New DSLR systems

[Mike Johnston]

I think the market is ready for a return to the concept of a whole
new digital-only system. The prices have dropped from the $30,000
range to the $2000 range now. The market is a lot bigger than it
was when Nikon last tried this approach with the QV-1000.

Stan,

Glad you got around to this point. I agree. However, I also have to agree that in many cases, it's not what's "best" that wins the day, but rather, what sells best at what point in time; and the evolution of products can often be arbitrary and affected by many factors having little to do with quality or even what's most desirable or most needed.

Who knows, right?

Exactly....

--Mike

 

[Mike Johnston]

...In next week's column, which presents my own take on a lot of these issues. Hope that's okay.

--Mike

 

[knucklehead]

news leak - info blurb... in Chinese (with some translation):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=2318895

Dave

 

[Chris Butler]

...In next week's column, which presents my own take on a lot of
these issues. Hope that's okay.

--Mike

Peachyl -- looking forward to it, Mike.

Chris

 

[Michael Long]

I was sitting there mucking about with the E2 in the spring of
2000, and considered the 330 briefly before plunking down the $5k
for a D1.

Yeah, I was looking HARD at the E2, even went down to my dealer and played with one (they have an industrial sales division).

Finally decided that the resolution wasn't high enough, it didn't work with half my lenses, and the thing was just too clunky.

If I wanted something that big, I'd buy an RZ--oh, wait, I did. Strike that last.

 

[Michael Long]

If they'd agree on a standard sensor size, and a standard lens mount, and a standard memory standard, and a standard battery, and...

I'm dreaming, aren't I?

Never mind.

 

[GilbertC]

Hi,

...and it didn't work. I can see there being a hesitation to try it
again, especially from Nikon.

The very first Nikon digital was the QV-1000. Came out in 1988, as
I recall. It was a small monochrome DSLR, using a small CCD, with
it's own lens mount and system. Intended to revolutionize the
photojournalist part of the photographic world, it was an utter
commercial flop.

Why? Kodak came out with the DCS-1 at the same time and chose to
glue a CCD onto a Nikon F3 film door. They built a fake motor drive
to interface the camera to the seperate storage/processing unit
(both designs transferred the raw image data to outboard
storage/processing units).

The news services voted with their wallets and bought the Kodak
system - because they used the same lens system as their Nikon film
cameras.
.....skip......

Oh I havn't read and posted anything here for quit a long time but I really can't help doing a little typing here.

I'm especially interested about the idea "The news services voted with their wallets and bought XXX ...".

In the 80's camera was not so popular as it is today. Yes the camera that the news service voted for with their wallets WAS the winner, that's the 80's but how about today? Anyone has some official market statictics report of 2000-2001? Didn't D1 series win the professional market including news service? But didn't D30 sale better than D1?

The camera that news service chooses is the king of camera and lead camera makers where the evolution road is, too bad that's history, the 80's history. What I see today(reads from 2000 till 2002) is that at least 70% of DSLR buyers are amateurs, especially amateurs who DO NOT own even one lens no matter F-mount, EF-mount, K-mount, or CY mount whatever. What's different from the 80's is that today amateurs (reads beginners) market is much bigger than professional market.

The news service may direct camera industry where to go by voting with their wallets in the 80's. But not today.
--
Gilbert

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

That's half of my point - that things have changed and it does appear that its' high time to redress the issue of a whole new, from the ground up, DSLR system.

You're right. The market is very different now than it was in the late 1980's when the major part of the DSLR market was the news organizations.

The other half of my point is that the major players, meaning Nikon and Canon, had learned a lesson back then - to not bring out a whole new system for digital. Nikon learned it the hard way, by losing a substantial amount of development money. And we all know that Canon watches Nikon pretty closely (and vice versa), so would take the same lesson to heart.

I notice that Canon didn't jump into the 35mm based DSLR fray until well after Nikon and Kodak had spent their development budgets in forming a market. That's actually pretty good business on Canon's part. Let the other guys form the market for you.

The big hope today lies in the fact that Kodak has been steadily losing DSLR market share. They made some good money, but now Nikon, Canon and Fuji have pretty much pushed Kodak to the side.

Kodak has shifted to the medium format digital back market, and that's still predominately professional. If the rumors are true about a Kodak/Olympus all-new DSLR system, then they could claim a sizable share of the amateur/semi-pro DSLR market away from the other players.

The same majority of the DSLR marketplace you speak of. Personally, I think it's past time for this to happen. All that really means is that once it does happen, the market will shift pretty quickly in the new direction.

Oh I havn't read and posted anything here for quit a long time but
I really can't help doing a little typing here.

I'm especially interested about the idea "The news services voted
with their wallets and bought XXX ...".
In the 80's camera was not so popular as it is today. Yes the
camera that the news service voted for with their wallets WAS the
winner, that's the 80's but how about today? Anyone has some
official market statictics report of 2000-2001? Didn't D1 series
win the professional market including news service? But didn't D30
sale better than D1?
The camera that news service chooses is the king of camera and lead
camera makers where the evolution road is, too bad that's history,
the 80's history. What I see today(reads from 2000 till 2002) is
that at least 70% of DSLR buyers are amateurs, especially amateurs
who DO NOT own even one lens no matter F-mount, EF-mount, K-mount,
or CY mount whatever. What's different from the 80's is that today
amateurs (reads beginners) market is much bigger than professional
market.

The news service may direct camera industry where to go by voting
with their wallets in the 80's. But not today.
--
Gilbert

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

 

[Karl Guttag]

Karl,
I certainly don't know enough to dispute what you are saying and
would anyway agree with most of it. One small point which was
raised by someone much more knowlegeable than I who is into using
the very portable small sensor cameras, though far from as a
point-and-shoot, is that because of the greater DOF you in fact
need higher ISO's far less often, and so some of the low-light
advantage and noise advantage of the larger sensor is in practice
reduced.

It is all about capturing light. The smaller sensors are noisier had significantly lower F-number than the bigger sensors. You are right that due to the "cropping factor" if you blow up the images the same size, the DoF will be greater with the smaller sensor at the same F-number. It depends if you are using the wider F-number to control DoF or to get more light in. Pro's and Better Amatuers often want to "control" the DoF and you loose that control with a smaller sensor (this gets into a long discussion of optical principle and DoF that I will avoid for now )

I use a D7 which has an EVF containing 70000 pixels. Since each
pixel is sensitive to all colours it in practise is equivalent to
210000. Given the possibility of magnifying this for critical
focusing, and also the potential to display real-time histograms,
grids, and visually judge exposure and colour etc many of us do in
fact prefer it to a normal viewfinder even at this stage in the
technology. A 1megapxel EVF would be unbeatable.

I am very familier with the sensor in the D7. It is an LCOS device made by Displaytech and I designed LCOS IC at the last place I work. The D7 LCOS uses a "field sequential" display. It is a monchrome device and there are Red, Green, and Blue diodes that flash in rapid squence (thus "Field Sequencial") to illuminate the display and creat color. The Field squential approach does has better effective resolution (sort of like Foveon's X3). There are some drawbacks for projectors, but it is a good technique for "in the eye" displays 70,000 pixels it kind of low, but 1,000,000 pixels is easily do-able today. This would be particularly useful for manual focusing if there was the option to have a magnified center ring.

Karl

 

[Karl Guttag]

I definitely see the need and advantage of a smaller sensor and lens. I think a big question will be whether there is a sizable market for a smaller interchangable lens system.

I can easily see a strata of markets with:

1. Ultra Small - Pocket cameras - small sensor 3x zoom range

2. Point and Shoots - Small Sensors 4X zoom range

3. Non-Interchangable Electronic Viewfinder SLR - 10X zoom range. Lens similar to an SLR lens with hand driven zoom (rather than the sloppy motor drive associated with viewfinder cameras). Support many of the SLR capablities except the ability to change lenses. A lot smaller and lighter than an SLR. Beginning examples today are Minolta D7 and Olympus E10/20.

4. ?? Smaller Sensor Interchangable lens - This might be questionable, and it looks like Oky/Kodak is going to try (whenever it comes out). It may be a tight squeeze between the higher end of the Non-Interchangable SRL and those wanting more portability and those wanting higher quality.

5. DSLR - For pro's and high end Amatuers that want higher quality and more DoF control.

As a current D30 owner who will probably buy a 1D replacement within a year, I can definitely see wanting a 10X zoom fixed SLR as a smaller walk around Camera, but can't see buying into another lens system. I'm sure there are people that will like the idea of the smaller lens system, but will it be enough to make a market that will be between the higher end fixed lens and the 35mm film based SLRs. As Ark Linkleter says "People are Funny," so we will see what happens.

Karl

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

I picked mine up in early 2000. I had used 35mm film SLRs for years, but had spent a couple of years not shooting much at all. I'd had to move and sold off my darkroom gear. I didn't care for having others process my shots, so I was looking at either retrofitting a room in the new place into a darkroom or - perhaps, just perhaps - digital had 'come-of-age'.

The D1 was all the rage at the time, and the E2/E3 cameras were available for a lot less money (I paid $750 for mine, used, at the time). I really didn't know if the E2 would do or not, or if I really needed the D1. At the price, I figured I'd try the E2 and see. I couldn't lay my hands on a D1 at the moment, anyway.

You know the rest. The E2 wasn't up to making a decent 8x10, and the D1 was (not to mention the other thousand or so items that make the D1 so much better than an E2!). I was finally able to get a D1 in the beginning of May, 2000. Of course, it blew the E2 right out of the water. I wound up actually spending less money to go digital, having had adequate computer power on hand, than I would have spent putting in a darkroom.

The E2 was sold to a friend, who used it for nearly two years. He's upgraded recently and the E2 wound up coming back to me (for free, too). It now gets used by my wife for taking shots of completed screenprinting jobs to email to clients. 1.4mp is fine for that, and I don't have to leave either the D1H or DCS660 at the shop all the time.

It has another use, too. Whenever I want to describe the size of a 645 with one of the Kodak Pro Backs on it, I just hand over the E2! It's pretty close and does illustrate the point nicely!

Stan

I was sitting there mucking about with the E2 in the spring of
2000, and considered the 330 briefly before plunking down the $5k
for a D1.

Yeah, I was looking HARD at the E2, even went down to my dealer and
played with one (they have an industrial sales division).

Finally decided that the resolution wasn't high enough, it didn't
work with half my lenses, and the thing was just too clunky.

If I wanted something that big, I'd buy an RZ--oh, wait, I did.
Strike that last.

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

 

[Michael Long]

Maybe you need to take the E2 and stick it up on a shelf. In twenty years or so it might be worth something as a "landmark" camera design.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

It's funny you should suggest that. It's exactly what I plan on doing with it. I'll continue to use it as long as there's an application for it, but I don't expect that to be for much longer.

Anyway, it'll eventually wind up sitting in a display case in the shop showroom along with a few other bits of vintage photographic gear I have kicking about (Ansco 120 box camera, Argus 35mm rangefinder, original Nikon F, etc).

I suppose when the time comes, my currently beloved D1H will wind up in there alongside the E2 as the example of the D1 series. After all, that Nikon F with meterless prism was once somebody's shiny new unit....

Stan

Maybe you need to take the E2 and stick it up on a shelf. In twenty
years or so it might be worth something as a "landmark" camera
design.

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

 

[Dr Mohammed Omar]

"Outdated" may have been a poor choice of words. For this
discussion, make that "regressive" .

I understand the marketing reasons behind pasting an APS-sized
sensor into an existing 35mm SLR and tacking an LCD on the back,
but that approach doesn't impress me much. Here's why:

) Economies of CCD production will always make a smaller sensor
more affordable than a large sensor. It's difficult to judge at
this stage, but an APS-sized sensor may be plenty even when pixel
counts go up.

Why saddle the future with heavy expensive lenses designed for the
35mm frame? Smaller lenses tend to be sharper, cheaper, and
lighter. A friend of mine has an f1.8 zoom for an old Bolex that
kicks butt on resolution and would cost megabucks in a 35mm format.

) With a really good electronic viewfinder, the mirror becomes
unnecessary. No mirror slap, fewer constraints on flash sync speed.

) Mirror-based DSLR's don't support "live preview". You must
take the shot and then judge it, instead of adjusting in real-time.
That's a horrible limitation.

) Once live preview is available (via EVF), new techniques become
feasible:

1) Apply a gradient filter digitally, holding back selected
portions of the image and seeing the results in realtime. No more
"straight line" gradations -- pick the areas that need correction.

Once a highlight is gone, it's gone. In-camera control is the future.

2) Allow the sensor to rise/fall, providing architectural
correction without the huge expense of perspective correction
lenses. For that matter, shift/tilt could also be supported.

I suspect I'm wearing out my welcome here. My point is that we
have a new technology, and many film-based technologies are just a
drag on progress.

Keep them cards and letters comin'...

Chris Butler
http://www.AcmeEnterpirses.com

To call something outdated while there is hardly anything which
matches Nikon/Canon as a system is an interesting statement.

Uwe

Hi Chris .. I support your views. I can forsee a lot of improvements in this new field. Why have we to be tied down to these old HEAVY SLR lenses?