DickyAus
Veteran Member
Lets just pray for a Moore's Law increase in IQ for the same sized sensors we have now. Then camera and lens could stay at current easily manageable sizes.
Dicky.
Dicky.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Fuji and the road ahead for bridge cameras
- Thread starter Ralph McKenzie
- Start date
- Status
J o m s
Forum Enthusiast
No movable parts but just blocking(toggling) portions of the same sensor to simulate the intended sensor size.Bad idea Joms. It's hard enough for any manufacturer to assemble the sensor precisely enough, let alone Fuji. The tiniest error produces decentered lenses, so Fuji tries to deal with it by putting the lens and sensors together as a unified lens module. Assemble them properly and they stay in alignment.I'd like to see a configurable sensor size so for example you can set it to 2/3 or 1/1.7 or 1/2.3Larger sensor is definitely a step in the right direction. I would prefer better IQ and AF speed than extra Fl.
Another reason I really like the look of the Panny. F4.0 at the long end is much better than f5.6 or worse.
Bigger sensor means better cropping. I'd wager you could crop the Panny FZ1000 to 600mm and don't forget that you can use the digital zoom as well, so you may not be as disadvantaged as it may first appear.
Love dat Fuji
http://akiwiretrospective.wordpress.com/
Fuji HS20EXR
Fuji HS10,
Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50
Of course it is not swappable but has configurable size and is fixed in the center.
That's a decentered lens issue.
J o m s
Forum Enthusiast
Post-cropping will give you lower resolution. Sensor configuration will utilize crop factor but the resolution will stay the same (or at least make it 16MP or 12MP).Seems that just using part of the larger 2/3 sensor, by cropping in post would be a simpler answer.I'd like to see a configurable sensor size so for example you can set it to 2/3 or 1/1.7 or 1/2.3Larger sensor is definitely a step in the right direction. I would prefer better IQ and AF speed than extra Fl.
Another reason I really like the look of the Panny. F4.0 at the long end is much better than f5.6 or worse.
Bigger sensor means better cropping. I'd wager you could crop the Panny FZ1000 to 600mm and don't forget that you can use the digital zoom as well, so you may not be as disadvantaged as it may first appear.
Love dat Fuji
http://akiwiretrospective.wordpress.com/
Fuji HS20EXR
Fuji HS10,
Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50
and produce longer FL if needed.
Take FZ1000 lens as an example
147mm x 3.93 (for 2/3 mode) = 577mm EFL
147mm x 5.64 (for 1/2.3 mode) = 829mm EFL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joms_birding
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joms_birding
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
It would be simpler, but a 2/3" sensor has almost exactly twice the area of a 1/2.3" sensor so you'd lose half of the sensor's pixels (photosites). It would be much worse if the sensor was 1" which has slightly more than twice the area of 2/3" sensors. Crop a 16mp 1" sensor down to 1/2.3" size and you'd be using only 3.7mp's worth of the 16mp sensor's pixels. That might be enough much of the time, though.Seems that just using part of the larger 2/3 sensor, by cropping in post would be a simpler answer.I'd like to see a configurable sensor size so for example you can set it to 2/3 or 1/1.7 or 1/2.3Larger sensor is definitely a step in the right direction. I would prefer better IQ and AF speed than extra Fl.
Another reason I really like the look of the Panny. F4.0 at the long end is much better than f5.6 or worse.
Bigger sensor means better cropping. I'd wager you could crop the Panny FZ1000 to 600mm and don't forget that you can use the digital zoom as well, so you may not be as disadvantaged as it may first appear.
Love dat Fuji
http://akiwiretrospective.wordpress.com/
Fuji HS20EXR
Fuji HS10,
Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50
and produce longer FL if needed.
Take FZ1000 lens as an example
147mm x 3.93 (for 2/3 mode) = 577mm EFL
147mm x 5.64 (for 1/2.3 mode) = 829mm EFL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joms_birding
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
Then try to use more reasonable terminology. DSLRs do exactly that. Nikon's full frame cameras all allow APS-C size crops (aka DX crops) but they don't call it changing the sensor size. The D800 is more flexible and allows 4 sizes, the full FX sensor, a 1.2x crop, a 1.5x crop (DX crop) and a 5:4 aspect ratio crop. These are called different "Image Areas", not different "Sensor Sizes".No movable parts but just blocking(toggling) portions of the same sensor to simulate the intended sensor size.Bad idea Joms. It's hard enough for any manufacturer to assemble the sensor precisely enough, let alone Fuji. The tiniest error produces decentered lenses, so Fuji tries to deal with it by putting the lens and sensors together as a unified lens module. Assemble them properly and they stay in alignment.I'd like to see a configurable sensor size so for example you can set it to 2/3 or 1/1.7 or 1/2.3Larger sensor is definitely a step in the right direction. I would prefer better IQ and AF speed than extra Fl.
Another reason I really like the look of the Panny. F4.0 at the long end is much better than f5.6 or worse.
Bigger sensor means better cropping. I'd wager you could crop the Panny FZ1000 to 600mm and don't forget that you can use the digital zoom as well, so you may not be as disadvantaged as it may first appear.
Love dat Fuji
http://akiwiretrospective.wordpress.com/
Fuji HS20EXR
Fuji HS10,
Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50
.
Then you really weren't asking for much at all. Every camera ever made can have their images cropped the way you suggested. All that's needed is a simple photo editor. A simpler alternative would be to just add a couple of extra frame lines to the LCD/EVF to show where the crops would occur. The advantage of doing it this way and where the actual crop is done with a computer is that framing wouldn't have to be precise. You could point the camera a bit too far up, down, left or right but on the computer you'd be able to move the crop area exactly where you wanted it to be, and even resize the crop to get many more crop sizes than just the 2 or 3 you mentioned. Sometimes all that's needed is to think inside the box.
J o m s
Forum Enthusiast
Sensor size is more appropriate than "Image Areas" or better call it "Sensor Area"Then try to use more reasonable terminology. DSLRs do exactly that. Nikon's full frame cameras all allow APS-C size crops (aka DX crops) but they don't call it changing the sensor size. The D800 is more flexible and allows 4 sizes, the full FX sensor, a 1.2x crop, a 1.5x crop (DX crop) and a 5:4 aspect ratio crop. These are called different "Image Areas", not different "Sensor Sizes".No movable parts but just blocking(toggling) portions of the same sensor to simulate the intended sensor size.Bad idea Joms. It's hard enough for any manufacturer to assemble the sensor precisely enough, let alone Fuji. The tiniest error produces decentered lenses, so Fuji tries to deal with it by putting the lens and sensors together as a unified lens module. Assemble them properly and they stay in alignment.I'd like to see a configurable sensor size so for example you can set it to 2/3 or 1/1.7 or 1/2.3Larger sensor is definitely a step in the right direction. I would prefer better IQ and AF speed than extra Fl.
Another reason I really like the look of the Panny. F4.0 at the long end is much better than f5.6 or worse.
Bigger sensor means better cropping. I'd wager you could crop the Panny FZ1000 to 600mm and don't forget that you can use the digital zoom as well, so you may not be as disadvantaged as it may first appear.
Love dat Fuji
http://akiwiretrospective.wordpress.com/
Fuji HS20EXR
Fuji HS10,
Pentax sf7, Pentax zx-50
Nope. As I have said, you are not utilizing the sensor size advantage if you will do the simple software cropping. You will not have the DOF advantage of small sensor size.
A simpler alternative would be to just add a couple of extra frame lines to the LCD/EVF to show where the crops would occur. The advantage of doing it this way and where the actual crop is done with a computer is that framing wouldn't have to be precise. You could point the camera a bit too far up, down, left or right but on the computer you'd be able to move the crop area exactly where you wanted it to be, and even resize the crop to get many more crop sizes than just the 2 or 3 you mentioned. Sometimes all that's needed is to think inside the box.
alexisgreat
Veteran Member
PR, A couple of issues I have with cropping-
How does one maintain the 4:3 aspect ratio AND I want to preserve a minimum of 7 MP in the cropped image?
So, let's say I am starting out with a four thirds 10 MP sensor Olympus E-520 with a 70-300mm lens, this is 600mm efl across the full sensor, if I want to preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio and 7 MP, what's the efl I will end up with in the cropped image?
How does one maintain the 4:3 aspect ratio AND I want to preserve a minimum of 7 MP in the cropped image?
So, let's say I am starting out with a four thirds 10 MP sensor Olympus E-520 with a 70-300mm lens, this is 600mm efl across the full sensor, if I want to preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio and 7 MP, what's the efl I will end up with in the cropped image?
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
Let's see. The area of the images are proportional to the megapixels and I believe that the ratio of the squares of the focal lengths need to equal 7/10, so that would be new fl == the square root of (600 * 600 * 7/10) which my calculator says is equal to 501.99mm.
(600*600) / unknown fl squared == 10/7, or fl == square root of [(600*600)*(7/10)]
That is, fl == square root of 252000 == 502mm which seems about right if my formula is correct since (502*502)/(600*600) == 0.700, and 70% (0.7) of 10mp == 7mp.
alexisgreat
Veteran Member
Thanks PR, I'm wondering if it isn't actually 10/7 because cropping should theoretically increase the effective focal length rather than reduce it- doing it that way, I came up with an efl of 715mm when cropping a 600mm efl image from a 10 MP four thirds sensor to 7 MP while preserving the aspect ratio. Thanks for the math- without it I would not have known where to begin.
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
You're right, cropping does increase the effective focal length and I actually wrote 14.2 (10/7) but without thinking very clearly thought that it looked wrong so I reversed it to 7/10. I should have posted the original 10/7 before I changed it, so your 715mm looks right. For now. Let me post this quickly before I change my mind again.
alexisgreat
Veteran Member
Haha I figured it was a "mathematical typo." Thanks so much for showing me the way to do it because now I can apply this to other types of sensors and other focal lengths As the old saying goes "......teach a man how to fish and he......"
So many informative posts on here, I hope Joms reads them too ;-)
I actually had one other thing to ask regarding this- in the specific example I brought up here, what is the resulting "sensor area/type"....so we're going from a 4/3" format sensor to something closer to 1" I assume? If we use your 7/10 example should I multiply 0.7 by the 4/3" sensor's diagonal (in mm) to find the resulting diagonal length of the new sensor area? Many thanks, PR!
As the old saying goes "......teach a man how to fish and he......"So many informative posts on here, I hope Joms reads them too ;-)
I actually had one other thing to ask regarding this- in the specific example I brought up here, what is the resulting "sensor area/type"....so we're going from a 4/3" format sensor to something closer to 1" I assume? If we use your 7/10 example should I multiply 0.7 by the 4/3" sensor's diagonal (in mm) to find the resulting diagonal length of the new sensor area? Many thanks, PR!
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
No, that would work only if the 1" sensor had the same 4:3 aspect ratio but it has the DSLR's 3:2 aspect ratio. You can get the 1" (and other) sensor dimensions from DPR's Sensor Size Glossary article. It gives you the approximate height, width and diagonal of most sensor sizes and from the height and width you can easily get the area if you want that. From the top row of most of DPR's pages :Haha I figured it was a "mathematical typo." Thanks so much for showing me the way to do it because now I can apply this to other types of sensors and other focal lengths
So many informative posts on here, I hope Joms reads them too ;-)
I actually had one other thing to ask regarding this- in the specific example I brought up here, what is the resulting "sensor area/type"....so we're going from a 4/3" format sensor to something closer to 1" I assume? If we use your 7/10 example should I multiply 0.7 by the 4/3" sensor's diagonal (in mm) to find the resulting diagonal length of the new sensor area? Many thanks, PR!
Articles -} Glossary -} and then Sensor Sizes which is in the Camera System group.
http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/camera-system/sensor-sizes
J o m s
Forum Enthusiast
That can't be typo error coz you've said 502mm at least 5 times. =D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joms_birding
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alexisgreat
Veteran Member
Thanks PR, using the glossary it makes it a lot easier- since the resolution of a sensor is an area measurement, looks like we should multiple the total sensor area by 0.7 to get the new effective sensor area and see if any of the 4:3 aspect ratio sensors comes close to that- looks like none does. So all the new cameras using 1" sensors (Nikon, Panasonic, Sony), they're all using 3:2 format sensors.
J o m s
Forum Enthusiast
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum