DSLR stands now for Dead-SLR

Hi Cod Fish,

First critique:

You are in the wrong thread.

Second critique:

Lots of nice images of interesting things. But ... framing and composition is rather plain and uninteresting. Unfortunately, I have the same problem.

So, I think we both have to work with that harder.

Roland Karlsson said:

awaldram said:

Wiki states exactly what I was saying

"If two cameras of different format sizes and focal lengths have the same angle of view, and the same aperture area, they gather the same amount of light from the scene."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

Click to expand...

The problem being that the words "same amount of light" is not well defined. And herein lies all the confusion. Do we mean the light level (i.e. photons per unit area and second) or do we mean total amount of light (i.e. photons per total area and second). It is a big difference between those views.

Click to expand...

I thought the statement was quite transparent the use of the words 'they gather' means the total light falling on the sensor (whatever size)

As per my images above where I corrected focal lengths to achieve the same angle of view the exposure was the same for an f2.8 lens on both sensors.

Though you are right in general people confuse light gathering with light illumination.

A small sensor will not gather as much light as a larger sensor for the same lens (providing both in the lens image circle) for the obvious reason it can't see it all.

ie if a sensor is 10% the size of another but the lens cover 100% of the larger sensor then the smaller sensor will retrieve 10% of the light data providing all things are even.

Yet the lens will still be providing the same illumination to both sensor, This is why speed boosters work they reduce the image circle concentrating the colluminated light the lens aperture has admitted.

It is also why correcting angle of view matches exposure for the same F stop as it adjust the retrieved image circle (light concentration) to match the sensor size.

My definition of sensor size behaviour and exposure matches exactly the theoretical behaviour of the magically self adjust f-stop kens but doesn't break the rules of physics to do so

I don't need an F1.2 lens to be an f3.2 lens just because its fitted to another sized sensor the crop factor easily explains the reduced light foot print on the sensor without being totally illogical to do so.

As I've said many time 'equivalence' is the attempt to take an easily understood concept and wrap it in mojo to define some ultimate sensor size (usually FF) and in doing so uses terms and concepts that are just not physically possible.

It not the 'equivalence' result I have an issue with it the illogical description of the 'properties' of it.

Maybe because I'm an engineer I take um-bridge when the physically impossible is stated as fact.

Not to mention as you say nto everything is black and white with technology and heat foot print also playing it part

mxx said:

Nothing wrong with good natured irony, methinks. One has to have a sense of humour too.

Click to expand...

Irony is best avoided in forums, if you do not know the people writing there. It is not a common trait to like irony. And it is often quite narrow in cultural sense. Often irony is not humor at all, rather the opposite, a try to offend the one you write to, hidden as a joke.

Moreover, it is not reasonable to go around and offending people that lacks sense of humor. So, in short, nope, I do not think irony is appropriate in mixed groups at all. Rather it is an example of bad manners.

awaldram said:

...

Click to expand...

Apart from mixing illumiation and light gathering, one of the main problems is that e.g. F4.0 means very different things, in practice, for a pin head size sensor and e.g. a 24x30 inch view camera. For the first, it is a very slow lens and for the second one it is a very fast lens.

Roland Karlsson said:

awaldram said:

...

Click to expand...

Apart from mixing illumiation and light gathering, one of the main problems is that e.g. F4.0 means very different things, in practice, for a pin head size sensor and e.g. a 24x30 inch view camera. For the first, it is a very slow lens and for the second one it is a very fast lens.

Click to expand...

True though a lot of that is due to diffraction limits and wanted DoF rather the the exposure solution.

Just a few thoughts

a Larger sensor will always be able to deliver better IQ (DR & SNR) providing similar technology

Having a reasonable distance lens rear element to sensor allows simpler cheaper lens designs achieving superior result.

Electronics can correct all manner of distortions and aberrations but cannot return data not captured by the lens so though poorly corrected lens may be the mantra for sophisticated cameras decent optical qualities will still be required

until EVF can match optical at all light level there will still be a place for the reflex light system.

As people continue to strive for ultimate IQ vs cost then as large sensored cameras reach the mass market these people will not accept poor quality EVF's as a substitute for Optical

Sony found this out with transflex a paltry 1/3 stop light sacrifice and they couldn't sell them for peanuts despite many functional advantages over a reflex

The writing is on the wall for a camera segment but it aint D-Slr or Milcs it's the humble P&S

the Basic P&S is already out gunned out IQ'd by Premium as these good enough electronics + lens phones migrate to mainstream the bottom-Mid camera will vanish.

Hence the current swell in mid level and basic Milcs at a slight price premium.

This market migration will have little effect on mid-highend D-slrs but will effect the soccer mum brigades who having 'kept up with the jones' and brought their 1st D-slr found they can use it to achieve better than their P&S.

Because as we all know Quality costs and a starter D-slr+kit cannot shoot action for toffee.

Thanks Roland,

I was replying to Uloo's post which you apparently have not read. Uloo's post only commented on my gallery and deserved a mannerly reply, regardless of the thread.

awaldram said:

Roland Karlsson said:

awaldram said:

...

Click to expand...

Apart from mixing illumiation and light gathering, one of the main problems is that e.g. F4.0 means very different things, in practice, for a pin head size sensor and e.g. a 24x30 inch view camera. For the first, it is a very slow lens and for the second one it is a very fast lens.

Click to expand...

True though a lot of that is due to diffraction limits and wanted DoF rather the the exposure solution.

Click to expand...

I think it has to do with the exposure solution.

The 24x30 inch sensor probably can be used far above ISO 10 million, where the pin head sensor already has huge problems at ISO 1000.

It is a fool's errand to try to compare the build of a modern DSLR with a film SLR. If you have ever looked inside a DSLR you won't find any large voids or heavy-weight padding which can be removed to make them smaller and lighter. They are very tightly packed with functions that we, the customers, demanded. The only way to make them smaller is to reduce functionality, for example fit a smaller battery, drop SR, lose the in-body focus motor or use a smaller, lighter pentamirror instead of a pentaprism. I don't believe the market is prepared to accept any of those compromises.

So instead of accusing the manufacturers of some sort of conspiracy to deny you what you want perhaps you can share some realist ideas about how your dream could possibly be built and still make money.

22codfish said:

Thanks Roland,

I was replying to Uloo's post which you apparently have not read. Uloo's post only commented on my gallery and deserved a mannerly reply, regardless of the thread.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed that the link to your gallery was a part of your signature.

OK, now you have two critiques

And I meant what I wrote, I really need to improve my framing. And so do 99% of all photographers, at least.

[No message]

[No message]

Zvonimir Tosic said:

''.....Imaging aspects of photography, or the sensor and the qualities of light it is supposed to capture, is not controlled by users in any way. User cannot demand a certain sensor, because of a certain quality of light it delivers. No....''

Now, isn't that both a tragedy and a comedy?

--

Click to expand...

Heck, what do I know, just an amateur.

But much of that post I do not agree with. For one, the sensors today are vastly improved over five years ago. Yes, the sensor on the D610 far outshines the D300 sensor, in how much information it can capture.

Wonderful. It is not about 'tech' enjoyment, but about glad to be able to shoot in the late evening and still get useable photos, in sport. And the modern sensors are able to capture more detail and colors, to make the image more lifelike, more dynamic. It is the result that counts, not playing with tech.

And, just as cameras years ago had ISO, shutter and aperture adjustment, and metering, so does the D610, just one example.

It is per se, no different.

As for the comment about light above, I really do not get that.

The sensor captures the light that is there, whether natural or manipulated. That is not up to the film or sensor, but up to the user.

Quality of light the sensor delivers? No, light is what is available or manipulated.

To say that the user does not control the light in any way, is, sorry, I do not mean to be rude, preposterous.

Not only in capture, but in post processing via white balance, color adjustments etc.

Yes, the user controls it all, just as before.

So, DSLR's are very relevant and will continue to be so.

But if you prefer mirrorless, nothing wrong with that at all.

If I had the money, I would buy one as well as DSLR's.

Take Care.

--
Wishing You Good Light.

ZT, what would you like the manufacturer's to do? Give me your roadmap for the 'perfect camera'. It's easy to complain, but more difficult to be SPECIFIC about another avenue of development in cameras.

Cheers

Gary

ImageAmateur said:

Zvonimir Tosic said:

''.....Imaging aspects of photography, or the sensor and the qualities of light it is supposed to capture, is not controlled by users in any way. User cannot demand a certain sensor, because of a certain quality of light it delivers. No....''

Click to expand...

As for the comment about light above, I really do not get that.

The sensor captures the light that is there, whether natural or manipulated. That is not up to the film or sensor, but up to the user.

Quality of light the sensor delivers? No, light is what is available or manipulated.

To say that the user does not control the light in any way, is, sorry, I do not mean to be rude, preposterous.

Click to expand...

The job of the sensor is to capture light as faithfully as possible, it is true. But there are subtleties in the way it is done.

The first obvious difference is the underlying technology - CCD or CMOS. CMOS has pretty much taken over, the last Pentax cameras to use CCD are the K-10 and 645D. Some people say they prefer the look from the CCD, and although I don't see much difference myself I respect their right to have an opinion.

The second obvious difference is the presence and strength of an anti-alias filter.

Less often mentioned is differences in the color filters that are built into the sensor. I've heard a theory that manufacturers have weakened these filters over time to extract a little more light sensitivity. Not sure I believe it, but I readily admit that the chemical composition and processes might change from one sensor to the next. It's not something you would readily notice from the outside, as the RAW processing would attempt to equalize it out.

ET2 said:

Zvonimir Tosic said:

.. I don't recall I ever wished for a mirrorless K-mount camera. ... But since you track my posts quite diligently, perhaps you have stored some my reply somewhere, understood in such a way ...

However, that is beside point; the point we discuss is A. form factor, B. price, C. features.
K-01 failed in all three. K-S1 Failed in two. So perhaps we need to wait another attempt?

Click to expand...

Are you telling me you no longer remember all your fanboyish posts where you told us K01 made money and is one of the most successful camera compared to all the other mirrorless cameras (Fuji, Sony) that, according to you, are losing money? Is your memory that bad?

Click to expand...

If anyone thinks I made that up, here is one of his many posts about virtues of K01 and how it made money for Ricoh:


Zvonimir Tosic (Jul 8, 2013)

"Ricoh already is profitable in its camera divisions, spreading across Pentax and Ricoh brands, and is also noting an increase of market share.

"So what we'll see in near future are solid improvements that yield in secure income. Thus projects like the resurrected K-01, made by popular demand, require zero new cost but secure income. There are many who love the camera just because it's quirky, and because it's different than anything else."

Actually he made many such posts in the forum on how Fuji is losing money and how Ricoh were smarter with K01 which, according to him, is most profitable camera.

Capitalist American pig! ;-)

A bit like the Q when the price was reduced to 'fire sale' level the K-01 sold in acceptable number at least to shift stock.

Unlike the Q even at fire sale prices it didn't generate enough interest to merit further models or even extra production runs.

IMO the k-01 concept is a dead duck destined as an example of poor market research.

Gman58 said:

ZT, what would you like the manufacturer's to do? Give me your roadmap for the 'perfect camera'.

Click to expand...

Do it in private, if you don't mind.

Mark Ransom said:

The first obvious difference is the underlying technology - CCD or CMOS. CMOS has pretty much taken over, the last Pentax cameras to use CCD are the K-10 and 645D. Some people say they prefer the look from the CCD, and although I don't see much difference myself I respect their right to have an opinion.

Click to expand...

There is probably no difference. I think you have the reason for this probably myth down when you write about filters.

Mark Ransom said:

The second obvious difference is the presence and strength of an anti-alias filter.

Click to expand...

Optical anti alias filters sux. Not big time, but they do degrade the image. More pixels is better than AA filters.

Mark Ransom said:

Less often mentioned is differences in the color filters that are built into the sensor. I've heard a theory that manufacturers have weakened these filters over time to extract a little more light sensitivity. Not sure I believe it, but I readily admit that the chemical composition and processes might change from one sensor to the next. It's not something you would readily notice from the outside, as the RAW processing would attempt to equalize it out.

Click to expand...

So, we are back at the CMOS vs CCD here. It is a fact that the manufacturers changed the filters approx. at the same time as switching from CCD to CMOS. Earlier the color channels were narrow and precise which gave satirated colors in RAW. Newer filters have more overlap. This overlap lets through more light, i.e. increases the high ISO quality. But, the RAW data is less saturated.

Of course, you can saturate the pictures from the modern camera and get something that is close to the old one. But, such manipulations increases noise, and you lose the high ISO advantage. Back to square zero.