Sad day - last of the single digit sensors?

That is not a particularly good car analogy.

A better analogy is you are saying car companies shouldn't waste R&D resources on stuff like air-con, leather seats, sunroofs or iPod jacks because it takes resources from the basic function of a car - transport.

As I noted earlier, once any consumer product grows features, it also grows it's user appeal. They sell more of them and sell them to people who would not have bought a basic no-frills model.

Manufacturers make more money adding features and broadening appeal. They are not charity insititutions. If they didn't make more money, the would not do it. So arguing that should not do it is arguing they should make less profit and aguing they should sell fewer units - at a higher price due to less sales over which to amortise their fixed costs.

Ancient_Mariner said:

To answer both at the same time, it is obvious that Nikon, Canon, and
every self-respecting company devotes the vast majority of its
resources to R&D of still photography. It is, however, equally
obvious that if it allocates resources to R&D of video, these
resources are taken away from still photography.

Thus, the compromise you're referring to (or its lack thereof), is
not perhaps visible in the D90, but if the trend continues, it will
surely have an effect in the long run.

• People will want AF with video
• People will want better exposure with video
• People will want better frame rates with video
• etc., etc., etc.,

Hence Nikon will keep wasting more and more money to video.

I respect your opinion - and if I appear too...zealous it's not
against you but against the idea of DSLRs having video - but I refuse
to accept that a DSLR should have video, anymore than a car should
have a coffee machine. Surely, a coffee machine wouldn't take
anything away from the car's performance. But the idea of BMW or
Toyota wasting $$$ on researching the installment of coffee machines
in their models is ridiculous...

Click to expand...

I find it interesting how things evolve here sometimes. My original post was aimed at how I was unhappy that the consumer driven mp race has forced me to use something I don't want or need - all the extra pixels. Since then it becomes a fierce battle on all the other fancy add ons and crutches that have shown up on our dslr's through the years. Like others, I don't really like to think about that I am paying for stuff I don't use, but at least I'm not forced to use these things and prices have actually came down in spite of them. No, I don't use automatic or scene modes, program mode, multiple focus points, live view, auto iso, face detection, closest focus af, video, huge lcd screens, and probably endless other things, but that does not affect my use of the camera, I just choose not to use them. And I can live with the extra pixels, I just can't help but wonder what kind of super clean 5-6 mp sensors we could have today with the newer tech had the r&d necessary to make them been a priority.

I guess the only really scary one to me is if they were to take away my optical viewfinder. At today's level of excellence, I would have to figure I had owned my last new dslr. That would be another thing that I would be forced to use (evf) and that would be one I couldn't live with. 10 - 20 years from now, who knows - maybe, but something much greater than the G1 will have to come up.

RAL said:

I find it interesting how things evolve here sometimes. My original
post was aimed at how I was unhappy that the consumer driven mp race

Click to expand...

Driven by consumers' demand for higher image quality, more megapixels providing the surest, fastest way to increased image quality.

RAL131504 said:

has forced me to use something I don't want or need - all the extra
pixels.

Click to expand...

No-one has forced you to do anything. Hang on to your D70 (or whatever) it hasnt become a worse camera because there are better ones available now.

RAL131504 said:

Since then it becomes a fierce battle on all the other fancy
add ons and crutches that have shown up on our dslr's through the
years. Like others, I don't really like to think about that I am
paying for stuff I don't use,

Click to expand...

You aren't - in real terms the proce of DSLR's has dropped, even as all these features have been added, nor would they be noticably cheaper without them, since most are in the firmware or enhancements of essentially fixed cost items (such as the sensor, rear LCD, etc).

RAL131504 said:

but at least I'm not forced to use
these things and prices have actually came down in spite of them. No,
I don't use automatic or scene modes, program mode, multiple focus
points, live view, auto iso, face detection, closest focus af, video,
huge lcd screens, and probably endless other things, but that does
not affect my use of the camera, I just choose not to use them. And I
can live with the extra pixels, I just can't help but wonder what
kind of super clean 5-6 mp sensors we could have today with the newer
tech had the r&d necessary to make them been a priority.

Click to expand...

They would perform exactly as the ones we have, but with less resolution, since decreasing pixel density does not increase any other aspect of sensor performance.

RAL131504 said:

I guess the only really scary one to me is if they were to take away
my optical viewfinder. At today's level of excellence, I would have
to figure I had owned my last new dslr. That would be another thing
that I would be forced to use (evf) and that would be one I couldn't
live with. 10 - 20 years from now, who knows - maybe, but something
much greater than the G1 will have to come up.

Click to expand...

The SLR viewfinder isn't actually that great. Once some serious development effort goes into high quality low cost EVF's I suspect no-one will opt for the SLR VF.
--
Bob

What part of the SLR viewfinder isn't good? If you mean that lower end cameras don't show 100% of the frame and can be a little darker due to their small size, that is the only thing I can think of.

bobn2 said:

The SLR viewfinder isn't actually that great. Once some serious
development effort goes into high quality low cost EVF's I suspect
no-one will opt for the SLR VF.

Click to expand...

--
Rob - A picture is worth a thousand words, but which ones?

rhlpetrus said:

After reading about it, I don't think non-Bayer designs are the way
to go, since ine misses color separation efficiency and most of what
is possible now for pp'ing won't be there. Of course the technology
advances, but the color rendition of present cameras using that is
not at same level as with RGB arrays.

Click to expand...

Renato, your comments sparked enough interesting to go off and read a bit. The Wikipedia article on Foveon sensors seemed pretty compact and complete reading. It seems that in addition to the improved sensitivity (hence, lower noise) promise, these sensors also achieve better resolution/detail at surprisingly low pixel counts: "the SD14 [using a 4.7MP Foveon sensor] produces better photos than a typical 10 MP dSLR because it is able to carry sharp detail all the way to the 'falloff' point at 1700 LPI whereas contrast, color detail, and sharpness begin to degrade long before the 1700 LPI limit on a Bayer based 10 MP dSLR."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3

I haven't been able to find anything on the issues/concerns you express. Do you have a link or two that talks about how non-Bayer sensors miss "color separation efficiency" and/or how they limit what one can do in PP?

Follow-on:

I found this discussion that talks about a "color selectivity" weakness for Foveon sensors, but no explanation as to what that means. The discussion also dates back to 2004, so one wonders whether the concerns are current.

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t251050-foveon-x3-sensor-entropy-and-bayer-sensors.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3 of the time.



D80/D90 photos: http://esfotoclix.com

PB PM said:

What part of the SLR viewfinder isn't good? If you mean that lower
end cameras don't show 100% of the frame and can be a little darker
due to their small size, that is the only thing I can think of.

Click to expand...

Compare it with a really good direct finder, and you'd know.
i) It's dim, particularly with small aperture lenses

ii) Depth of field is hard to judge because the VF gets very dim at small apertures
iii) It blacks out during exposure

iv) The screen pattern is an inevitable compromise between brightness and ability to focus manually. Coarser patterns that are good for focus lead to fuzzy images.
v) You have to take your eye off it for chimping

vi) There is a limited ability to overlay useful information on the screen (I would love to see the burned out highlights when I take first pressure on the shutter reease without taking my eye from the camera)
etc etc.

--
Bob

eNo said:

rhlpetrus said:

After reading about it, I don't think non-Bayer designs are the way
to go, since ine misses color separation efficiency and most of what
is possible now for pp'ing won't be there. Of course the technology
advances, but the color rendition of present cameras using that is
not at same level as with RGB arrays.

Click to expand...

Renato, your comments sparked enough interesting to go off and read a
bit. The Wikipedia article on Foveon sensors seemed pretty compact
and complete reading. It seems that in addition to the improved
sensitivity (hence, lower noise) promise, these sensors also achieve
better resolution/detail at surprisingly low pixel counts: "the SD14
[using a 4.7MP Foveon sensor] produces better photos than a typical
10 MP dSLR because it is able to carry sharp detail all the way to
the 'falloff' point at 1700 LPI whereas contrast, color detail, and
sharpness begin to degrade long before the 1700 LPI limit on a Bayer
based 10 MP dSLR."

Click to expand...

You need to be aware of the way Wikipedia articles are generated. It is a wonderful thing, but many articles are written by fans of the subject. In the case of Foveon, the article rehashes several of the company's marketing claims, which have never really been demonstrated in practice. Those who know something about raw conversion (Iliah Borg and Joseph Wisniewski) have been fairly unequivocal about the problems with respect to colour separation of the Foveon design. Neither the sensitivity nor the resolution claims stand up to even simple quantitative measurements in practice. These might have been what Foveon thought was achievable, but they never succeeded in outperforming contemporaneous Bayer technology.

--
Bob

bobn2 said:

PB PM said:

What part of the SLR viewfinder isn't good? If you mean that lower
end cameras don't show 100% of the frame and can be a little darker
due to their small size, that is the only thing I can think of.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Then there's the small size itself. I dislike using my D70 because of its claustrophic viewfinder. Tough to manually focus the lens with it, even in good light.

[snip]

bobn2 said:

iii) It blacks out during exposure

Click to expand...

As far as I know, this is an issue with EVF's as well. In fact, it's probably worse, because the EVF "blackout" duration is quite long compared to even a low end DSLR.

larsbc

As for blackout, every camera with EVIL that I've used blacks out while taking the shot as well, so no advantage there. As for brightness, I've never had trouble (Nikon FE 100% film SLR, D80 96% and D50 95%) with that, even in night shots. As for depth of field, yes that is an issue.

I don't have time to input my thoughts on your other points right now, but I shall do so later.

--
Rob - A picture is worth a thousand words, but which ones?

bobn2 said:

You need to be aware of the way Wikipedia articles are generated. It
is a wonderful thing, but many articles are written by fans of the
subject. In the case of Foveon, the article rehashes several of the
company's marketing claims, which have never really been demonstrated
in practice.

Click to expand...

True, but at least it seems to have been updated recently. So far I haven't found current counter-arguments (2004 is the earliest I can find).

bobn2 said:

Those who know something about raw conversion (Iliah
Borg and Joseph Wisniewski) have been fairly unequivocal about the
problems with respect to colour separation of the Foveon design.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the references. I did a quick search and found a pretty good explanation by Wisniewski, again, dated 2004:

http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00969f

If he's right, though, the passage of time won't help the technology's alleged fundamental flaws, chiefly noise. Here is a mathematical (warning!) explanation:

http://www.azuzarte.com/foveon_noise.htm

I'll keep reading...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3 of the time.



D80/D90 photos: http://esfotoclix.com

And you have a good day. I can see there is no explaining so I won't even try.

larsbc said:

bobn2 said:

PB PM said:

What part of the SLR viewfinder isn't good? If you mean that lower
end cameras don't show 100% of the frame and can be a little darker
due to their small size, that is the only thing I can think of.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Then there's the small size itself. I dislike using my D70 because
of its claustrophic viewfinder. Tough to manually focus the lens
with it, even in good light.

[snip]

larsbc said:

iii) It blacks out during exposure

Click to expand...

As far as I know, this is an issue with EVF's as well. In fact, it's
probably worse, because the EVF "blackout" duration is quite long
compared to even a low end DSLR.

Click to expand...

Nothing fundamental that says they have to black out (although obviously they can't be updated while the shutter's closed. After all, the EVF in a video camera keeps going all the time.
--
Bob

bobn2 wrote:
[snip]

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

As far as I know, this is an issue with EVF's as well. In fact, it's
probably worse, because the EVF "blackout" duration is quite long
compared to even a low end DSLR.

Click to expand...

Nothing fundamental that says they have to black out (although
obviously they can't be updated while the shutter's closed. After
all, the EVF in a video camera keeps going all the time.

Click to expand...

True, but for now, for whatever reason, that's how they are operating.

larsbc

PB PM said:

As for blackout, every camera with EVIL that I've used blacks out
while taking the shot as well, so no advantage there.

Click to expand...

There's only one EVIL available at the moment, so 'every camera' amounts to one. There is no fundamental reason why an EVF needs to black out, except for the period the shutter's actually closed, even then, it can freeze rather than blacking out.

PB PM said:

As for
brightness, I've never had trouble (Nikon FE 100% film SLR, D80 96%
and D50 95%) with that, even in night shots.

Click to expand...

Depends on the lens, small aperture can be a problem, especially for critical work.

--
Bob

RAL said:

And you have a good day. I can see there is no explaining so I won't
even try.

Click to expand...

What you mean is you find yourself incapable of explaining, so you'll avoid trying.
--
Bob

yeh, I'm pretty dumb. At least not nearly as smart as you. I'm pretty new at this photography game and I imagine you have been at it for several months based on your postings.

eNo said:

bobn2 said:

You need to be aware of the way Wikipedia articles are generated. It
is a wonderful thing, but many articles are written by fans of the
subject. In the case of Foveon, the article rehashes several of the
company's marketing claims, which have never really been demonstrated
in practice.

Click to expand...

True, but at least it seems to have been updated recently. So far I
haven't found current counter-arguments (2004 is the earliest I can
find).

Click to expand...

Yes, but probably still by Foveon partisans. Others don't have the same incentive.

eNo said:

eNo said:

Those who know something about raw conversion (Iliah
Borg and Joseph Wisniewski) have been fairly unequivocal about the
problems with respect to colour separation of the Foveon design.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the references. I did a quick search and found a pretty
good explanation by Wisniewski, again, dated 2004:

http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00969f

If he's right, though, the passage of time won't help the
technology's alleged fundamental flaws, chiefly noise. Here is a
mathematical (warning!) explanation:

http://www.azuzarte.com/foveon_noise.htm

Click to expand...

Hadn't seen that, thanks. And my maths was up to it, too. Seems to validate what Joe says.

--
Bob

RAL said:

yeh, I'm pretty dumb. At least not nearly as smart as you. I'm pretty
new at this photography game and I imagine you have been at it for
several months based on your postings.

Click to expand...

You really have to work at that self-esteem thing.
--
Bob

Video is a good thing to put into DSLR's. The only reason video cameras and still cameras used to be separate was because they used totally different hardware. Nowadays, they both use CCD's, which are becoming more and more similar, and relying on solid state technology. It only makes sense to combine the two. Putting video in a DSLR saves me thousands of dollars in new lenses for a video camera. There is no law of the universe that states that cameras should not take video and that it is a gimmick; rather, only our stubborn old set ways tell us this. Video in DSLR's is a natural outcome of emerging technology.
--
where the cold wind blows
dee threee hundred
dee four tee ex
18-55 kit lens
70-300 VR
300 f/4
Sigma 10-20
Canon Powershot A620 w housing
Canon HF10 camcorder

bobn2 said:

PB PM said:

As for blackout, every camera with EVIL that I've used blacks out
while taking the shot as well, so no advantage there.

Click to expand...

There's only one EVIL available at the moment, so 'every camera'
amounts to one. There is no fundamental reason why an EVF needs to
black out, except for the period the shutter's actually closed, even
then, it can freeze rather than blacking out.

bobn2 said:

As for
brightness, I've never had trouble (Nikon FE 100% film SLR, D80 96%
and D50 95%) with that, even in night shots.

Click to expand...

Depends on the lens, small aperture can be a problem, especially for
critical work.

--

Click to expand...

it is no match for a DSLR viewfinder like the one in a D90 IMO (I compared it directly to my D90 on a photo expo). Besides the black out/freeze during series, which makes it more or less unusuable for action, it also suffers from visible electronic noise in low light.

You feel a lot more involved or connected while shooting with an optical VF. Think of this comparison - how many of us would like to replace the windows in our houses with large HD displays?

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/