
format - they should not be worried because there will be attempts
to create cameras with full-size sensors for years to come (contax
N) - for a lot of money.
But the future is inevitable and they will adjust the size of the
optics to these APS-size (unfortunate term) sensors. And it will be
a big hit this time. And it will be for the masses - just like 35mm
has been. And it will take a little longer for the professional
photographers to switch.
--
Best wishes,
Zoli

Click to expand...

What I can see as the current trend is that they are making the pixels smaller (D60, D100, D1x) with less or comparable noise.

As far as the optics: just look at the G2 and f707 - did you realize how much smaller the sensor pixels are - and the lenses are still capable of providing good resolution? Then you must have realized that the a major drawback of today's 35mm SLR bodies is that they cant put lenses closer to the sensors (due to bulky mirrors and shutter mechanism and old design in general). Just to make you understand how important sensor to lens distance for overall resolution is let me mention some more examples (other than g2 and f707) contact lenses (cheap but with incredible resolution) or lets say cataract lenses are very similar.

So the new SLR design would make several advances: smaller sensors (20mm would be fine), smaller lenses, and optics placed much closer to sensor. The overall design would be MUCH more costeffective and IMO the only way to go eventually.

Bob Williams said:

If you want cheap, good quality, and now, then there is one
real answer. Someone needs to take the new 3.5 mp
Foveon, or even the chip in the D30, and make a manual
focus consumer grade camera, with a meter and little else.
There are tons of good glass out there already that would
work just fine. Of course, they would not be selling a lot
of new lenses that way would they?

Zoltan Csuka said:

The failure of 110 and APS has nothing to do with digital cameras.
It was the failure of the film format and your analogy is
inappropriate. On the otherhand I can understand those owning a
bunch of 35mm lenses and getting worried about an entirely new lens
format - they should not be worried because there will be attempts
to create cameras with full-size sensors for years to come (contax
N) - for a lot of money.
But the future is inevitable and they will adjust the size of the
optics to these APS-size (unfortunate term) sensors. And it will be
a big hit this time. And it will be for the masses - just like 35mm
has been. And it will take a little longer for the professional
photographers to switch.
--
Best wishes,
Zoli

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--Best wishes,Zoli

...pursuing the Minolta RD 3000 or at least pressuring Minolta to build a replacement that uses the same Vectis-series lenses?

I imagine three-quarters of you aren't even aware of its existance.--I love my D30, but I've ordered a D60!

It is not about the size of camera it is about common sense ... it could be made smaller but it doesnt have to be for all you big-camera guys.--Best wishes,Zoli

Yes, I realize how much smaller the pixels are, and I fight every
day to correct the problems caused by these small pixels. The
noise is so bad that every camera has to either run a noise
reduction program in the camera, or in the software. The
cameras that don't do this, even with very good glass, get
knocked for the noise in the images. Download Neat Image,
create a signature file, and then run a directory of files. When
you get done, tell me how well those little sensors are doing.
Build a contact lens that you can do a portrait shot of a Sparrow
at 25 feet with. Then tell me what they cost. Your examples
don't hold water. The G2 is so much better than it's
competition because it did not go to the 5mp chip, and
instead stayed with the 4mp Sony chip. The 707 applies so
much smoothing that landscapes often look like good
watercolor paintings. The D7 works very well, but needs
noise reduction to reach it's best output, but at least it doesn't
run hard smoothing in the camera. I have not seriously looked
at the 5000, as the lens and the various reviews convinced
me. The simple fact is that photosites on the D60 are smaller
than those on the D30, but they are in no way comparible to
the consumer sensors in size, output, noise levels, or any other
comparison you wish to make. The simple facts are that smaller
lenses to make a camera flexible enough for serious use are
more expensive to make than the larger versions. I can grind
you a 6 inch telescope lens by hand that will be pretty good. It
will not be perfect, but with coatings added, it will work very
well. I can not make the same lens at 2 inches with my gear.
Why? Because at 2 inches, evey defect is magnified many times
over. Lets don't even discuss a 1/2 inch lens. Now, the
top of the line new tech appears to be a three layer mask with
9 circuits in each well. If we follow your road, we abandon
tech that can and has already shown images several times better
than any CCD image comprised of the same number of
photosites. You can't have it both ways, at least not today.
Either you have small noisy imagers with limited dynamic range
and very small windows of useful amplification, or you can have
larger chips with less noise, more dynamic range, and greater
possibilities for signal amplification before it is degraded. There
may come a time when you can have a 1/2 inch chip that will
have 10mp resolution, and a usable ISO range to 1600, but
we are not even close yet. My own speculation is that we will
see a full frame CMOS chip spec'ed and sampled in less than
18 months. Hopefully, it will be a Foveon chip. Then you
will find out just how demanding on glass these imagers really
are, once they start using the edges of the lenses.

Zoltan Csuka said:

What I can see as the current trend is that they are making the
pixels smaller (D60, D100, D1x) with less or comparable noise.
As far as the optics: just look at the G2 and f707 - did you
realize how much smaller the sensor pixels are - and the lenses are
still capable of providing good resolution? Then you must have
realized that the a major drawback of today's 35mm SLR bodies is
that they cant put lenses closer to the sensors (due to bulky
mirrors and shutter mechanism and old design in general). Just to
make you understand how important sensor to lens distance for
overall resolution is let me mention some more examples (other than
g2 and f707) contact lenses (cheap but with incredible resolution)
or lets say cataract lenses are very similar.
So the new SLR design would make several advances: smaller sensors
(20mm would be fine), smaller lenses, and optics placed much closer
to sensor. The overall design would be MUCH more costeffective and
IMO the only way to go eventually.

Click to expand...

Huh? The vast majority of messages above talk about SMALLER sensors, SMALLER lenses, SMALLER bodies. It sure reads to me as if it's about 'the size of the camera'.

And your OPINIONS don't make sense to me. What makes sense to me is having nicely weighted, rightly sized, easy-to-handle bodies and lenses that produce higher-quality images than they would if the system were built around lenses with smaller image circles. What makes sense to me is having DOZENS and DOZENS of Canon 35mm lenses to chose from. These bodies and lenses are common to HIGH-VOLUME 35mm systems so ARGUABLY they cost less than the more-limited-production 'digital' system you propose.

So again, it's been done, and it failed. That doesn't mean it'll fail again or that it's a bad idea. You folks may be right. But I'll bet that during my lifetime, there will be no industry-standard, smaller, digital body-and-lens system becoming commercially successful.--I love my D30, but I've ordered a D60!

Enjoying the feeling of a prophet, having said this many times before in dpreview forums, I say it again:

Canon, Nikon, or most probably Sigma: Give us a good quality, high speed, compact wide to tele zoom for DSLR, something like equiv 24-135 or 28-200 mm. They dont need to cover full 35 mm format, ant can therefore be made smaller, more compact and high speed.

I think a major braking force of development of DSLR today is the present owners of big, prefessional Nikon and Canon system, waiting for the full frame DSLR, which we probaly not see this year.

Remember the last quantum leap in camera design: the EOS lens system, which turned Canon into a major inventive force in camera design. Now it is time for a new leap: A new system for general photography, photojournalism, sports and wild life, based on the present size imagers. Sooner or later some people will have to give up their investment in full 35 mm systems. Olympus could show the way, like it did with the OM system, used by many professionals for a period because of compaqct, light weight. high quality system.

Ottar

Jeffrey Behr said:

Huh? The vast majority of messages above talk about SMALLER
sensors, SMALLER lenses, SMALLER bodies. It sure reads to me as if
it's about 'the size of the camera'.

And your OPINIONS don't make sense to me. What makes sense to me
is having nicely weighted, rightly sized, easy-to-handle bodies and
lenses that produce higher-quality images than they would if the
system were built around lenses with smaller image circles. What
makes sense to me is having DOZENS and DOZENS of Canon 35mm lenses
to chose from. These bodies and lenses are common to HIGH-VOLUME
35mm systems so ARGUABLY they cost less than the
more-limited-production 'digital' system you propose.

So again, it's been done, and it failed. That doesn't mean it'll
fail again or that it's a bad idea. You folks may be right. But
I'll bet that during my lifetime, there will be no
industry-standard, smaller, digital body-and-lens system becoming
commercially successful.
--
I love my D30, but I've ordered a D60!

Click to expand...

Hey, this is turning into a great discussion here!

The small camera isn't the point or the goal. It's the idea of a fast, light, compact lens. I'm talking telephoto, I'm talking wide without having to make the choice between a big, back breaking L lens or a smaller, slow compact lens.

As far as price, that's just as important as the size and weight of the L lenses. True, low production is more expensive than high production of a given product; note that the digicam companies are including high quality optics in cameras that cost less than the equivalent EOS lens in 35mm (the optics on the 707, D7, G2). And in deference to what Bob said earlier, it is ALWAYS cheaper to make a high quality small lens than it is a large. His example of extreme performance due to only part of the L lens being used is silly, because only part of the L lens would have to be made in a properly designed system. If there were anything to gain from making lenses much larger than what is used, then there would be a Super L series that came with a free forklift. No, the DSLRs are utilizing only a portion of the high quality L lenses, and to make a well suited lens, only that portion need be made.

I must also take issue with Mike's statements about size of the CCD and noise. While white and 1/f noise increase with amplifier size, input capacitance also increases which lowers the sensitivity and increases the net read noise. If stretching the size of the CCD made for better performance, manufacturers would be rushing to give us the much wanted DSLR with no 1.6 factor.

I too can't wait for the Foveon to get going, but you realize it allows further miniturization by stacking the photosensors instead of spreading them in a grid. Moore's law is still alive and well, and there's no evidence to suggest that CCDs are exceptions. The trend is quite contrary.

Well, I'm sure I haven't convinced anyone dead set on maintaining the 35mm lens system, but they have a vested interest in keeping their investments just as I have an admitted bias towards not having to buy into a system that is not optimized for the new medium at this present time. And in my career as an Electrical Engineer, when I look into my (admittedly cloudy) crystal ball I see CCD densities going through the stratosphere.

Indeed, at the heart of this debate is conjecture on the future. Perhaps dual formats will be the outcome, a 35mm DSLR and a 1.6 DSLR and we'll all get to have our cake and eat it too.

Bob and Jeffrey, as the holders of the minority view in this particular thread, I tip my hat to you. This has been a good, respectful discussion which seems to be rare in many less fortunate threads.

BTW, you want to talk about a looser format that never made it, your best ammunition is the Kodak Photodisk from the 80's. UGH!

No, I wasn't aware of its existance. But I just looked it up, and it has a 1.5 multiplication factor so the vectis lens system isn't much of an answer to anything since it's close to 35mm. The APS cameras were nothing but lesser 35mm's loaded with gimics.

Thanks anyway, ya got my hopes up.

Jeffrey Behr said:

...pursuing the Minolta RD 3000 or at least pressuring Minolta to
build a replacement that uses the same Vectis-series lenses?

I imagine three-quarters of you aren't even aware of its existance.
--
I love my D30, but I've ordered a D60!

Click to expand...