End Game for digital pgotography

You're making assumptions that don't seem reasonable....

For one:

I'm in your generation, not your children's.

Peter Nelson said:

I am sure cameras will be combined with phones and not resemble anything I would care to use.

Click to expand...

And how would you know this?
--
Dave

I thought you said earlier in the thread that you already knew what everybody was saying about the technological limitations. Maybe you don't? Those old screw mount lenses were designed for film, which is more forgiving. You can't get away with designing such a lens for a FF digital sensor. You need to add more elements to keep the image well-corrected. You need to make the lens wider to let in more light around the edges to avoid vignetting. You need to add AF motor and circuitry. All of that adds up. How much? Your guess is as good as mine, but it's not as simple as copying those old lenses for a new lens mount.

So if you know all that as you claim, why are you still pointing at old screw mount Leicas as an example?

As I said, I'd love for it to come true and would be on board immediately, but until somebody does it I wouldn't be too confident of the physical possibility of such a small system as you imagine.

Peter Nelson said:

Sorry to disapoint you Yohan but the M39 Leica screw mount FF lenses already exist! ;-)
As far as advances in electronic's, well you shaln't have long to wait!
-Peter

Yohan Pamudji said:

Meanwhile back in the real world there are any number of hurdles to achieving your vision, both technological and otherwise. I'd be the first in line for a FF mirrorless with bodies and lenses the size of m4/3, but if it's even physically possible on the lens side we'll be waiting a long time for this end game you envision to become reality.

Click to expand...

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Click to expand...

I was responding to, "Why bring up FF then at all? My only answer would be the DOF, imagine owning a 0.95 aperture FF lens on a FF camera as I have described?"

etc.

Sorry I read your post quickly.

Canon made a f0.95 lens for FF once... it didn't take off.

Peter Nelson said:

I hope your not calling me a noob. heck I'm 62 this month and have been using cameras since the age of 5.
Yes I too had a LF Crown Graphic for a long time.

I included the FF DOF as possibly the only real difference between FF and m4/3. Don't believe me, then go back and read my OP.

BTW, I never said, nor did I encounter any replies stating the narow DOF is the be all and end all in photography. Where did you get that idea from anyway?
-Peter

mh2000 said:

Why does every noob think that ultra narrow DoF is the end-all in photography? 99% of most images are better with more DoF, not less!!!

I've shot 35mm, MF and LF. I rarely said that I had to use MF or LF because of the "better" DoF, in fact, unless I could stop down I'd just use the inferior 35mm camera.

If you are only going to have one camera, then you kind of have to find an optimum. Probably for DoF flexibility it is probably somewhere between m43 and FF (35mm). Instead of large sensors and lenses, a longer lens is often more than enough even on m43. Shoot the Oly 45 wide open and you are narrow enough for most "background isolation."

Click to expand...

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Click to expand...

Peter Nelson said:

I'd like to know why you are saying this. No one here is advocating a reduction in size of m4/3 cameras. Show me to whom you are resonding please.

It's some kind of a phenominum where people start making comments about subjects where there is no reason to make them. NO ONE IS SAYING TO MAKE M4/3 SMALLER.

Sergey Borachev said:

Consider also the lens size and also the enjoyment in use. The size of human hands and their strength should ultimately decide what is the best size and weight of a camera most of the enthusiasts want to us. Once technology is good enough to produce images that are good enough (dependent on various needs), then there is no point continuing to get a tiny camera. The NEX cameras have already shown us that it is the wrong path to take.

If anything, I think the m4/3 cameras can be made a little bit larger. Then they will be even better for the sensor/lens size and better in handling and provide space for more buttons and better shaped and postioned dials, grip etc. That's what I hope to see in the E-M6 and GH3.

Click to expand...

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Click to expand...

Hi, Peter.

In the first post, the OP said this:

Peter Nelson said:

Peter Nelson said:

Peter Nelson said:

It is certainly possible with the not too distant future technology to make digital MILC (cameras) vey similar in size to these Barnak cameras as well as to our Olympus PEN cameras and have FF sensors and small, walnut sized prime lenses that can collapse into the camera to make the kit easily pocketable.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter Nelson said:

Peter Nelson said:

Peter Nelson said:

Adavantages are obvios, imagine better than present FF DSLR ISO capability. With true wide angle lenses (somewhat larger than wide angle m4/3 primes), the same DOF and all other attributes associated with FF DSLR's today, except the large size and heavy weight.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter Nelson said:

Peter Nelson said:

Peter Nelson said:

Imagine real pocketability as well, if that appeals to you as it does to me. Of course their will be a built in EVF as well as the rear LCD screen. Also all extenal controls as we are now just begiing to see in m4/3. ... ... ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So, I was just making a comment about whether size and pocketability are really so important to enthusiasts. If that was not relevant, I am sorry. I thought that the E-M5 is about the best in this class, and it is generating interest not because it is the smallest or have the largest sensor in the smallest body (as the OP wished). The NEX is that but I think the NEX is not what many enthusiasts want. I don't think the Barnak type of cameras will sell today, even with all the latest electronic features. Standards like ergonomics, value of one's time and how long a camera can be kept are different nowadays.

I love it when people who don't have clue design cameras.

You do now that sensors are reaching for the maximum theoretical performance and there is unlikely to be any significantly performance in the next generation sensors?

You do know that there is no such thing as "signal-to-noise ratios per square millimeter," right? That the lens, sensor design, and ultimate performance is dictated by the size of the lens (yes, of course there are subtleties, but that's the 10 cent story.)

You know that a small camera will never beat an equal larger camera.

Don't get me wrong. Smaller cameras may be "good enough." I may own one some day. I don't hate him. But I do dislike endlessly crowing about things that can't possibly happen.

sigala1 said:

The future is sensors with higher signal-to-noise ratios per square millimeter, so you won't need physically large sensors or wide-aperture lenses to do whatever it is you think you need to do.

Click to expand...

Such a camera will be at least 10000$ probably more... Good luck trying to sell them...

All those collapsible primes were slow (f3.5 etc.) which roughly corresponds to tiny lenses like the 20mm f1.7. Having an autofocus motor in a lens like this also likely wouldn't be practical.

Plus digital sensors and modern shutters require a lot more depth than film and cloth shutters, Leica specifically warn people not to collapse those kinds of lenses on the M8 and M9 because they're likely to damage the shutter and sensor

Well as a Sunny 16 Rules shooter outside I set my Tv to match the ISO and then set the Av to f/16 on a suny day, and open uo the lens one f stop for each change in the light. Never once in 7 years have I had the need to use less than f/5.6. Only inside have I used f/3.5 on these old lenses. So slow is a matter of usage. These old lenses are plenty fast enough for all outside shooting with available light. BTW I have a Leica M39 Summitar 50mm f/2 Collapsable and a Russian made copy of a Contax 85mm f/2 how's that?

Also I did not limit the discussion to only M39 lenses. So we can use our 50mm f/1.4 Summilux if we got 'em. I much prefere MF to AF!

We use rubber bands on the lens barrel so in this manor you cannot collapse the lens far enough into the camera to hit anything. I thought everyone knew this trick. The only exception is my Leica m5 and that's because of it's swinging light meter.
I have used this method on my Epson R-D1, E-P1 and G1 for yeras, no damage.
I have four collapsable primes and use them all the time.

Anyway, the mfr's can always make faster M39 lenses in the future for these future cameras and I never said the mount will be limited to M39. I used that as an example.
-Peter

Andy Crowe said:

All those collapsible primes were slow (f3.5 etc.) which roughly corresponds to tiny lenses like the 20mm f1.7. Having an autofocus motor in a lens like this also likely wouldn't be practical.

Plus digital sensors and modern shutters require a lot more depth than film and cloth shutters, Leica specifically warn people not to collapse those kinds of lenses on the M8 and M9 because they're likely to damage the shutter and sensor

Click to expand...

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

Peter Nelson said:

... the general apathy around here ...

Click to expand...

Peter Nelson said:

... It's nothing but a sensless gear head forum where we blissfully ignore the realities all around us, and instead chatter on endlessly about something as inconsequential as digital cameras.

Click to expand...

Peter Nelson said:

... Perhaps this forum is free therapy and allows us to feel good as we go down into our well deserved polluted and uninhabitable future.

Click to expand...

Peter Nelson said:

Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.

Click to expand...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/1324579698/in/photostream

Now I know how it is that you have such a steady, rock-solid grip on things (i.e., such as cameras). Orating in the Temple of the Massive Fumarious Turds is like peeing into a wind blowing your way. Obtuse grunts, slobbering, and belly slapping rule the day. A handful of posters transcend that ...

From ignorance our comfort flows, the only wretched are the wise .
- Matthew Prior

Regards,

DM ...

You need to understand that sensors are already 50% efficient in gathering light. That means at most a 1 stop improvement before the physical barrier. Now you have to ask yourself is a 1 stop improvement over g3/gx1 enough for end game? Basically where does m43 fit in endgame. Full frame sensor performance in an m43 size sensor is physically impossible.

If you're thinking of the small Leica M glass, you're thinking of short focal length.

Unfortunately, unless one is devoted to wide and nothing else, FF needs long glass, and that means it will be larger. The longer Leica glass is... smaller than some dslr lenses, but still large.

Sensor technology has evolved to the point where, for most of us, the advantages of FF are more academic than real. Useful in a DPR spec debate, but in the real world, you won't notice the difference in the result.

That leaves only DOF, or more correctly, shallow DOF. Works for you in wide angle. At greater magnifications, FF has the double whammy of needing much longer lenses for the same AOV, and forcing you to stop down just to get enough DOF at the very long focal lengths.

In any case, lenses like the 12 2.0, 25 .14, 17 .95 and 25 .95 will cut DOF pretty shallow. It's not a matter of which one is 'shallower', more a matter of will it cut DOF enough to produce what you want? I'm pretty happy with what the PL25 and ZD 50F2 can do.

So I don't see the endgame going to FF, I see it going away, as advances in sensors continue to negate the practical IQ benefits. Olympus saw a lot of this when they originally designed the 4/3 sensor, they just needed a few years for sensors to catch up. Looks like they have.