Reading mode: Light Dark

Cameras with no proper lenses: DSLR's

Go to last post
I dont think that the eventual standard CCD size will be 1/2 inch either. And I dont think it will be 35mm. I think the current sensors of D60, D100, D1x, Sd9 sound just right and can be made affordable, noiseless. And that is what the dream DSLR with its own-class lenses would have hopefully.--Best wishes,Zoli
 
None of the messages above is talking about smaller bodies - rather they are about smaller sensors (which we are stuck with for awhile already) that would require smaller lenses. Smaller lenses, smaller sensors dont mean smaller bodies. We could continue with ergonomic, well-designed bodies which already exist. Think of 35mm film and the range of camera bodies you can use that with.
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'.
--Best wishes,Zoli
Click to expand...
 
thabear said:
Hey, this is turning into a great discussion here!
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.
Click to expand...
I was and is, isn't it! Thank you.

The 'problem' discussions are full of people who think that because they believe it, it's fact, and with those who personally attack someone simply because that person expresses a view contrary to his/her own. See "Phil's New D60 review" for a bunch of those folk.

I hope you folk get what you want, and maybe writing Minolta would be a good start.--I love my D30, but I've ordered a D60!
 
thabear said:
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.
Click to expand...
bear, as you probably saw, the RD 3000 used 2 sensors electronically combined. I think they were the little consumer-sized ones, and that's why it had a substantial FOV-crop factor.

I still believe the Vectis lenses throw a smaller image circle that might be just right for all those 2/3-of-35 6MP sensors. I had 2 zooms including an 80-240 that were LOTS smaller than any equivalent-length 35mm-camera lens.--I love my D30, but I've ordered a D60!
 
Hey! I bought a camera with those stupid disks! It would
not feed properly on the first one.
thabear said:
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!
Click to expand...
 
The Vectis is a great camera and it would certainly look nice with a Foveon sensor in it. Lenses are compact but slow and expensive - it would take years and a huge market push to change that. I just read that Minolta has given up on APS (after which their stock price went up).--Best wishes,Zoli
 
ottarjohansen said:
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.
Click to expand...
You forget one thing: most of us with these big professional cameras and lenses also have 35mm film cameras that we still use. I, for one, do not want to have two sets of lenses. I want professional lenses that will fit whichever camera body I choose to put them on.
 
How many of us would accept using lenses for a Hasselblad on our 35 mm cameras? If would work if you had the right adapter, but the size ,weight and prize would terrify most of us. Still we accept using over sized lenses for D60 and the like. A paradox is the fact that the digital backs made for Hasselblad uses chips that cover 38X38 mm.... Could be perfect for 35 mm cameras, but they cost a fortune...
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...
--Bjoernar
 
What I don't understand is why everyone that looks at a digital camera looks at it as a camera without factoring in any basic electronics theory. The fact of the matter is that everyone wants more megapixels, so in the future the physical size of the chip will have to get larger to accomodate this. Yes you could simply shrink the size of the photocells and squeeze more into the same area, but you will quickly hit problems with excessive noise with the sensor. There's a reason that the 2.75MP D1 had a picture quality that was vastly superior to the 3MP 990 (yes, I owned both), and a big part of that reason is that the sensor in the D1 is much larger than the tiny one in the 990. It's also a higher quality piece of equipment all around, but sensor size does come into play here.

Plain and simple, the larger 35mm sized lenses give digital cameras room to grow in the future. Engineers are free to make improvements to sensor technology without worrying about squeezing it all into a tiny APS sized chip. If the big companies do come out with "digital lenses" that are smaller and lighter we will just be sitting here reading a bunch of posts from people who are really peeved that they can't use their little lenses with the new D-blah camera body becuase the sensor got larger.

Peter D.
 
And I think that you can make an internal combustion engine that will produce 300HP, loads of torque, get 120miles to a gallon of gas and fit in a Honda Civic. Just because I think that doesn't mean that it's true, and I don't have the engineering knowledge to back the statement up. You can't simply hope for an APS sized sensor that has 10MP and no noise even at low ISOs and expect it to become reality. Nevermind the issues with grinding precision optics at that size, from a basic electronics engineering standpoint it's not possible with current technology (well, actually anything is possible, it's just a matter of time and money).

The question isn't whether the D60 and D100 use an APS sized sensor that has 6MP crammed into it, the question is whether or not the same camera could produce better images using the same resolution and a 24x36mm sensor.

Peter D.
Zoltan Csuka said:
I think the current sensors of D60, D100, D1x, Sd9 sound just right and > can be made affordable, noiseless. And that is what the dream DSLR > with its own-class lenses would have hopefully.
--
Best wishes,
Zoli
Click to expand...
 
For me, a small circumference lens is too limiting.

For example, I have a 990 and I get frustrated with the small standard lens. I much prefer to use the larger screw on converter lenses with that camera. Filters are very useful in photography but with a small lens, you're options are diminished. Graduated filters are a great tool but useless with a small lens. Even a polarizer, I find, is easier to use on a larger lens.

Another consideration for me: with large hands & large fingers, a small lens is too clumsy when using attachments.
 
I couldn't even imagine trying to manually focus or manually zoom small interchangeable lenses on a small DSLR. I guess the camera would have to control these functions whereas on something like the D60, manuallly focusing/zooming the lens is no issue.
 
Bob said:
I couldn't even imagine trying to manually focus or manually zoom
small interchangeable lenses on a small DSLR. I guess the camera
would have to control these functions whereas on something like the
D60, manuallly focusing/zooming the lens is no issue.
Click to expand...
Olympus has already indicated that it will come out with an SLR system downsized for the digital chip (see this month's Popular Photography). I suspect they will use their bank of small lens designs created for the Pen F half frame SLR. These were eminently focusable.
--kingumikti
 
Since none of us can see into the future, our comments will unfortunately be based on what we think, regardless of how much camera equipment we say we own.

One fact is that 35 mm lenses doesn't adress the problems that arise with digital sensors (light should be parallell when it strikes the sensor to avoid blooming and what looks like chromatic aberration etc), but i guess we have to live with that marginal imperfection forever (?) The 35 mm format will never change, it will still be there year 5000...or? (Homo Nikonensis will have separated themself into their own genetic line with strong right shoulders and hugely muscular forearms ;-)

Change will come, i personally hope...just as it did with LP/CD (think about all the good LP's out there), screw mount lenses (all that glass!), FM Radio, metric system (there are some backwards countries that still hasn't gotten used to that ;-) ) , GSM, reel tape recorders...

People with retro interests and people with true needs of extreme resolution will always exist, just like medium/large format, leica M etc. They will still have their niche.

The rest of us will, in the end come too realize that we dont't need infinite resolution in our daily life.

Quality means: Just enough, Just a little bit more than you expected.

The industry wants smaller, that is also a fact. They can live with the higher precicion needed in the smaller lenses because they will reach a larger public with lighter cams, less raw material, larger integration, less shipping less everything...its a spiral.

So "all that glass out there" will be obsolete when somebody shows better results with smaller DP-designated lenses, in smaller cameras.

Br/Micael

Btw, i am just in the process of buying a 35mm Nikon F4, just for the pleasure of having such a fantastic piece of camera around...retro!
 
Well, stop imagining and pick up a Dimage 7 in a store and try out the manual focus ring for yourself. It's stiff, but the size is not an issue. What you get is an equivalent 28-200 zoom lens that would be the size of a slower EOS lens in 35mm, yet it's faster than an L body.

Just because the lenses don't have to be big doesn't mean the housing or focus rings have to be small. We're talking about common sense and freeing of constraints, not "how small can we make this contraption."

Too many people try to cook up straw man arguments on a simple topic. Someone earlier hit the nail on the head in saying that nobody wants to use medium format lenses on a 35mm body, so why should digital be hamstringed with mismatched lenses?

As for those that are STILL posting that noise is an issue for smaller CCDs, read my earlier post. Our short history of digital cameras is pointing towards continued increases in BOTH density AND performance. You can pick out bad examples all you want, but let's compare apples and apples. The cameras are getting better and better, and the CCDs are becoming denser, they're not getting larger at all.

SOOO.... If CCDs do get bigger, then we have a plethora of 35mm lenses to slap onto the bodies and be hapy.

...But if CCDs continue to stay small, then eventually we'll need a lens that fits them.

B.T.W., with all the photographers out there who've worked hard to get their 35mm lenses, I seriously doubt the digital camera world is planning on leaving them in the lurch. I think 35mm DSLRs will always be around, and eventually with big sensors to use all that glass.
Bob said:
I couldn't even imagine trying to manually focus or manually zoom
small interchangeable lenses on a small DSLR. I guess the camera
would have to control these functions whereas on something like the
D60, manuallly focusing/zooming the lens is no issue.
Click to expand...
 
Good point!
AnneB said:
ottarjohansen said:
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.
Click to expand...
You forget one thing: most of us with these big professional
cameras and lenses also have 35mm film cameras that we still use.
I, for one, do not want to have two sets of lenses. I want
professional lenses that will fit whichever camera body I choose to
put them on.
Click to expand...
 
thabear said:
Well, stop imagining and pick up a Dimage 7 in a store and try out
the manual focus ring for yourself. It's stiff, but the size is not
an issue.
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon but I have personally handled someone's Dimage 7. I didn't like it.

Just because the focus on that camera was ok for you, you think it's ok for everyone?
Floating_Fotoman said:
Too many people try to cook up straw man arguments on a simple
topic.
Click to expand...
And filter use - which no one has addressed - is not a "straw man argument". Filters are valuable tools for someone that knows how to use them and understands their benefits. For scenes with a wide exposure range between highlights and shadows, a grad ND filter can't be beat.
 
Personally I got a big collection of Olympus OM lenses which I of course would like to use on a future Olympus Digital camera, but I would also like to buy a few lenses specially designed for that camera. If the chip size stays the same as today's DSLR model from Nikon and Canon, a Zoom like 16-50 mm could be make small, light, fast and relatively cheep compared to similar lens made for 35mm cameras. In the same way a 300mm 2.8 could be made much smaller, lighter and cheaper than the one for 35mm cameras. Even those who have the 35mm lenses already would most likely buy the new lenses. A adapter for 35 mm lenses would be nice in those cases where size and weight is not very important, or for more infrequent use. Just imagine if today's digital video cameras for the home marked were using chips of the same size as 16mm film cameras are using. The cameras would have very high resolution, but very few would buy them because they would be very big, heavy and expensive. Today we got cameras which are far better than the televisions, and still very small, light and cheap. There will always be a compromise between technical quality and price, size and weight, but the camera who will actually be used is always the best one.
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...
--Bjoernar
 
Bob44240 said:
I beg your pardon but I have personally handled someone's Dimage 7.
I didn't like it.
Just because the focus on that camera was ok for you, you think
it's ok for everyone?
Click to expand...
Well... Yes! What's good for me is most certainly good enough for the lot of you. :) But seriously, even if you didn't like the Dimage 7, my point was that the focus ring wasn't too small to handle. Too stiff, maybe. Located inconveniently against the body, quite likely. Cheesy plastic feeling, certainly. But the size wasn't the issue.
Bob44240 said:
And filter use - which no one has addressed - is not a "straw man
argument". [Unnecessary definition and defense of filters follows]
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. I forgot to mention red herrings! (he he) Filters are easy to adapt with a step ring, as so many lenses already require different stock sizes. Surely if the new digital lenses became big, there would be an even greater number of adapters to allow the use of ones filter arsenal.

Well, we've beat this dead horse to death a few times over. I think all parties have some vested interest in the outcome of the lens issue. As such, there is a tendancy to take a position, and then churn up as many reasons to justify it as possible. But in the end, it comes to stakes, and for those who have paid good money for a collection of outstanding 35mm optics, the stakes have the potential to be high. But again, I think there's room for both systems, just as there's room for medium format, etc. My vested interest is faster, lighter, cheaper lenses for a future I predict will have perpetually small CCDs.

B.T.W., I hope the blurb in the bottom of page 22 in Popular Photography is a typo when it says Olympus's coming digital-only SLR lens system is based around a 4/3-inch sensor. That's most of a 35mm! If that's the case, I'll keep my Canon EOS lenses, thank you very much.
 
When the CD first came out in the 80's, the standard was watered down to the lowest common portion of the mass market and the format wasn't all it could have been until these past few years with SACD finally available on DVD.

This won't happen with DSLRs. The pro and prosumer market is too strong, and the demand for performance is readily seen driving the high end. If a lesser standard camera were developed, which is the fears of those against a digital only system, then it would most certainly be parallel to and not in replacement of the development of good DSLRs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top