D-SLR CCD Size

[Heinz]

Cosina, after all, recently
developed a lens-interchangeable rangefinder camera system with
seven or eight lenses. (www.cosina.com/Voigtlander.htm). What sense
does that project make?

Since it's compatible with the reknowned Leica M lenses, it makes a
whole lot of sense. Now people who want to use those lenses don't
have to buy a Leica body.

This is different from a company who wants to start an entirely new
system, compatible with nothing.

Only the last model is for M-lenses (like the Yashica Hexar, if I am correct); the earlier models (wide angle types without built-in viewfinder and rangefinder, as far as I know) have the former Leica 39mm screw mount. These bodies are simple and affordable, compact, lightweight - just as early Leicas were.

There was a rumor of a digital version a year or two ago; probably depends on the price of 35mm full format sensors, which still seem to be extremely expensive.

Compatibility of the new Olympus mount depends on what adapters may become available.
HeinzM

 

[Heinz]

Heinz:
I am an UZI (Oly C21OO) owner and enthusiast. I agree that the
Lens is sharp and worthy of use in many other cameras (It is a
Canon Design, and the Pro90 is using it). However, both the Pro90
and C2100 are much larger cameras than the standard APS camera, and
of course the lenses are not interchangeable. The lenses are also
much larger (surface area) than the standard APS lens...
MDiamond

What is a "standard APS camera", what "a standard APS lens"? The Canon 10x zoom lens at aperture 2,8...3,5 has nothing to match in the field of 35mm or APS cameras. Of course a similar - interchangeable - lens (with optical image stabilization) for the new Olympus would be larger still, or have a lower aperture and/or zoom range. But I fear that Canon will not produce such a lens, unless they engage in cameras for the new format themselves...

Canon might offer an updated Pro90 (cf. the G1 to G2 update), perhaps at the PMA, and that could well be the sharpest competition to the new Olympus. I certainly would prefer an optimized Pro90 to an Olympus without optical image stabilization.

The Minolta Vectis 80-240mm APO lens (120-360mm eqivalent) is remarkably compact (attached to the Vectis similar in size and weight as the Pro90, I guess). In front of a 6MPix APS-size sensor with usable ISO 400 it were of some interest. But since I know the power of optical image stabilization I will stick to that.

Small sensor format has an advantage when it get's to "tele macro photography", see http://www.digitalfan.de/insekte.htm - the depth of field is absolutely amazing. These photos of living shy insects - the photographer is Rupert Vogl of Munich - were possible only with "high" focal length (around "600"mm, in reality ca. 120mm), with image stabilization. Can any 35mm advocate produce anything remotely similar? The Pro90 IS equipment used sells at about $1000 at present. Just to show that small format CCDs and resulting compact equipment has its merits, too! If you don't need more than 3 or 4 MPix the "ultimate" equipment is available already, with few wishes left. If you desire more pixels, the new Olympus offers hope for a compact solution...
HeinzM

 

[Nancy Ann]

Just an idea,

You have mentioned the Minolta "Vectis" RD3000 earlier in this thread.

Using two vertical Foveon sensors and a prism to separately
image each half of the frame you would get a 6MP 28x21 frame
with a factor approx 1.2 relative to 35mm.

Note that i don't advocate or even like this method, i would like
photography to develop and hope to see smaller high quality
cameras, if necessary with interchangeable lenses...in some way. We
need cameras where things happen, news as well as artwise

There will always be a place left for those who prefers old and
"much better" technologies (medium and large format, leica
rangefinders, Vinyl LP's vs. CD, vaccuum tubes etc) but since the
money is elsewhere with the masses it will be at a premium.

The future will surprise us, that's the only thing we can be sure
of: The worlds lightest (50kg, 5m diameter) lens is today produced
with the help of an origami-expert! (the lens itself folds out)

Mike

I suspect the future camera 20 yrs from now wil simply scan in all EM radiation within a given spectrum and perform all focusing and lense functions in software.

The culture of the photographer will probably be more difficult to migrate than the technology.

Even with Leica and Hasselblad, Minox had a sizable marketshare. The same cultural issues will arise with new hitech cameras compared to 35mm.

Niche advances in the camera system can simply rely on market stability of certain standards to establish a handful of ad hoc constraints with minimal to no observable risk. Advance a new CCD design, rely on 35 mm lenses for known systemic reliability. Once the new CCD design is improved, then play with other variables.

At present there remains a learning curve in photography to capably handle the camera. When the cameras are so simple that their output provides distortion free images over a wide spectrum of subjetcs and use, then the culture will probably change.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Oh, about 1987.

Yes, that's right. 1987. Nikon had the QV-1000 out at that time and it used a small CCD and had its' own lens system. Intended for the news agencies, it was a commercial flop, and not due to the high price tag. They all wanted a system that used their existing 35mm lenses. Two years later, Kodak gave them the Nikon F3 based DCS-1 and that product was a commerical success.

By 1994, Nikon had the joint product with Fuji, the E2. It used the smaller CCD still, but had a reverse teleconverter so that the camera body could accept 35mm lensed (Nikon having learned that particular lesson) and yet have full-frame image coverage. It had some interesting vignetting problems with certain lenses, though.

It was not the commercial flop of the QV1000, but not really a success either. It did lead directly to the D1, though, which was a commercial success. (oddly enough the protoypes of the E2 Nikon had at the shows were called 'D1', but they made some improvements and they changed the letter from D to E when they incremented the number).

All this while, Kodak had been improving the DCS series and having pretty good success. It wasn't until the D1 that Nikon finally had a really successful interchangeable lens camera system. It may well be time to try another system, but maybe Nikon is still remembering all those development yen they spent trying that trick.....

Keep in mind that there are an incredible number of 35mm camera systems already in the marketplace. Most people that are serious about photography as a hobby (not even considering the professional side of things) shoot with 35mm interchangeable lens systems from one manufacturer or another. In most cases, the lens collections cost several times that of a camera body. The manufacturers know this.

Film photography is 150 years old and the 35mm SLR camera system (regardless of manufacturer) has evolved into the most versatile way to capture images. This is why there are more 35mm based systems out there than any other film type. The real question should be: why would everyone want to discard the 35mm system?

Personally, I won't even consider a digital camera system that forces me to replace my entire lens collection.

Stan

Quoting Phil on the new Sony CCD. "This sensor is ideally sized and
specified to be used in a 35 mm SLR bodied D-SLR (it would produce
a 1.5x focal length multiplier)."

Why does everyone think of D-SLR in terms of 35MM lens capability?
To me the ideal D-SLR would be an interchageable lens system camera
based on the existing common 1/1.8" CCD size. It is clear that this
size CCD today has pleanty of resolution for most uses. It will
only get better in the future. Lenses for this size of CCD would be
much smaller, lighter and cheaper than 35mm lenses.

When will a major manufacturer provide us with this camera system
and a matching set of lenses based on their existing fixed lens
digicam electronics and CCDs?

--Amateur PhotographerProfessional Electronics Development Engineer

 

[Chris Beney]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the Pentax 110 SLR. That was truly minature but handled very well and there were at least three lenses including a zoom. They were all f2.8 and gave excellent pictures, I still have a 20 inch blow up. They had the iris behind the lens, not in it, so I would think they would have good characteristics for light to the sensor chip.

Chris Beney

 

[BJN]

The idea that a smaller high quality lens would necessarily cost less just doesn't hold water when you look at what's on the market for various formats. Lenses have never been sold by the ounce and some of the tiny gems in the optical world cost plenty. In many ways, going small requires more precision, and that costs more than metal, plastic or glass.

The holy grail of a 24x36mm imaging chip is there because of the vast number of high performance lenses in existing systems that could gain full functionality with film size chip. Just look at the new Contax N series of lenses to see how long it takes to flesh out a new lens system. You'll wait a long time if you are holding out for a high quality lens series designed for small CCD coverage.

The mikey-mouse screw on adapters that pass for a consumer digicam "system" now just don't cut it either for performance or functionality. As long as people eat this stuff up, there is little incentive for camera makers to do a new system with quality optics and bayonet mounts.

--BJN