Reading mode: Light Dark

Full Fame Digital Compact!

Go to last post
Marcamera said:
Care to elaborate why CDs are smaller than vinyl LPs? Can you imagine
how many more songs you could squeeze in on a CD the size of an LP?
Click to expand...
It is said that one of the reasons the CD is the length it is is that that was the length required to hold a particular recording of Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

While you certainly could hold much more 16-bit Red Book audio on a 12-inch disc, versus a 5-inch one, 5 inches was big enough for the task at hand. Also, a 12-inch optical disc rotating at the necessary speeds would be hard on the equipment and discs. Case in point -- the much higher failure rate of LaserDiscs due to glue seeping out of the edge seem over time due to the forces involved.

The thing that gets me is how the 35mm film frame is dismissed by some as unworthy of sticking to because it was "arbitrarily chosen." Well, maybe so, but it WAS chosen, and it DID become an established and understood standard. It may not be perfect, but it allowed things to progress. If there hadn't been a standard rail gauge, then we might never had had transcontinental rail travel...

Cust.
 
Jake Loves Good Glass said:
Nothing to do with the size of the camera though. It would have an
effect on the lens configuration and size but the body would not need
to change.
Click to expand...
True. But a compact with a huge lens would imho not make that much sense anymore. Sigma allready had problems including a quality F4 into a compact body.
I think F4 @ 50mm is the best you could dream of.
Jake Loves Good Glass said:
Also, to the best of my knowledge, none of the big
manufacturers have made truly telecentric optics for a 24x36mm FF
sensor. I'm sure there are some lenses that get close, but so far I
think the only company that can brag on this point of production
quality is Oly, Pani and Leica.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that. But they won't use weird light angles eiter.

Well, it wouldn't bother me if someone built a FF compact ;)
But I think it won't happen that early.

Regards, Matthias
 
natureman said:
If anyone has an "attitude", it's you joe. You've been trying to pick
a fight from the beginning.
Click to expand...
It's important to get the chronology right. Let's see, you began with:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28027928

"Don't be so anxious to be a know-it-all, and please take more time to read before you respond."

which is a common statement from ignorant people, you respond with:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28028929

"I didn't bother to look at the links you posted. It would be a waste of time."

along with your follow-up to John Sheehy who tried to educate you:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28035489

that shows your ignorance in even greater detail:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28035489

"Even if larger sensors are necessary to get better image quality, and those sensors are fitted to small cameras like point and shoots, who's to say that there won't be developments in lens technology, sensor technology, or camera design that would allow the use of small lenses?"
natureman said:
You're still trying hard to start a fight, eh joe?
Click to expand...
No, "natureman", it is you who went looking for a fight, and now you're getting your a$$ kicked. Seriously, I don't know what bug crawled up your backside for you to start into me the way you did, but, at the very least, if you're going to call someone a "know-it-all", you should at least be more educated than them on the subject being discussed.

Perhaps another thread on some other form of photography you don't like would be more your speed:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28013538

since science and technology don't seem to be your strong suit.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
natureman said:
John Sheehy said:
natureman said:
You can't possibly know what the future holds, for cameras or
anything else, and saying something can't happen is arrogant and
defeatist.
Click to expand...
Do you expect that there will be a net, with future technology, that
can net 10 fish in a tank with only 5 fish in it?
Click to expand...
Based on your statement, then how does a bigger sensor capture more
fish (Photons), if they're not there?
Click to expand...
Because increasing the sensor increases the number of fish.

I'm not sure if John is factoring in the removal of the CFA. That might eek out another few photons per photosite. It will be possible around the same time as sensors that read frequency as a direct measurement, because they'll cycle billions of times per second. And, we'll have personal teleporters. :-)
--
Daniel
 
Daniel Browning said:
Daniel Browning said:
Based on your statement, then how does a bigger sensor capture more
fish (Photons), if they're not there?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Daniel Browning said:
Because increasing the sensor increases the number of fish.
Click to expand...
Assuming the same efficiency of sensor, a larger sensor can only capture more photons in one of two ways: by using a lower shutter speed or by using a larger aperture (not to be confused with f-ratio).

For example, let's say a 4/3 camera captures a scene at f/2.8, 1/400, ISO 100 and a FF camera captures the same scene at f/5.6, 1/100, ISO 100. Both lenses will have the same aperture (note that aperture is not the same as f-ratio) so the same amount of light passes through the lens per unit time, but the FF system has a shutter speed that is 4 times longer, so it collects 4 times as much light.

The other way is, using the same scenario as above, for the FF camera to also use f/2.8, 1/400, ISO 100. In this instance, the aperture of the FF system has four times the area, so it will once again capture four times the amount of light. The difference in this scenario is that the FF image will have a two stop more shallow DOF, whereas in the first scenario, the DOFs will be the same.

For a fully equivalent scenario, the FF system would use f/5.6, 1/400, ISO 400. In this instance, both sensors would record the same amount of light and thus have the same amount of noise.

For more on this, see here:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalence
Daniel Browning said:
I'm not sure if John is factoring in the removal of the CFA. That
might eek out another few photons per photosite. It will be possible
around the same time as sensors that read frequency as a direct
measurement, because they'll cycle billions of times per second. And,
we'll have personal teleporters. :-)
Click to expand...
Personal teleporters are cool, but not necessary for larger sensors to capture more light. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
Based on your statement, then how does a bigger sensor capture
more fish (Photons), if they're not there?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
joe mama said:
Because increasing the sensor increases the number of fish.
Click to expand...
Assuming the same efficiency of sensor, a larger sensor can only
capture more photons in one of two ways: by using a lower shutter
speed or by using a larger aperture (not to be confused with f-ratio).
Click to expand...
Don't forget to say per area . For a given exposure and photosite efficiency, a larger sensor will capture a larger number of photons in total (per image), even though the photons per area are the same.

--
Daniel
 
Daniel Browning said:
Daniel Browning said:
Assuming the same efficiency of sensor, a larger sensor can only
capture more photons in one of two ways: by using a lower shutter
speed or by using a larger aperture (not to be confused with f-ratio).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Daniel Browning said:
Don't forget to say per area . For a given exposure and photosite
efficiency, a larger sensor will capture a larger number of photons
in total (per image), even though the photons per area are the same.
Click to expand...
Nothing was forgotten -- "per area" is meaningless if we are comparing images at the same output size, and I'm assuming that we are not comparing a 6.5 x 9 image from the 4/3 system with a 12x18 print from the FF system.

What matters is the total amount of light, not the amount of light per area, if we are talking about image noise rather than per-pixel noise. This is a hugely misunderstood concept, that people feel that the light per area, rather than the total light, is the determining factor in IQ.

The reason that compacts, with their f/2.8 lenses are so much worse than DSLRs in terms of noise is because they get much less total light, even though they often get more light per area.

So, just in case I've not stressed the point enough, it is not the amount of light per area, but the total amount of light that matters.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
You missed the entire point Joe. Don't be so anxious to be a
know-it-all, and please take more time to read before you respond.
Click to expand...
I've often found that people who accuse others of seeking to be a
"know-it-all", without offering ideas of substance, do not make for
enlightening debate...
joe mama said:
The inventive and ever evolving science and technology you're
denouncing for the future is what made it possible for you to have
the current technology today. Science and technology don't stand
still.
Click to expand...
...especially when they ascribe ideas to me that I never said or
implied. Do tell me, and please be specific with links and quotes,
where I "denounced" the "ever evolving science and technology."
Find, quote, and link where I said, or implied, that science and/or
technology "stand still".

After you've done that, please debunk what I actually did say:
"Bigger is better (in terms of IQ)" for the same level of technology.
Click to expand...
Ok joe, how about this? Go back and read the post that started this thread. Do you see anything said about the "same technology" or "same generation technology" or "same level of technology"?

Everything you've said is based on a false assumption and a false foundation. You've missed the entire point.
joe mama said:
I see myself as this poster does:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=27899428

I'll bet you see me differently. No worries. But, please, take me
up on my offer and prove me wrong, or, at the very least, give me
reason to believe I may be mistaken. I've been wrong many times
before, and quickly correct myself when I've been shown to be in
error. But you have to show me -- I'm not one to back away from what
I believe solely on your good word alone. I'm an evidence kind of
guy.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Click to expand...
 
natureman said:
Ok joe, how about this? Go back and read the post that started this
thread. Do you see anything said about the "same technology" or "same
generation technology" or "same level of technology"?
Click to expand...
OK, natureman, how about this? Go back and read the post that I first replied to in this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28014258
natureman said:
Everything you've said is based on a false assumption and a false
foundation. You've missed the entire point.
Click to expand...
Everything I've said is based on the post I actually replied to. You've not payed attention.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
If anyone has an "attitude", it's you joe. You've been trying to pick
a fight from the beginning.
Click to expand...
It's important to get the chronology right. Let's see, you began with:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28027928

"Don't be so anxious to be a know-it-all, and please take more time
to read before you respond."

which is a common statement from ignorant people,
Click to expand...
Well, if you had actually read the post that started this thread, you would have figured out that none of your responses are relevant.

Speaking of ignorant.
joe mama said:
you respond with:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28028929

"I didn't bother to look at the links you posted. It would be a waste
of time."

along with your follow-up to John Sheehy who tried to educate you:
Click to expand...
John's explanations don't make sense.
joe mama said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28035489

that shows your ignorance in even greater detail:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28035489

"Even if larger sensors are necessary to get better image quality,
and those sensors are fitted to small cameras like point and shoots,
who's to say that there won't be developments in lens technology,
sensor technology, or camera design that would allow the use of small
lenses?"
joe mama said:
You're still trying hard to start a fight, eh joe?
Click to expand...
No, "natureman", it is you who went looking for a fight, and now
you're getting your a$$ kicked.
Click to expand...
Really?
joe mama said:
Seriously, I don't know what bug
crawled up your backside for you to start into me the way you did,
but, at the very least, if you're going to call someone a
"know-it-all", you should at least be more educated than them on the
subject being discussed.
Click to expand...
For the sake of this discussion, the only education anyone needs is to believe that technology will advance and that future cameras could have small sensors that are as good or better than today's large sensors, or that small cameras could have larger sensors and be able to have small lenses that equal or surpass the large lenses of today. It's that simple joe. Too bad you missed the point.
joe mama said:
Perhaps another thread on some other form of photography you don't
like would be more your speed:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28013538

since science and technology don't seem to be your strong suit.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Click to expand...
 
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
Ok joe, how about this? Go back and read the post that started this
thread. Do you see anything said about the "same technology" or "same
generation technology" or "same level of technology"?
Click to expand...
OK, natureman, how about this? Go back and read the post that I
first replied to in this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28014258
joe mama said:
Everything you've said is based on a false assumption and a false
foundation. You've missed the entire point.
Click to expand...
Everything I've said is based on the post I actually replied to.
You've not payed attention.
Click to expand...
Oh but I have joe. You're still missing the point. You're so locked into today's technology, you can't see beyond the walls you've surrounded yourself with.
joe mama said:
--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Click to expand...
 
There are some superb, film cameras in this format, now discontinued, get to a camera fare and buy one before the film runs out!

For digital I think the techical and marketing challenges are to great, with the short back focus, baterry requirements etc,

leica will have something in a lab somewhere, or in simulation, and as they can charge a fortune for anything they make, one can only surmise that the only reason there isn't a FF M series is that they cant get the quality yet. My yashica T4 was my most favorite camera I have ever owned, and yes I want a digital version but at a price point that would be comparable is a long way off,

To answer the question, Voightlander would be by guess or something from that stable with a Sony sensor ie NOT Canon, NOT Nikon who have bigger fish to fry,
 
natureman said:
Well, if you had actually read the post that started this thread, you
would have figured out that none of your responses are relevant.

Speaking of ignorant.
Click to expand...
At the risk of repeating myself, "Uh, OK."
natureman said:
natureman said:
you respond with:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28028929

"I didn't bother to look at the links you posted. It would be a waste
of time."

along with your follow-up to John Sheehy who tried to educate you:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
natureman said:
John's explanations don't make sense.
Click to expand...
That statement stands all on its own. Good for you!
natureman said:
natureman said:
No, "natureman", it is you who went looking for a fight, and now
you're getting your a$$ kicked.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
natureman said:
Really?
Click to expand...
Yeah, really, but as much as I'd like to take the credit for it, it's all you, baby.
natureman said:
For the sake of this discussion, the only education anyone needs is
to believe that technology will advance and that future cameras could
have small sensors that are as good or better than today's large
sensors, or that small cameras could have larger sensors and be able
to have small lenses that equal or surpass the large lenses of today.
It's that simple joe. Too bad you missed the point.
Click to expand...
What's too bad is that I missed your explanation on exactly how that's possible. Perhaps it lies in the same realm as FTL (faster-than-light) and wormholes. So, sure, maybe the laws of physics and optics will be found to be in error somehow, and all my "doom and gloom" will be proven false. But even if that time comes to pass, what has that got to do with this discussion? I mean, shoot, we may as well just say that "in the future we'll record events 3D in our brains and share the experiences telepathically with other people."

It's a pity you don't recognize the difference between hoping the future brings advancements that are technologically and scientifically impossible today with a new understanding of physics/optics, and making an effort to educate yourself on why these things will never come to pass with our current understanding of physics and optics.

But if and when the current understanding of physics and optics is shown to be wrong, I assure you, it will be discovered by someone like myself, working from within the current scientific framework, and not someone like yourself, dreaming that it could be possible. No one predicted nuclear power (well, perhaps Jules Verne), but it was the scientists who discovered it, not the dreamers.

Well, that said, enjoy your deep DOF pics. If all works as you suggest, you'll even be able to get them in near darkness sometime in the future. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
joe mama said:
joe mama said:
[...] a larger sensor will capture a larger number of photons
in total (per image), even though the photons per area are the same.
Click to expand...
What matters is the total amount of light, not the amount of light
per area [...]
Click to expand...
We agree on that: total light per image is what matters. I see that I did misunderstand your parent post:
joe mama said:
Assuming the same efficiency of sensor, a larger sensor can only
capture more photons in one of two ways: by using a lower shutter
speed or by using a larger aperture (not to be confused with f-ratio).
Click to expand...
Don't forget to say assuming the same perspective .

One may use the same lens on a larger sensor, move closer, and capture more photons without changing aperture or shutter, for lenses that have sufficient image circles for both sensors.

That changes perspective, obviously, but in a lot of photography, light gathering ability is more important than perspective anyway.
--
Daniel
 
Daniel Browning said:
Don't forget to say assuming the same perspective .
Click to expand...
Some people complain that my posts are so long, but I then get called to task everytime I omit every last detail! : )

Yes, you are quite right: I am assuming the same perspective and framing, as well as printing or displaying the images at the same output size.
Daniel Browning said:
That changes perspective, obviously, but in a lot of photography,
light gathering ability is more important than perspective anyway.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but not in my photography -- "proper" perspective is far more important than noise, as is DOF.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
natureman said:
For the sake of this discussion, the only education anyone needs is
to believe that technology will advance...
Click to expand...
An interesting assumption, and one that underlies many threads.

--

'I believe in the real things in life; a clean windshield, a full tank of gas, and a shoe shine.' - Rev. Rod Flash, of the Church of the Presumptuous Assumption & Blinding Light.
 
hwalker said:
I'm guessing on top of the reason given by joe mama, it's also
something of a market segment thing as all digital full-frame cameras
are targeted at serious photographers who would welcome external
controls, some heft and tough build quality, all of which require the
camera to be larger.
Click to expand...
I think the market segment has everything to do with it. I too have a pentax "FF" film DSLR (with pop-up flash even), and if the same camera cost $3000 for the FF digital equivalent, I would be slightly more critical of its near-utter lack of external control. Now that LCDs are the norm, its hard to image any DSLR, of any class, being as bare-bones as the film SLRs they have replaced.

--
-CW
 
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