A Sony FF R2?

maple · Aug 31, 2010

How do you like such an idea?

FF pellicle mirror type of DSLR
Fixed 4 x zoom lens 28 – 112mm, F2.8, of the best optical quality (for a zoom, of course)
30m pixels sensor, no anti-aliasing filter, off-setting micro-lens (as the M9 has proved it for its significantly superior image quality and very rare real world moire phenomena)
Otherwise, more or less like Sony A55

This configuration takes full advantage of the pellicle mirror approach while avoiding some of its most feared downsides. Here’s the rationale:

1. FF: since only FF could take full advantage of the possible shorter registration distance of, say, no less than 28mm (considering the 27.8mm of Leica M). 28mm is 28mm on FF, and not 42mm or more as on APS-C sensor.

2. Fixed lens:

a) So that you have completely sealed compartment for the pellicle mirror to keep it clean (supposing dust and dirt on pellicle mirror is a real and serious issue)

b) So that you are free from restriction by registration distance of existing mount standards, and therefore can find a new registration distance for optimal imaging quality and smaller and lighter zoom lens.

c) No camera is good for everything anyway. FF, for example, is not exactly ideal for long-tele photography, just as the Leica M range finder is never meant for bird shooting. You may just as well leave that to cropped sensors. You are more likely using FF for landscape, internal, architecture, product and portrait. A wide/mid-tele zoom (like that on Sony R1) would do really well for all that, and miss little (except perhaps the finest bokeh?). And it is possible to even make it do decent macro. So why bother with yet another mount standard, when you already have two.

We would effectively have a Leica M9, light and compact, but with all the A55 features, such as:

Superior VF
Fast PDAF for both still and video
10fps burst with continuous tracking
Superior high ISO,
Multi-shot HDR/HDO
Hand-held multi-shot noise cancellation,.
Articulate LCD for otherwise impossible angle of view

Just to highlight a few.

Would I buy it for M9’s money? Probably not. About half of that? Definitely yes.

Would Sony do it? Most likely not. The money is, after all, in the lens. But, if they can sweep half of FF market with such a model, then?

--
Maple

paul_kew · Aug 31, 2010

1. How do you reconcile a short registration distance with a pellicle mirror?
2. Why have you posted this in the news forum?

schmaud · Sep 1, 2010

1. as said above: you still have optics before the sensor, thus you still might need RF design

2. fixed lens does not mean dust free, zooms do have mobile optical elements. When they are moved the lens "breathes", thus additional dust seals are needed.

Disadvantage in your concept:

not flexibel
not attractive from a marketing standpoint, for every a900/a850 sony will sell additional lenses etc. not so for your idea.

maple · Sep 1, 2010

1. I'm no engineer, but just guessing that since a pellicle mirror does not need to flip up, it needs less space. Furthermore, suppose it sits at 45 dgr angle, the space it needs is about the height of a FF sensor, i.e., 24mm, theoretically though.

2. News Forum is indeed not the most suitable place for this topic. I just thought it could be of interest to non Sony users.
--
Maple

maple · Sep 1, 2010

schmaud said:
1. as said above: you still have optics before the sensor, thus you still might need RF design

I have replied that above

schmaud said:
2. fixed lens does not mean dust free, zooms do have mobile optical elements. When they are moved the lens "breathes", thus additional dust seals are needed.

You have a good solution already.

schmaud said:
Disadvantage in your concept:

not flexibel

as I said, most what FF do well is fairly well covered by a wide to mid-tele zoom, leaving little to desire in terms of FL.

schmaud said:
not attractive from a marketing standpoint, for every a900/a850 sony will sell additional lenses etc. not so for your idea.

I have also made similar observation in my OP.

--
Maple

paul_kew · Sep 1, 2010

Hi, I meant Open Forum is the place for this sort of thread. If Sony came out with one, then it would be news

Mescalamba · Sep 1, 2010

Im bit afraid, that it would cost bit more than half of Leica M9.. Even from Sony.

Though idea is nice, but still I prefer changable lens..

CFynn · Sep 1, 2010

maple said:
How do you like such an idea?

maple said:
FF pellicle mirror type of DSLR

Fixed 4 x zoom lens 28 – 112mm, F2.8, of the best optical quality (for a zoom, of course)

30m pixels sensor, no anti-aliasing filter, off-setting micro-lens (as the M9 has proved it for its significantly superior image quality and very rare real world moire phenomena)

Otherwise, more or less like Sony A55

This configuration takes full advantage of the pellicle mirror approach while avoiding some of its most feared downsides.

What you are proposing is eithersomething like a giant super zoom - without the "super" part - or something like a large Sigma DP with an EVF and a zoom lens instead of a fixed focal length.

maple said:
Here’s the rationale:

maple said:
1. FF: since only FF could take full advantage of the possible shorter registration distance of, say, no less than 28mm (considering the 27.8mm of Leica M). 28mm is 28mm on FF, and not 42mm or more as on APS-C sensor.

It stll has a mirror - though the angle of inclination may be different so you'd never get anything approaching the registration distance of a Leica - probably not 42mm either.

maple said:
2. Fixed lens:

a) So that you have completely sealed compartment for the pellicle mirror to keep it clean (supposing dust and dirt on pellicle mirror is a real and serious issue)

With a zoom lens eventually there would be some dust sucked in and you'd have no way to clean it.

maple said:
b) So that you are free from restriction by registration distance of existing mount standards, and therefore can find a new registration distance for optimal imaging quality and smaller and lighter zoom lens.

See my earlier comment

maple said:
c) No camera is good for everything anyway. FF, for example, is not exactly ideal for long-tele photography, just as the Leica M range finder is never meant for bird shooting. You may just as well leave that to cropped sensors. You are more likely using FF for landscape, internal, architecture, product and portrait. A wide/mid-tele zoom (like that on Sony R1) would do really well for all that, and miss little (except perhaps the finest bokeh?). And it is possible to even make it do decent macro. So why bother with yet another mount standard, when you already have two.

Yes why bother with another mount standard - keep it A-mount

APSC cameras might have benefited from a new shorter distance mount but not a full frame camera with any kind of mirror

Most landscape photographers would never go for a camera that didn't take 20 or 24mm lenses. And many portrait photographers use 180 to 200mm lenses on ff - so your 4x 28 –112mm lens doesn't quite cut it. But anything over 4x on a fast full frame wide-to tele zoom and optical quality suffers. (Most of the best fast zooms are only 3x)

I'd never buy a full frame camera that didn't take prime lenses - they are generally better from corner to corner than a zoom and a couple of stops faster.

maple said:
We would effectively have a Leica M9, light and compact,

One of the reasons a Leica is light and compact is because it uses small lightweight prime lenses. Add a fast full frame zoom and you no longer have a light and compact camera.

I'm afraid this would never fly unless it were very cheap - and the cost of producing full frame sensors would have to fall a long way to make that possible.

C

Joseph S Wisniewski · Sep 1, 2010

maple said:
How do you like such an idea?

Actually, I don't find much to like about it.

maple said:
FF pellicle mirror type of DSLR

Not a good idea. There's a way of making phase detection work on the main sensor of a camera. Fuji has it in production in a point and shoot. Nikon, Canon, and Sony each have multiple patents out, and there's a leaked Nikon data sheet floating around. All the advantages of a pellicle system, none of the disadvantage.

No one is going to sink any more design dollars into pellicle. It's already peaked.

maple said:
Fixed 4 x zoom lens 28 – 112mm, F2.8, of the best optical quality (for a zoom, of course)

The "best optical quality" isn't going to be in a 4x zoom. The high quality f2.8 zooms are below 3x.

24-70, 2.92
70-200, 2.86
50-135, 2.70

But that aside, 28-112 is not an optimal range for a zoom. The most popular pro zoom on FF is the 24-70mm. That's nearly perfectly balanced around the 43.3mm "normal" of the sensor diagonal.

24mm = 1/1.8 of 43.3mm
70mm = 1.62 of 43.3mm

In real life, few will give up the range from 24-28mm to get the range from 70-112mm.

maple said:
30m pixels sensor, no anti-aliasing filter,

Why? An AA filter is necessary. Do you think camera companies spend crazy amounts of money on multiple polished slabs of optical grade, lab grown LiNbO3 crystal for their entertainment?

maple said:
off-setting micro-lens (as the M9 has proved it for its significantly superior image quality and very rare real world moire phenomena)

Offset microlenses have zero to do with moire.

And the only thing they do in the M9 is allow the lens to cope with exit pupils as close as 28mm to the sensor. Fixed aperture zooms have exit pupils far from the sensor. 28-70mm and 28-80mm f2.8 lenses have exit pupils over 70mm from the sensor. A 28-112 will have an exit pupil out past 90mm. Offset microlenses will actually worsen performance.

maple said:
Otherwise, more or less like Sony A55

This configuration takes full advantage of the pellicle mirror approach while avoiding some of its most feared downsides. Here’s the rationale:

1. FF: since only FF could take full advantage of the possible shorter registration distance of, say, no less than 28mm (considering the 27.8mm of Leica M). 28mm is 28mm on FF, and not 42mm or more as on APS-C sensor.

You misunderstand the difference between registration distance and back focus. Registration distance is a property of the mount. All cameras allow the rear elements of the lens to protrude through the lens mount to the "back focus", the shortest permitted difference between lens ans sensor.

But a constant aperture zoom has rear elements pretty far from the sensor, there's no need for a short back focus.

And the Leica M isn't a pellical camera. In a pellical camera, even without a moving mirror, the shortest back focus is 30mm (24 for the angle, 1mm for the mirror thickness, 5mm for the shutter assembly and sensor filters and cover glass).

maple said:
2. Fixed lens:

a) So that you have completely sealed compartment for the pellicle mirror to keep it clean (supposing dust and dirt on pellicle mirror is a real and serious issue)

It's a real issue for all fixed lens cameras.

maple said:
b) So that you are free from restriction by registration distance of existing mount standards, and therefore can find a new registration distance for optimal imaging quality and smaller and lighter zoom lens.

It's an f2.8 with a 112mm long end. It doesn't get smaller and lighter. That long end determines the size and weight.

The Nikon, Canon, and Sony 24-70mm f2.8 lenses weigh 900-1000g each. Extending that to 112mm should put them somewhere around 1400-1500g.

My favorite lenses on an M9 weigh 200-300g each.

maple said:
c) No camera is good for everything anyway. FF, for example, is not exactly ideal for long-tele photography, just as the Leica M range finder is never meant for bird shooting.

The "no camera is good for everything" argument doesn't justify making it bad for almost everything .

maple said:
You may just as well leave that to cropped sensors. You are more likely using FF for landscape, internal, architecture, product and portrait.

Yeah. and I'm not touching product without my armory of good macro lenses, including the 105mm on the tilt/shift bellows, the 85mm PC/E tilt/shift, the 200mm f4 and 60mm f2.8, both capable of 1:1

I'm not doing portrait without my 85mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.0 DC, with their legendary bokeh.

My style of architecture means a 24mm PC/E tilt/shift and a 14-24mm f2.8 ultrawide, as well as a 24-70mm f2.8.

maple said:
A wide/mid-tele zoom (like that on Sony R1) would do really well for all that, and miss little (except perhaps the finest bokeh?).

Except perhaps... everything.

maple said:
And it is possible to even make it do decent macro.

No. Speaking as a lens designer, it isn't.

TBC6K

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski · Sep 1, 2010

maple said:
So why bother with yet another mount standard, when you already have two.

Who said it needs another mount standard. As you said, they already have two. Give it one of those.

maple said:
We would effectively have a Leica M9, light and compact, but with all the A55 features, such as:

Superior VF

Fast PDAF for both still and video

10fps burst with continuous tracking

Right now, the A55 processor can't do continuous tracking at 10fps.

You're talking about a 30mp camera, that means moving from the 160 megapixels/second of the A55 processors to 300 megapixels/second, about twice as fast as anything else on the market, just to capture 10 fps without the focus tracking.

And who needs 10 fps on a camera with a 112mm long end?

maple said:
Superior high ISO,

Not to a real DSLR.

maple said:
Multi-shot HDR/HDO

Hand-held multi-shot noise cancellation,.

A feature in search of a use.

maple said:
Articulate LCD for otherwise impossible angle of view

Just to highlight a few.

Would I buy it for M9’s money? Probably not. About half of that? Definitely yes.

You'd pay $3000 for a "throw away next year" point and shoot?

Hint: the most expensive P&S today is about $700.

maple said:
Would Sony do it? Most likely not. The money is, after all, in the lens. But, if they can sweep half of FF market with such a model, then?

Why would what you've described "sweep" anything?

It's your camera. They'd sell one, to you. That's all.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

coudet · Sep 1, 2010

I do not like it, at all.

maple said:
How do you like such an idea?

FF pellicle mirror type of DSLR

Fixed 4 x zoom lens 28 – 112mm, F2.8, of the best optical quality (for a zoom, of course)

30m pixels sensor, no anti-aliasing filter, off-setting micro-lens (as the M9 has proved it for its significantly superior image quality and very rare real world moire phenomena)

Otherwise, more or less like Sony A55

maple · Sep 1, 2010

Thank you, Joseph, for your very detailed responses.

I know it’s very arrogant of me to say this, but somehow I have a feeling that you could, if you like, put up arguments in favor of my ideas stead, similarly detailed, authoritative and eloquent.

I just want FF without the weight and bulk of it. Really no alternative to M9 at lower cost.

You seem to be in favor of Fujifilm's approach of using the main sensor for PDAF, by way of introducing some AF pixels that can still contribute to forming images. I wonder how well it works, and much the images are affected. Perhaps very little and negligible? Have not heard any AF pixel induced faults on its images so far.

--
Maple

DUSTY LENS · Sep 2, 2010

I don't like it yet .

Convince me .

Dusty

Joe0Bloggs · Sep 2, 2010

maple said:
How do you like such an idea?

If you could make it "compact like an M9", you'll be rich beyond your imagination.

maple said:
1. FF: since only FF could take full advantage of the possible shorter registration distance of, say, no less than 28mm (considering the 27.8mm of Leica M). 28mm is 28mm on FF, and not 42mm or more as on APS-C sensor.

The mount registration distance has nothing to do with the back focus of the lens, which can protrude through the mount. The R1 had the rear lens element 2mm from the sensor. That didn't prevent it from becoming a bigger cannon than any lens mounted on any superzoom before or after it--despite the R1 lens not being a superzoom (it was 5x) and not being constant f/2.8 like you propose (it was f/2.8-4) and not for full frame (it was for 1.7x crop).

I think that's enough said...

Joe0Bloggs · Sep 2, 2010

maple said:
Thank you, Joseph, for your very detailed responses.

I know it’s very arrogant of me to say this, but somehow I have a feeling that you could, if you like, put up arguments in favor of my ideas stead, similarly detailed, authoritative and eloquent.

I just want FF without the weight and bulk of it. Really no alternative to M9 at lower cost.

Then wait for the inevitable FF EVIL to come out. Your proposal is nothing like a low-cost M9, at all.

Christopher G · Sep 2, 2010

Make it with a 24-119 2.8 with diffent aspect ratios like 4/3 and 4/5 and vertical shutter release and powered ac and I would use it in studio for eveything.

Andy Crowe · Sep 2, 2010

I can see no reason to use a fixed lens on such a camera. If the main sensor has a good enough dust reduction system it should be easy to keep the mirror clean with a small duster tool or a compressed air can.

Sony already have an FF camera system with plenty of good lenses, why throw that all away? Short flange distances only really make a large difference with wide angle primes, on an FF system the "standard" focal length of 50mm is matched perfectly with the flange distance.

CFynn · Sep 2, 2010

maple said:
I just want FF without the weight and bulk of it.

Then you'd better persuade someone to make a full frame EVIL camere - which would be a much better idea than what you suggested. If there is enough demand, someone will eventually make one.

Something like a FF NEX could be quite small - provided you used prime lenses on it and not the 28–112mm f/2.8 you wanted.

maple said:
Really no alternative to M9 at lower cost.

If anyone else made a FF digital rangefinder it would probably sell for 1/3 the price that Leica charge for the M9-

C

stephenmelvin · Sep 2, 2010

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
But that aside, 28-112 is not an optimal range for a zoom. The most popular pro zoom on FF is the 24-70mm. That's nearly perfectly balanced around the 43.3mm "normal" of the sensor diagonal.

24mm = 1/1.8 of 43.3mm

70mm = 1.62 of 43.3mm

In real life, few will give up the range from 24-28mm to get the range from 70-112mm.

The 24-70 and the 28-70 before it have long had a problem -- one you've talked about in another context. Prior to zoom lenses, we had a range that went from 24mm to 28 to 35 to 50 -- and then skips to 85mm. The range inbetween isn't terribly useful -- and not one that can sustain a single focal length lens such as, for example, a 70mm.

To me, a 24-70 might as well be 24-50. Scratch that: I don't really like normals. I love their high speed, but the FOV is pretty dull to my eye.

The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is the FOV equivalent of a 28-88 full frame lens, and covers wide angle to short telephoto. It has useful focal lengths at both ends of its range -- something a 24-70 doesn't have.

I'd like to see a 24-85 f/2.8 lens. That would be very useful indeed, though I don't know when if ever that will be possible to build. I briefly owned a Tamron 28-105 f/2.8. What a hideous thing that was! But most of my complaints with it have to do with its styling (think Minolta circa 1988) and the antique AF motor. And yeah, it's gigantic.

I wound up with a 24-105L instead, trading a stop for a more useful range.

--
http://models.stevemelvin.com

rinkos · Sep 9, 2010

what you fail to realise is not anyone want to carry all these lenses...
infact coming from the superzoom category ..
i myself and a lot of people filling the forums over there only wished one thing

that instead of that tiny 1/2.33 sensor..someone would put a superzoom out there with a bigger sensor...we would even settle for the 4/3...not to mention an aps-c...

we are not all pros who make our living in it...we want to carry something light and have fun..not sell...

and i would gladly pay twice the amount of fz35 for this sensor...

also since prices of slr's keep coming down ..i doubt a new one will cost as the old r1 back in 2005 that cost 1000$...

but for me? ...fz35 with a an aps-c sensor will be a dream come true....

just look at her photos..the only truly bad thing in it is noise...

maple said:
How do you like such an idea?

FF pellicle mirror type of DSLR

Fixed 4 x zoom lens 28 – 112mm, F2.8, of the best optical quality (for a zoom, of course)

30m pixels sensor, no anti-aliasing filter, off-setting micro-lens (as the M9 has proved it for its significantly superior image quality and very rare real world moire phenomena)

Otherwise, more or less like Sony A55

This configuration takes full advantage of the pellicle mirror approach while avoiding some of its most feared downsides. Here’s the rationale:

1. FF: since only FF could take full advantage of the possible shorter registration distance of, say, no less than 28mm (considering the 27.8mm of Leica M). 28mm is 28mm on FF, and not 42mm or more as on APS-C sensor.

2. Fixed lens:

a) So that you have completely sealed compartment for the pellicle mirror to keep it clean (supposing dust and dirt on pellicle mirror is a real and serious issue)

b) So that you are free from restriction by registration distance of existing mount standards, and therefore can find a new registration distance for optimal imaging quality and smaller and lighter zoom lens.

c) No camera is good for everything anyway. FF, for example, is not exactly ideal for long-tele photography, just as the Leica M range finder is never meant for bird shooting. You may just as well leave that to cropped sensors. You are more likely using FF for landscape, internal, architecture, product and portrait. A wide/mid-tele zoom (like that on Sony R1) would do really well for all that, and miss little (except perhaps the finest bokeh?). And it is possible to even make it do decent macro. So why bother with yet another mount standard, when you already have two.

We would effectively have a Leica M9, light and compact, but with all the A55 features, such as:

Superior VF

Fast PDAF for both still and video

10fps burst with continuous tracking

Superior high ISO,

Multi-shot HDR/HDO

Hand-held multi-shot noise cancellation,.

Articulate LCD for otherwise impossible angle of view

Just to highlight a few.

Would I buy it for M9’s money? Probably not. About half of that? Definitely yes.

Would Sony do it? Most likely not. The money is, after all, in the lens. But, if they can sweep half of FF market with such a model, then?

--
Maple

A Sony FF R2?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts