Razor503
Forum Enthusiast
4/3rds perhaps?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full Fame Digital Compact!
- Thread starter leon9
- Start date
Razor503
Forum Enthusiast
Utra-violet, infrared: Gamma Rays, X-rays.
Not all "invisble light" is "invisible": its just that we humans cannot "see" it.
Razor503
Forum Enthusiast
"Umm-hmmm". Only the unimaginative (or the pedantic) would insist and ignore at the same time the fact the topic is photography and not philosophy.
All we other readers knew he was speaking about standard enlagements in 8" x10".
You mean people who refuse to accept that FF is universally understood to mean 135?
As you "other readers" also wish to call 4/3 "FF":
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28064776
presumably, because the smaller image area of the 4/3 lenses covers the smaller 4/3 sensor.
So who's being pedantic? Those who call 135 "FF", or those that say that any system with lenses that just covers the sensor is "FF", when, in fact, no system is currently referred to in that manner, save 135, except for a few fanatics? Oh, by "fanatics", I mean people like this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28051768
Show me how your "God" is the one and true God, please, so that I might be "pure" like you.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Razor503
Forum Enthusiast
Once more your response does not correlate with the statement preceding it. But then, that is your usual bent: "answering" with BS.
The argument/discussion about "full frame" is a Shibboleth made up by those who shoot crippled DSLRs and who want to adopt the mantle of us 135mm film photographers who still shoot "real" 135mm film.
The truth is, not
There you by-d@mn go again, switching tracks, trying to obscure your total lack of conversational couth by ignoring the subject at hand.
As for 4/3rds not only being "full frame", 4/3rds, unlike all the other small sensor (less than full frame) DSLRS out there, is its own form factor, not the hobbling crippled jobs set out to pretend to be the inheritors of the 135mm throne;
"Impostors"!
"...lenses that JUST cover" their sensors?
You do know of course 4/3rds sensors are matched 100% with their lenses, unlike the rest of DSLRdome?
That no other digital imaging system can make that claim, not even the so-called "full frame" DSLRs?
That "full frame" DSLRs have trouble imaging the entire “full frame” sensors?
4/3rds is its own form factor, as is 135mm, 645, 6x6, 67-etc.
What other small sensor DSLRs have are merely cobbled together systems trying desperately to
You do know that none of CaNikon systems even come close to "matching up 100%" as does 4/3rds-right?
That unlike 4/3rds, other so-called small format DSLR systems are nothing but a "plethora" of digital compromises-right?
You're getting more hysterical post by post:
you will end up in a rubber room playing with rubber Legos before long.
Let's cut through the BS then, shall we?
Question 1 (True or False): "FF" is universally understood to mean "35mm FF" and "135 format"?
I noticed, by the way, how you failed to include the link above when you quoted me, so I put it back in.
Anyway, Question 2 (again, True or False): Who is "hysterical", the person who says "FF" means "35mm FF" or "135 format", or, the person, who in the link cited above, says, and I quote: "If imaging was a religion, we 4/3rds folks would be 'pure' (the one and only 100% digital imaging system) and the rest of you?"
C'mon now, I've only asked two T/F questions, and you, yourself, said you want to cut the BS, so, keep it simple and answer the questions. Then, if you please, I'll return the favor on questions you may wish to ask me.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
M
Marcamera
Guest
DonAvebury
Senior Member
Again, you just did post a better pic without the horrible flaw of your previous one. So, yes, you are missing the mark.
It's like you keep posting: "2+2=4. Now you post what 2+2 equals!"
DonAvebury
Senior Member
Tell me more about the 135mm format.
No, no -- you misunderstand. The first pic was from a compact digicam whereas the second was from a 5D. Of course the 5D pic will be better (although, at web dimensions, not as much better as it would be in a large print).
What I was asking you to post was a similar pic from a compact digicam that did not have the "horrible flaws" that mine did and posted the 5D image as an example of what would be "unflawed".
Actually, it shouldn't be that hard to do better than my first pic, since it was taken with an "ancient" Canon G1, and I'm sure modern compacts are less noisy at the same output dimensions (not at the pixel level, of course, since they have four times the pixels, but when downsampled to web dimensions).
Here's a "tweener" from 1.6x:
Canon 20D + 200mm / 2.8 @ f / 5, 1/500, ISO 100
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/52122374
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
As others have noted, it is either 135 film format, which refers to a Kodak designation just like 120, 127, 110, 126 etc. OR 35 mm film. There is no "135mm" film.
4/3rds is certainly a new system designed around the 17.3 x 13 mm sensor, nobody is denying that. It is just a matter of communication whether it is practical to refer to the 4/3rds as "full frame". Most people would say no, since "full frame" is strongly associated with 36 x 24 mm film frame or to a digital sensor of roughly the same size. If you wish to complicate communication and call the 4/3rds "full frame", you certainly have the right to do so, but it is difficult to see what purpose it would serve.
Well, according to your definition 645 is not a separate form factor from 6x6, since they both require similar lenses and if fact many 6x6 cameras can shoot 645 as well.
Failing in what sense?
4/3rds is very much a "digital" compromise as well. It is balanced between sensor area and sensor manufacturing costs. You could say that it is a rather well balanced compromise in that regard, and I would actually agree, but a compromise nonetheless.
Detectable by film emulsion would be more correct... Of course there are nowadays also ways to detect X-rays and gamma rays electronically. Near infrared has been detectable electronically for quite some time, originally for military purposes. The first experimental sets were produced already in WW2 but the Germans, although at that time there was no way to record the image. Far infrared or thermal imaging has been available since the 1970s.
Some animals can actually see ultra-violet light. Most notably pollinating insects, but also some rodents like rats. Insects use it to differentiate between different flowers which all look white to us. Rodents use it similarly to forensic investigators: dried urine is visible in UV light and urine markings are very important for social rodents. The main reason is their scent of course, but some rodents have developed an additional adaptation which allows them to see UV light.
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
For most people and most photographic situations, photography is about human-visible light. There is not much room to increase the capture efficiency of photons of human-visible light in P&S-sized sensors, at any given ISO. Future technologies may significantly increase the total capture, but not the efficiency, and hence will create lower ISOs, not significantly better performance at existing ISOs.
Remember, the person that started this sub-thread said that future small-sensor cameras may outperform current FF sensors in ALL aspects. That is not possible, because noise "at a given ISO" is an aspect, and there just aren't enough photons to do that. A lens could be made very large perhaps, that gathers more light, but then you're looking at a small sensor but a large camera. The size proportioning of body and lens will always keep maximum optical photon capture on the low side.
--
John
M
Marcamera
Guest
I agree
Rgds
john10001
Leading Member
I think Canon have a lot of heavy r&d going on regarding putting larger sensors into compacts. They would not be full frame though, just larger than the tiny ones in current compacts. Maybe not even close to the DP-1. I think maybe 2/3" or 1" size sensors.
I think if anyone are likely to do it, it would be Sigma, but not for a decade. Maybe a DP-3 in the year 2018 after a DP-2 in about 2013 with APS-C size sensor?
John
I think if anyone are likely to do it, it would be Sigma, but not for a decade. Maybe a DP-3 in the year 2018 after a DP-2 in about 2013 with APS-C size sensor?
John
The Canon Pro-1 compact already had a 2/3" sensor, as did other compact digicams. The largest sensor put into a "compact" was Sony's 1.7x sensor in their R1:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dscr1.asp
which was slightly larger than the sensor in the DP-1 (1.67x vs 1.74x).
Likely to do what? Put a large sensor in a compact? Sony was first, Sigma was second.
Think of how far digital cameras have come in the past 10 years. Are you saying that you think that will be the lmit of innovation in the next 10?
I just think of how small some of the 35mm film cameras were, and wonder what's holding the manufacturers back from replicating that with digital. I've hypothesized that it may have to do with electrical interference and/or heat disappation, but those are just guesses. The electrical interference guess, however, has some basis in fact: it's known that some Canon USM lenses can cause banding in high ISO shots on occasion.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
xandxor
Leading Member
I'm sorry, I can't let this stand without comment. Hubris is not understanding that Newton and Einstein are both correct, for the phenomena they are describing. Newton is 'wrong' only in the sense that your perfectly 'straight' ruler is not straight if you look at it too closely. No one would say you are wrong for calling it "straight".
I fail to see the relevance of the Economist article to the discussion at hand. If you think that Quantum theory will be sufficiently modified that shot noise will be magicked away, then you clearly haven't thought/learned about the problem enough, and you had best pose your thoughts in question form...
xandxor
Leading Member
Just don't let it "fall out", as they say...
Alas...
Yes, uncertainty is very important, and uncertainty has to be quantified. Not all uncertainty is the same.
It is equally or sometimes more hubristic to make assertions that bear no relationship to realistic uncertainties. "Noise below shot level is possible" would be one. It is an irrational statement, and should be treated as such.
If you say that anything is possible, and remember, anything is possible, then.... great.... you've lost all power of reasoning. You've just neutered, not empowered, Science.
There are certain things whose uncertainty we should not have to "nod" toward. (Pun intended.)
xandxor
Leading Member
I think some people are holding out for the "Quantum camera"™
- Captures the wave-function directly!
- Probabilistic playback. See what could have happened.
- etc.
Remember, the person starting this subthread said that future small
sensor cameras may outperform current large-sensor cameras in ALL
respects.
If you're talking about collecting photons in available light at a
given ISO, that is NOT possible. If a future small sensor captured
every photon of visible light, it would still capture less than
today's 36x24mm sensor. There is no reason to believe that there is
some totally analog, noiseless signal accompanying these finite
photons that we have yet to detect. It's just a mental construct,
like heaven, deities, unicorns, platonic chairs, etc.
Supplying our own light is another subject entirely.
--
John
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum