Reading mode: Light Dark

Will Nikon go full frame?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walter Freiberger
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
W

Walter Freiberger

Guest
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and give all users the best solution:

1) FF for the high-res pro-level DSLR's:
D2 and/or F6 with 11-14 mp, FF and 3-5 fps

Such a FF DSLR can make full use of all the speciality lenses like the 85PC, the fisheyes, the DC lenses, etc.. With 3-5 fps they will be fast enough even for PJ's.

2a) APS sized sensors for the high-speed pro-level DSLR's:
D2h with 6 mp and 8-10 fps

Such a camera will be ideal for wildlife and sports shooters and with a dedicated DX wide angle zoom even for PJ's.

2b) APS sized sensors for the prosumer cameras: D100, D100s/x/h, D200...

3) 4/3 sized sensors for consumer DSLR's (a D65 or D80 eventually). This will allow to make much cheaper entry level DSLR's and to compete (almost) fully with the Olympus 4/3 system. The 12-24 DX lens will provide a quite usable 24-48mm range given the 2x magnification factor. A 28-105 zoom will make for a small 56-210/3.5-4.5 telezoom with 1:1 macro capability. A 50/1.8 becomes a very cheap high quality 100/1.8 portraiture lens. And the 70-300 becomes an ultra long 140-600/5.6 lens with 1:2 macro capability.

Just some ideas how things may work out..
Walter
 
Walter Freiberger said:
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:
Click to expand...
That announcement of a Nikon DX lens line came just a few months after Canon full frame DSLR the 1 Ds ... I think it's interesting. So Canon seems to chose the FF way and Nikon the special digital lenses line.. I found that move rather surprising : it would have been less surprising to hear it the other way round :

a) Nikon, well known as the professional tool and who has always being paying attention to keep compatible lenses choosing to go full frame and

b) Canon who is more geared at the advanced amateur than the pros and who has already changed its lenses system more radically when AF came, who until now was offering more competitive prices .. should have issues the Digital lenses first in that logic.

It seems that Canon is targetting the Pros market with its FF sensor.. and beating Nikon at it now..

I don't care for the FF sensor; it calls for huge, heavy equipment. I'd prefer to get smaller lighter lenses adapted to the size of the smaller sensor : the quality I have from the D60 is enough for me. But I want to be light to wander in the streets. What I'd really like is a digital body for the Contax G line of lenses .. or for the Leica M lenses .. that would be wonderfull I wonder whether it will come one day.. if not, then the Nikon solution f Digital lenses will be great.. I'm just hoping that Canon will make the same move and offer lenses of great qualities... The Nikon DX lense Max aperture is only F4, which isn't enough.

BTW, did anyone make a test of that new NIkon lens ? is the lens selling now ? or was it only an announcement ?

--
Christiane
 
Christiane ROH said:
Walter Freiberger said:
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:
Click to expand...
That announcement of a Nikon DX lens line came just a few months
after Canon full frame DSLR the 1 Ds ... I think it's interesting.
So Canon seems to chose the FF way and Nikon the special digital
lenses line.. I found that move rather surprising : it would have
been less surprising to hear it the other way round :

a) Nikon, well known as the professional tool and who has always
being paying attention to keep compatible lenses choosing to go
full frame and
b) Canon who is more geared at the advanced amateur than the pros
and who has already changed its lenses system more radically when
AF came, who until now was offering more competitive prices ..
should have issues the Digital lenses first in that logic.

It seems that Canon is targetting the Pros market with its FF
sensor.. and beating Nikon at it now..

I don't care for the FF sensor; it calls for huge, heavy equipment.
I'd prefer to get smaller lighter lenses adapted to the size of the
smaller sensor : the quality I have from the D60 is enough for me.
But I want to be light to wander in the streets. What I'd really
like is a digital body for the Contax G line of lenses .. or for
the Leica M lenses .. that would be wonderfull I wonder whether it
will come one day.. if not, then the Nikon solution f Digital
lenses will be great.. I'm just hoping that Canon will make the
same move and offer lenses of great qualities... The Nikon DX lense
Max aperture is only F4, which isn't enough.

BTW, did anyone make a test of that new NIkon lens ? is the lens
selling now ? or was it only an announcement ?

--
Christiane
Click to expand...
I think most pros will want faster,smaller and lighter lens. These DX lens could stretch to designs not yet thought about for 35mm DCs. I can't help thinking the Canon 1Ds and others like it coming to the market may turn out to be dinosaurs. I also believe Nikon have stated that the 1.5x sensor is the best performing sensor of 'any size'. Maybe that's why there was a big jump in megapixels without milking the potential 8-10 mps market.

I think Nikon has taken everyone by surprise.

Michael
 
Interesting thoughts but I think you may have misunderstood the 4/3 form factor!

D100 APS sensor: 23*15mm

4/3 sensor: 18mm*13MM

The 4/3 sensor is squarer than the D100 sensor but if that difference is ignored they are virtually the same size and there will be no significant "multiplier" effect if you were to build a 4/3 camera around the DX line of lenses.
Walter Freiberger said:
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:

1) FF for the high-res pro-level DSLR's:
D2 and/or F6 with 11-14 mp, FF and 3-5 fps
Such a FF DSLR can make full use of all the speciality lenses like
the 85PC, the fisheyes, the DC lenses, etc.. With 3-5 fps they will
be fast enough even for PJ's.

2a) APS sized sensors for the high-speed pro-level DSLR's:
D2h with 6 mp and 8-10 fps
Such a camera will be ideal for wildlife and sports shooters and
with a dedicated DX wide angle zoom even for PJ's.

2b) APS sized sensors for the prosumer cameras: D100, D100s/x/h,
D200...

3) 4/3 sized sensors for consumer DSLR's (a D65 or D80 eventually).
This will allow to make much cheaper entry level DSLR's and to
compete (almost) fully with the Olympus 4/3 system. The 12-24 DX
lens will provide a quite usable 24-48mm range given the 2x
magnification factor. A 28-105 zoom will make for a small
56-210/3.5-4.5 telezoom with 1:1 macro capability. A 50/1.8 becomes
a very cheap high quality 100/1.8 portraiture lens. And the 70-300
becomes an ultra long 140-600/5.6 lens with 1:2 macro capability.

Just some ideas how things may work out..
Walter
Click to expand...
 
Check out what BJP has to say at http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/words/news_and_news_features/115.shtml

Beth
Walter Freiberger said:
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:

1) FF for the high-res pro-level DSLR's:
D2 and/or F6 with 11-14 mp, FF and 3-5 fps
Such a FF DSLR can make full use of all the speciality lenses like
the 85PC, the fisheyes, the DC lenses, etc.. With 3-5 fps they will
be fast enough even for PJ's.

2a) APS sized sensors for the high-speed pro-level DSLR's:
D2h with 6 mp and 8-10 fps
Such a camera will be ideal for wildlife and sports shooters and
with a dedicated DX wide angle zoom even for PJ's.

2b) APS sized sensors for the prosumer cameras: D100, D100s/x/h,
D200...

3) 4/3 sized sensors for consumer DSLR's (a D65 or D80 eventually).
This will allow to make much cheaper entry level DSLR's and to
compete (almost) fully with the Olympus 4/3 system. The 12-24 DX
lens will provide a quite usable 24-48mm range given the 2x
magnification factor. A 28-105 zoom will make for a small
56-210/3.5-4.5 telezoom with 1:1 macro capability. A 50/1.8 becomes
a very cheap high quality 100/1.8 portraiture lens. And the 70-300
becomes an ultra long 140-600/5.6 lens with 1:2 macro capability.

Just some ideas how things may work out..
Walter
Click to expand...
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
 
I'm not a pro, but I am following the trends. Pros may have a different take.

My prediction is that other than disposables, no one will be buying a film camera that is smaller than medium format.

Nikon will probably wait and see how Kodak and Canon do on the FF cameras. It seems like the lenses are not good enough to do these sensors justice. Nikon has a FF with kodak for its lenses. If they sell well Nikon will jump on board, otherwise they will just let kodak and possibly Fuji sell their mount for full frame. If these sell some new digital full frame lenses need to come out, or the electronics need to compensate for lens distortions at the edges.

With the 1.5 APS sized sensor, most current lenses work well with digital. By adding digital telephoto and wide angle for this format, they may be able to overcome most of the objections. Better electronics should make these cameras even better. Nikon can make both pro, and pro sumer bodies and lenses in this factor. If the Olympus/Kodak 4/3 take off, all the digital lenses just need a new mount. The bodies and electronics will work fine. The incompatablility with the film cameras will go away over time.

Nikon seems to be taking a low risk approach. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but Nikon probably will build full frame if there is a market, but will definitely continue to build cameras that are high quality in the APS or 4/3 size. I would love them to jump on the 4/3 standard, as this would give it a big enough push to really get started.
Walter Freiberger said:
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:

1) FF for the high-res pro-level DSLR's:
D2 and/or F6 with 11-14 mp, FF and 3-5 fps
Such a FF DSLR can make full use of all the speciality lenses like
the 85PC, the fisheyes, the DC lenses, etc.. With 3-5 fps they will
be fast enough even for PJ's.

2a) APS sized sensors for the high-speed pro-level DSLR's:
D2h with 6 mp and 8-10 fps
Such a camera will be ideal for wildlife and sports shooters and
with a dedicated DX wide angle zoom even for PJ's.

2b) APS sized sensors for the prosumer cameras: D100, D100s/x/h,
D200...

3) 4/3 sized sensors for consumer DSLR's (a D65 or D80 eventually).
This will allow to make much cheaper entry level DSLR's and to
compete (almost) fully with the Olympus 4/3 system. The 12-24 DX
lens will provide a quite usable 24-48mm range given the 2x
magnification factor. A 28-105 zoom will make for a small
56-210/3.5-4.5 telezoom with 1:1 macro capability. A 50/1.8 becomes
a very cheap high quality 100/1.8 portraiture lens. And the 70-300
becomes an ultra long 140-600/5.6 lens with 1:2 macro capability.

Just some ideas how things may work out..
Walter
Click to expand...
 
I too assume Nikon will introduce a full frame, high priced spread. However I think the main reason for such a machine is to appeal to the pro-snob community that already owns a lot of lenses etc. The theory of optics ... at least at my limited understanding ... does not obviate a smaller sensor for high quality.

Morover, we should all remember that the full frame of a 35mm is an accident of the size of 35mm film and the original Barnak design of the Leica. No one who has had the freedom to design a film format has ever chosen this wasteful ratio.

Finally, I am very much in the Leica camp. To me a camera is an extention of my optical cortex. The less "stuff" between me and the ability to record an image the better. The current crop of 35mm pro cameras are overweight competitors for view cameras.
 
Interesting, I was thinking along the same lines:
  • Nikon will probably come up with its own FF because its current pro film SLR users would demand it (too much invested in equipment)
  • The smaller and lighter DX Nikkors are in fact the way to go for prosumer digital cameras
  • Canon seems to be surprisingly absent and silent on this smaller specialized lenses topic
Anyway, more of my thoughts can be found here:

http://www.photoxels.com/news_NikonDX.html

My :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Camera Fact Sheets
http://www.photoxels.com
'A Smile Is Forever'
 
From a sight that seems to sometimes have the inside scoop, and will speculate on it. The Luminous Landscape. Not knocking Phil, but sometimes he seems to get caught up in NDAs. (a neccessary evil)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/whither-nikon.shtml
Walter Freiberger said:
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:

1) FF for the high-res pro-level DSLR's:
D2 and/or F6 with 11-14 mp, FF and 3-5 fps
Such a FF DSLR can make full use of all the speciality lenses like
the 85PC, the fisheyes, the DC lenses, etc.. With 3-5 fps they will
be fast enough even for PJ's.

2a) APS sized sensors for the high-speed pro-level DSLR's:
D2h with 6 mp and 8-10 fps
Such a camera will be ideal for wildlife and sports shooters and
with a dedicated DX wide angle zoom even for PJ's.

2b) APS sized sensors for the prosumer cameras: D100, D100s/x/h,
D200...

3) 4/3 sized sensors for consumer DSLR's (a D65 or D80 eventually).
This will allow to make much cheaper entry level DSLR's and to
compete (almost) fully with the Olympus 4/3 system. The 12-24 DX
lens will provide a quite usable 24-48mm range given the 2x
magnification factor. A 28-105 zoom will make for a small
56-210/3.5-4.5 telezoom with 1:1 macro capability. A 50/1.8 becomes
a very cheap high quality 100/1.8 portraiture lens. And the 70-300
becomes an ultra long 140-600/5.6 lens with 1:2 macro capability.

Just some ideas how things may work out..
Walter
Click to expand...
--
Aaron Thomson



and some of my pics
http://www.groupfirst.com/portfolio1.html

(Wannabe, Gonnabe) Pro Photog
 
Aaron Thomson said:
From a sight that seems to sometimes have the inside scoop, and
will speculate on it. The Luminous Landscape. Not knocking Phil,
but sometimes he seems to get caught up in NDAs. (a neccessary evil)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/whither-nikon.shtml
Click to expand...
The article talks about Moore's Law a lot. Moore's Law doesn't apply to digital photography the same way it applies to computers.

Moore's Law isn't a law at all, it's merely an observation. The computing power doubles every 18 months. Primarily the computing power doubles by making things smaller and squeezing more more circuitry on the same sized chip.

The large image sensor the size of 35mm film that's used in the Canon 1Ds (or in the currently non-existent new Kodak) is a whopping expensive thing to make right now. While prices will surely come down with better manufacturing and other improvements, I believe that Nikon (as well as the people behind the OlyDak 4/3 camera) understand that it's not going to come down fast enough to put cameras using smaller image sensors out of business.

Technological improvements in film made 35mm the film standard and relegated "medium format" to a niche high end market. Although a medium format camera doesn't contain any kind of high technology at all, if you've ever priced them you will see that they cost a fortune. To get into medium format photagrphy by buying a new camera requires an investment of $2000. No doubt the high prices scare of many would-be medium format photographers.

There is no doubt that imaging sensors outperform film on a square millimeter basis. My Sony F707 has an imaging sensor with 1/16 the area of 35mm film. I've made some careful comparison between the F707 and scanned 35mm slide film, and my estimate is that there is twice as much detail in the 35mm slide. But no way near 16 times as much detail. Furthermore, the 35mm image also has a lot more "noise" in the form of grain than the F707 image has noise in the form of pixels that show up the wrong color.

I believe that technology is very much on the verge of providing us with cameras that will provide us with twice the resolution of 35mm film using imaging sensors much smaller than 35mm film. Such as the 4/3 format that is 1/4 the size of film and 4 times bigger than the sensor in the F707. And that they will be available for under $1000.

This is why Nikon is making a new line of DX lenses. That's where the future is for the majority of serious photographers. Bigger digital cameras will be a small niche market for the same kind of people who today use Haselblads and similarly expensive medium format cameras.
 
Nikon REALLY needs to update (enlarge) their lens mount, just as Canon did a few years back. Nikon watched, as Canon alienated a LOT of working pros by obsoleting their equipment with one stroke of the CEO's pen. There were mass defections from Canon to Nikon at that time, also. Why not, if all my gear is suddenly obsolete, switch to the current "leader" was the hew and cry.

Nikon does NOT want to suffer similar "defections" to the other camp like Canon did. That is the main reason Nikon has been trudging along with their current mount. In this vein, and not wanting to alienate their stable of pros, (especially right now, when Canon is perceived to have a slight "edge" in glass with their "IS" kit), it is almost a certainty that Nikon will offer a full frame format of some kind in the very near future.

kunza
Walter Freiberger said:
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:

1) FF for the high-res pro-level DSLR's:
D2 and/or F6 with 11-14 mp, FF and 3-5 fps
Such a FF DSLR can make full use of all the speciality lenses like
the 85PC, the fisheyes, the DC lenses, etc.. With 3-5 fps they will
be fast enough even for PJ's.

2a) APS sized sensors for the high-speed pro-level DSLR's:
D2h with 6 mp and 8-10 fps
Such a camera will be ideal for wildlife and sports shooters and
with a dedicated DX wide angle zoom even for PJ's.

2b) APS sized sensors for the prosumer cameras: D100, D100s/x/h,
D200...

3) 4/3 sized sensors for consumer DSLR's (a D65 or D80 eventually).
This will allow to make much cheaper entry level DSLR's and to
compete (almost) fully with the Olympus 4/3 system. The 12-24 DX
lens will provide a quite usable 24-48mm range given the 2x
magnification factor. A 28-105 zoom will make for a small
56-210/3.5-4.5 telezoom with 1:1 macro capability. A 50/1.8 becomes
a very cheap high quality 100/1.8 portraiture lens. And the 70-300
becomes an ultra long 140-600/5.6 lens with 1:2 macro capability.

Just some ideas how things may work out..
Walter
Click to expand...
 
Capital Man said:
Moore's Law isn't a law at all, it's merely an observation. The
computing power doubles every 18 months.
Click to expand...
You are correct that Moore's "Law" is just an observation, but what it says is that the number of transistors available on a given device (integrated circuit) is an exponential function of time. It is typically stated in a more specific way as the number of transistors available for given costs doubles every 18 months.

As to the overall comment that Moore's law does not apply, I fully expect the price of the EOS-1Ds to behave as if the sensor manufacturing cost is half as much 18 months from now. Say under $6k for the camera in mid-2004. (If it is even for sale new at that date.)

[...]
Capital Man said:
I believe that technology is very much on the verge of providing us
with cameras that will provide us with twice the resolution of 35mm
film using imaging sensors much smaller than 35mm film.
Click to expand...
Not with acceptable dynamic range.

-Z-
 
The smaller Nikon lens mount might be one of the reasons why Nikon hasn't jumped on full frame and why Kodak hasn't put the 14n out for review yet. The Nikon F mount flange diameter is quite small compared to the flange diameters of Canon EF and Contax N. Having a larger opening means you can reduce the angle of light to the periphery of the image sensor, decreasing the potential for vignetting as the light interacts with the sensor sites. Obviously, Canon didn't have digital sensors in mind when they designed the EF mount, but I'm sure Contax did when they designed their N mount. (Both are quite large compared to the lens mounts they replaced.) So given the size of the Nikon F mount, Nikon's best bet right now may be to stick with APS-sized sensors until technology improves enough to address the "angle of light" issue. It should be noted, however, that according to Luminous Landscape, vignetting performance with the EOS 1Ds CMOS sensor + 16-35/2.8L isn't much different than with film. It could be a combination of the EF mount size and the CMOS sensor that accounts for this good performance. I would be curious to know how that exact CMOS would perform with a Nikon F mount lens in front of it. Or conversely, how that exact Canon EF mount lens would perform with a full frame CCD mounted behind it. If the differences are negligable, there shouldn't be any reason for Nikon to not have a full frame body. If the differences are apparent, there should be good reason for Nikon to go the 1.5x route. Right now they have the Nikon F mount and they've got CCD sensors. The combination of the two may not be ideal for full frame digital with current technology. Look at Kodak. They have a CMOS full frame + the Nikon F mount, and they still are nowhere to be seen with their 14n.

A compromise solution would be to pursue the 1.3x sensor standard (like with the Canon EOS 1D), which I think is the ideal compromise between full frame and 1.5x/1.6x. You still get a "magnification" factor for your telephotos. But the "magnification" factor isn't so great that you can't still get wide angle perspective. You still use the central best part of the image circle produced by full frame lenses. You don't "waste" as much of the full frame image circle either. It minimizes the "angle of light" issue. It gives you a larger sensor area to fill with more pixels. And the 1.3x sensor size is probably a more manageable and economical sensor size to produce than full frame. Eventually, the cost of producing a 1.3x versus a 1.5x sensor will probably be comparable and 1.5x will fall to the wayside. The problem is that if Nikon commits to the DX path, they probably won't even consider pursuing a 1.3x standard regardless of what technology can provide.
Dave Kunze said:
kunza
Walter Freiberger said:
I wondered what the announcement of the DX lens line may mean for
Nikon's digital stratgegy in the next time. I hope the DX lens does
not mean that they won't come out with a FF camera. Instead I think
a double strategy (or even a tripple strategy) would be wiser and
give all users the best solution:

1) FF for the high-res pro-level DSLR's:
D2 and/or F6 with 11-14 mp, FF and 3-5 fps
Such a FF DSLR can make full use of all the speciality lenses like
the 85PC, the fisheyes, the DC lenses, etc.. With 3-5 fps they will
be fast enough even for PJ's.

2a) APS sized sensors for the high-speed pro-level DSLR's:
D2h with 6 mp and 8-10 fps
Such a camera will be ideal for wildlife and sports shooters and
with a dedicated DX wide angle zoom even for PJ's.

2b) APS sized sensors for the prosumer cameras: D100, D100s/x/h,
D200...

3) 4/3 sized sensors for consumer DSLR's (a D65 or D80 eventually).
This will allow to make much cheaper entry level DSLR's and to
compete (almost) fully with the Olympus 4/3 system. The 12-24 DX
lens will provide a quite usable 24-48mm range given the 2x
magnification factor. A 28-105 zoom will make for a small
56-210/3.5-4.5 telezoom with 1:1 macro capability. A 50/1.8 becomes
a very cheap high quality 100/1.8 portraiture lens. And the 70-300
becomes an ultra long 140-600/5.6 lens with 1:2 macro capability.

Just some ideas how things may work out..
Walter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Exposure Meter said:
There does seem to be a lot of unfounded discussion on the coverage
of nikon lenses for digital sensors. Perhaps Horseman knows
something Nikon doesn't.

http://www.horsemanusa.com/pd_frame07.html

--
Geoff
Click to expand...
My two Eurocents:

There is one assumption hidden in this discussion: it needs to be a SLR to be a decent camera. When it is doable to feed a viewfinder from the image sensor, who wants a moving mirror ? Then redesign the camera around the best available sensor technology and retain the lens mount. No more mirror, no more pentaprism.
(will go buy a CP5700 saturday !)
Frank
 
Frank Goemans said:
Exposure Meter said:
There does seem to be a lot of unfounded discussion on the coverage
of nikon lenses for digital sensors. Perhaps Horseman knows
something Nikon doesn't.

http://www.horsemanusa.com/pd_frame07.html

--
Geoff
Click to expand...
My two Eurocents:
There is one assumption hidden in this discussion: it needs to be a
SLR to be a decent camera. When it is doable to feed a viewfinder
from the image sensor, who wants a moving mirror ? Then redesign
the camera around the best available sensor technology and retain
the lens mount. No more mirror, no more pentaprism.
(will go buy a CP5700 saturday !)
Frank
Click to expand...
Although I want some glaringly obvious indication in the viewfinder (or whatever) that the picture is being taken. I've gotten used to the viewfinder temporarily going black as a cue, but the viewfinder temporarily being overlayed in red would probably work. I gave up on p&S cameras because I was constantly moving the camera too soon.

--
Bob
 
Dynamic range is the ability to capture useful detail (e.g. not obliterated by noise) in both dark and bright areas. Ideally, a camera would be able to perfectly capture detail at all levels of lighting in a scene no matter what and you could decide which detail to keep in the final print via levels after the fact, likely using an adaptive technique to simulate say using a graduated neutral density filter, or bringing out details in faces in shadow, etc.

Dyanamic range is often limited by noise, especially at higher ISOs. And the smaller one makes the sampling sites on the sensor the worse the problem gets. The smallest I can see these sites getting for pro-DSLR quality imagers is 5um on a side, though even that is getting fairly small. Though I could see someone building an imager with relatively small sampling site that is intended to be used with subsampling to produce final images. Such a sensor would offer a choice between spatial resolution (ability to resolve detail) and dynamic range (ability to show subtle differences in light level). It might also give better color rendition with the Bayer filter.

So I do see things getting better, but not in an obvious way and not with much smaller sensors than we are using now.

-Z-
 
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