Sensor-Lens modules: the "smart" solution?

it is new, because it just occurred to him. So when it is new to the headmaster of Ricoh forum(s) people feel obliged to engage...

And also it is his speciality to conceptualize and editorialize simple ideas in complicated manner which generates even more garbage and takes away what is left of this brain dead / gear craving forum.....

He just admitted a while ago...fanboys are lost and confused when there is no new gear...so let's write 5000 word empty essays for passtime....
Whoa! That's brutal. Did Tom really need such a trashing??

--
Help Fight Disease! http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
Please join and be part of the solution! Lives can be saved.

I fold under the name RattyM. > 90 Work units completed, BILLIONS of calculations done, all from a Dell laptop. Everyone can be part of the solution. You just have to get started.
 
Apart from the dust issue, are you asking for more lens modules ... or?
I've noticed nobody posting about any dust issues with their M-mount modules, despite changing lenses (evidently quite a bit). Interesting.
You need to know "the history" MW.

This is an "old saw" that goes back to the days of the first GRD and the GX. Some people get it and others don't. Hasn't been discussed on this forum for a while now - every forum seems to have a variation of the dust in the camera tale.

All sorts of slaps and carry-on about it. People in hot lands don't seem to get it despite dusty conditions, yet people in cold, damp, "dust free", artificially heated lands do.

We have analysed lens seals, opening doors in dusty conditions, pocket lint from pocketing the lens, cigarette smoke, etc, etc.

If you try and tell someone that it is partly their fault then there is some rightful indignation about the implication that they have somehow been careless with their gear. It is always the manufacturer's fault.

I posited quite a while ago that wet weather, wet weather clothing, and changes in temperature are ideal for static electricity and static electricity attracts dust like a magnet. Not saying anything more - it invariably goes down like a lead balloon.

I buy a few old lenses, as if nobody has noticed, but everyone that sells them protects themself by saying "it has a bit of dust inside, as it is an old lens, but it will not affect photographs' (even when there is no obvious dust inside).

Dust is inevitable to a greater or lesser extent. The worst camera type I have ever had for dust is (all) my Canon dslr bodies. When at a wedding shoot I unfortunately left my camera bag open under an innocent dead bush while I changed lenses. Must have been raining invisible micro-fibres as it took me months to get that sensor clean again.

And of course the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 "trombone" is regarded as a "dust pump" but I would not part with mine for quids - it is a great lens, no way any lens seal would keep a great volume of air from being forced through that lens.

I have had 0 (zero) dust problems in my R4, GX100, GRD, R8, R10, CX1, GRDIII and GXR mount modules. I am surely blessed or I simply do not look hard enough. I do reserve the right to find some at a later date as surely I cannot continue to be that lucky.

On the other hand I have has some specks on the sensor of my A12 mount module where the lens can be removed. The neat "trick" of the default closed shutter prevents dust directly falling on the sensor when the lens is removed. An occasional low puff of air in the cavity can remove any lurking dust. Anything that might stick is easier to get off the shutter blades than off a sensor (been lucky thus far). Therefore any dust that gets into the sensor cavity is probably not the sticky-stuff. Default open the shutter, turn the camera upside down and some rapid air circulation and gravity does the rest. Done. What is the problem?

--
Tom Caldwell
 
I don't see that much of a problem. I've had no dust issues so far in about three years with my Canon.

One of the touted advantages of the lensor concept was that it was sealed so unlike where changing lenses could let in dust onto the sensor, that wouldn't be a problem with the GXR's modules. Ricoh did specifically say it was an advantage, but apparently it wasn't a huge one.

It'd be neat if the M mount incorporated sensor cleaning - or does it?
 
The Micro-FourThirds system protocol includes software lens corrections built into each lens individually. All the body has to do is accept them from the lens and inject them into raw files, or use them to process JPEGs.

So there's an example of an interchangeable lens system with embedded lens correction software that works very well, across a dozen bodies, two dozen lenses, and two manufacturers. The first mFT camera and lenses were released in Nov 2008.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
I take your point Godfrey, thanks for the information. Maybe I am talking about a later stage in development. Since I started my "inspired"(?) rage about the need to match lenses to sensors which is perhaps more correctly to a controlling-chip rather than sensor I have had a look at some of the sample images that have been taken with the RX100 using "clear view zoom" they are truly remarkable.

Image cropping zoom has always been better than straight digital zoom, but with small sensors to start with it needed little image magnification before they looked very digital-zoom like. Now with a highly populated 1" sensor maybe image cropping is still using a worthwhile area of the sensor and "decent" sized pixels. As far as I know image cropping zoom is only used in complete camera packages but there is probably no real reason why it could not be used on replaceable lensed cameras as well. Do you know of examples of such that already use image cropping?

The lens correction on M4/3 cameras I suggest is probably not "extreme" and these lenses will probably work quite happily on other cameras to which they might be fitted without the benefit of software correction. Or does Panasonic correct Olympus lenses automatically and vice versa? But I am sure that these are all very finely made lenses that are merelly "tweaked" to work even better.

I think (and I am just debating this and "don't actually know") that the direction I am seeing is that "maybe" a packaged lens/chip/sensor package with correction software might just make an "otherwise impossible", but cheap to produce, designed lens actually perform very well. The manufacturer would ensure this by controlling all the parts. If this same lens were made simply mechanical on a mount that would fit any particular camera then it's true characteristics of crazy distortion and difficulty of focus might suddenly appear.

For example we might wonder what might be sacrificed if the RX100 lens were correctly re-buillt on a NEX mount and used on a standard NEX camera.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
I don't see that much of a problem. I've had no dust issues so far in about three years with my Canon.

One of the touted advantages of the lensor concept was that it was sealed so unlike where changing lenses could let in dust onto the sensor, that wouldn't be a problem with the GXR's modules. Ricoh did specifically say it was an advantage, but apparently it wasn't a huge one.

It'd be neat if the M mount incorporated sensor cleaning - or does it?
Some may have "dust issues" with the GXR modules. I don't think it is widespread nor do I think there are any real issues over it. Some years ago Ricoh were simply replacing the cameras (GX200 models I believe) of those that complained about dust. It may have been something introduced at the production stage or perhaps just user finicky - but there is nothing more annoying than some dust bugs on your sensor. I think Ricoh was just erring on the side of good customer support. Certainly there have been few complaints of dust issues for many years.

As I previously explained - there is no dust removal process on the A12 mount, nor do I think it needs one. The default closed shutter helps a lot and when defaulted open it is easy-peasy to blow out and clean. I have multiple modules and only have had a dust issue once. 100% cleaned in 30 seconds as only "loose dust" or (horror) running liquid can get past (not "sticky" dust).

Notably all the vibration cleaning systems can only shake of dust on to a permanently carried "sticky strip" which might work as long as it stays sticky and does not fill up with dust, etc. Such systems are not going to remove sticky dust nodules or dried liquid from a sensor either.

Most (all other?) EVIL-type cameras have exposed sensor when the lens is removed or in a dslr, just the mirror offers "protection", which is hardly a serious restriction to wafting dust.

It is hard to make dust-issues into a problem with Ricoh. They might exist but no more than in any other seled camera type and those afflicted might rightly complain but the incidence sems very low.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Sounds like Ricoh might have a less than $2,000 FF M mount module on the way themself.
A full-frame camera does not need to be that expensive anymore; a module doesn't need to cost $2000 on it's own. The body and viewfinder each cost around $300 or so. If they only have a module, then I'd not pay more than $1200 or so for one.
Good, I will have one as well.

I would also have a "cheap Leica" but I fear that it will be beyond my budget.

At the moment Ricoh seems to cater to the niche that Leica did not fill. If they both made FF sensor M mount cameras then things will start to become more "interesting".

Likewise if Leica came back to an aps-c sensor digital with (naturally) M mount.

Inevitable comparisons might be made.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
I just think it is a logical progression: bigger sensor, higher performance from the lens.

The RX100 has a very compact body for a 1" sensor. Top marks for doing it. I imagine that this is not the end of the story. Others, not myself, have previously commented that there were limits on what could be physically done and yet Sony goes a bit further.

Now for aps-c in the same size body ...

I tried to explain it but we are obviously on different trams.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
--
Tom Caldwell
I still dont get it. Sony has done nothing new here that hasnt been done many times before. Why you think this is new is still unexplained.

--
I'm baffled as well. All this energy spent on something that's been around for years. There's been software correction for lenses in P&S and interchangeable cameras alike for years now. Whether it's in the .jpeg engine or Raw software, etc...what's the big deal? This new Sony offers NOTHING unusual in that regard.
"The big deal about it is the much larger than typical sensor for a P&S that still manages to be pocketable and smaller than it's competition with smaller sensors. That's something to write about."

I don't know what the big deal is either.

Sony just took lens correction a step further, that was my only point. How did they do it? Dunno, but it worked.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
This new Sony offers [a] much larger than typical sensor for a P&S that still manages to be pocketable and smaller than it's competition with smaller sensors. That's something to write about.
Many people like that ... I think what Tom is wishing for is a GXR module to do the same or even better?
Phew!

Thanks, maybe I need to be shorter, less trying to explain and less explicit?

I was also just pointing out that Sony is playing new-tricks in software (no bad thing) to enable this to happen, and we probably have not heard the end of it. I also noted that either this type of trickery is best packaged in a sole body unit or in the modular system Ricoh invented. Therefore perhaps the Ricoh modular sytem was not quite as crazy as it might have seemed to be.
--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'
--
Tom Caldwell
 
it is new, because it just occurred to him. So when it is new to the headmaster of Ricoh forum(s) people feel obliged to engage...

And also it is his speciality to conceptualize and editorialize simple ideas in complicated manner which generates even more garbage and takes away what is left of this brain dead / gear craving forum.....

He just admitted a while ago...fanboys are lost and confused when there is no new gear...so let's write 5000 word empty essays for passtime....
Blah blah blah blah
I still dont get it. Sony has done nothing new here that hasnt been done many times before. Why you think this is new is still unexplained.
Rondom

I have missed you, glad to see that you are still taking the time to read all my stuff.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
it is new, because it just occurred to him. So when it is new to the headmaster of Ricoh forum(s) people feel obliged to engage...

And also it is his speciality to conceptualize and editorialize simple ideas in complicated manner which generates even more garbage and takes away what is left of this brain dead / gear craving forum.....

He just admitted a while ago...fanboys are lost and confused when there is no new gear...so let's write 5000 word empty essays for passtime....
Whoa! That's brutal. Did Tom really need such a trashing??
Don't worry, Rondom and I are old mates and the truth never hurts.

At least I post things that are controversial enough to get someone's juices flowing (grin)

Rondom is just about to write another scintillating post about a useful point of discussion in less than four lines.

But honestly I don't think there is any real need to play the man when the ball is obviously there to kick furiously. If I am wrong I can take correcting and I will gracefully accept that I am wrong.

However I guess the real point is that Sony has made a pocket wonder by combining a largish sensor, with a very capable zoom lens in a quite small body. Something no other manufacturer has done before to this extent. Despite well known lens-correction in software this seems a new breakthrough. I think it is necessary to package lens/sensor/controlling-chip to do this. I may be wrong. If it is true then as Ricoh is known to buy sensors from Sony and perhaps the way is open for a similar style effort in either the future GRD, a CX derivative or simply in a new GXR module.

Of course Sony might just have used "magic" and we should simply accept this and wait for the next trick.

Anything about taking this concept to the airy-fairy extremes of packaging cheap wonder-lenses is my pure imagination with a little lateral thinking thrown in and I apologise to the forum for leading it astray. Lets just get back to dreaming about what might be announced at Photokina - practical matters.
--
Help Fight Disease! http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
Please join and be part of the solution! Lives can be saved.

I fold under the name RattyM. > 90 Work units completed, BILLIONS of calculations done, all from a Dell laptop. Everyone can be part of the solution. You just have to get started.
--
Tom Caldwell
 
--
Tom Caldwell
I still dont get it. Sony has done nothing new here that hasnt been done many times before. Why you think this is new is still unexplained.

--
I'm baffled as well. All this energy spent on something that's been around for years. There's been software correction for lenses in P&S and interchangeable cameras alike for years now. Whether it's in the .jpeg engine or Raw software, etc...what's the big deal? This new Sony offers NOTHING unusual in that regard.
"The big deal about it is the much larger than typical sensor for a P&S that still manages to be pocketable and smaller than it's competition with smaller sensors. That's something to write about."

I don't know what the big deal is either.

Sony just took lens correction a step further, that was my only point. How did they do it? Dunno, but it worked.

--
Tom Caldwell
Sorry, but I think we're all going to still be wondering what you're so amazed about. They haven't done anything so amazing to cause any wonderment. The lens has a modest range with a slow aperture at any but it's widest settings. The size is in line with the sensor size. There's nothing special here, that's what people are saying. I'm sure you've seen the superzooms, now panny even has one with a constant 2.8, etc...

This is all in line with what we've seen the past few years with .jpeg corrections, etc...

What do you feel is so different?

The only other camera using this sensor size is the Nikon 1 series, so maybe you're just reacting to this new "tweener" sized sensor. There will surely be more cameras to follow in this class and it won't be magic. Sony is good at making small electronics that support the camera. Nothing absolutely revolutionary, but certainly they are a bit better at it than average. That's what they've done here....the electronics, not any special lens magic.

Do you wonder why you seem to be the only one thinking this is some kind of breakthrough? Review after review and forum comments upon comments and nobody mentions anything of lens magic or lens correction voodoo happening.
 
It is hard to make dust-issues into a problem with Ricoh. They might exist but no more than in any other seled camera type and those afflicted might rightly complain but the incidence sems very low.
I don't think dust issues are a serious issue with any camera, unless it's a problem with sloppy manufujiring - er manufacturing - getting dust on it during assembly. (I think I've seen more Fuji's with the dust issue from the factory than other brands.)

I don't know how long the sticky strip stays sticky in the cameras that use 'em but I expect they don't have to be very stick to keep a dust mote attached.
 
The lens correction on M4/3 cameras I suggest is probably not "extreme" and these lenses will probably work quite happily on other cameras to which they might be fitted without the benefit of software correction. Or does Panasonic correct Olympus lenses automatically and vice versa? But I am sure that these are all very finely made lenses that are merelly "tweaked" to work even better.
sigh wrong again. Where were you when micro 4/3rds cameras appeared? The lens correction applied to the images off these cameras is substantial . Think 3% or more barrel distortion. Back then, this type of technology was new and people needed to work hard to wrap their head around it.

You are several years late to this party. Sony today is only doing what virtually every other camera company has been doing for years .

--
Help Fight Disease! http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
Please join and be part of the solution! Lives can be saved.

I fold under the name RattyM. > 90 Work units completed, BILLIONS of calculations done, all from a Dell laptop. Everyone can be part of the solution. You just have to get started.
 
I really like using the EVF tilted up. I'm not sure I'd want to use a built in one now. Especially for tripod work which comprises a large amount of my street people photography.
--
http://clemans-gibbon.com - glamor/studio work (flash site with music)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/71724131@N06 - street/misc photography (mostly with X100 and GXR/M):
Gary, how about a hot shoe mounted "half size" fixed horizontal lcd accessory with flip up light shield?

I think that any tightly intregrated plug in evf in conventional mount would have to be in addition to the present evf as it is certainly too useful to be discontinued. But there is a need also for an "as small as possible" stright-through plug-in evf that is as cleanly fitted and as snag-free as posssible - one that could "live" on the camera safely should it's owner so desire.
Agreed Tom, for the whole seven weeks I was away I was terrified of breaking the EVF as it would render the camera utterly unusable in daytime. Yes, a built in VF plus the option for a hotshoe mounted tiltable one would be fine. After all what else am I ever going to use the hotshoe for? i'm not even ever going to mount a PW on it. It's just not the camera for that type of shooting.

--
http://clemans-gibbon.com - glamor/studio work (flash site with music)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/71724131@N06 - street/misc photography (mostly with X100):
 
Where were you when micro 4/3rds cameras appeared? The lens correction applied to the images off these cameras is substantial . Think 3% or more barrel distortion.
not every lens there... for example PL45/2.8, O75/1.8, O45/1.8 don't really require optics correction, I am using RPP (no distortion or CA corrections) and those 3 are perfectly fine.... PL25/1.4 requires minor barrel correction... certainly the likes of P14/2.5 are a totally different story.
 
... the headmaster of Ricoh forum(s) [...] conceptualize and editorialize simple ideas in complicated manner which generates even more garbage and takes away what is left of this brain dead / gear craving forum.....
A fine line was crossed here, I guess ... things are getting too personal.

--
-----------------------
Documensony
'Spontaneity is enabled by rigorous practice'
 
The lens correction on M4/3 cameras I suggest is probably not "extreme" and these lenses will probably work quite happily on other cameras to which they might be fitted without the benefit of software correction. Or does Panasonic correct Olympus lenses automatically and vice versa? But I am sure that these are all very finely made lenses that are merelly "tweaked" to work even better.
  • The amount of lens correction required by any given lens depends on the specifics of that particular lens. Short focal length, fast lenses like the 14/2.8 and 20/1.7 certainly require more correction than longer lenses like the Olympus 45/1.8 or Panasonic 45/2.8 Macro. Lenses that don't need corrections simply pass identity parameters to the adjustment metadata.
  • The lens corrections are part of the Micro-FourThirds system standard, and both Panasonic and Olympus lenses adhere to the standards. There are options, however: Panasonic corrects both lateral CA and geometry, where Olympus corrects just geometry.
  • Micro-FourThirds lenses can only be used on Micro-FourThirds bodies since the lenses are 100% electronically controlled - aperture, focusing by servo, etc.
For example we might wonder what might be sacrificed if the RX100 lens were correctly re-buillt on a NEX mount and used on a standard NEX camera.
An RX100 lens would most likely not cover the NEX APS-C crop format completely, as the RX100 is a 1" format camera (1" nets a format size of 13.2x8.8 mm, APS-C is approximately 24x16 mm). That's a huge difference.

--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
Where were you when micro 4/3rds cameras appeared? The lens correction applied to the images off these cameras is substantial . Think 3% or more barrel distortion.
not every lens there... for example PL45/2.8, O75/1.8, O45/1.8 don't really require optics correction, I am using RPP (no distortion or CA corrections) and those 3 are perfectly fine.... PL25/1.4 requires minor barrel correction... certainly the likes of P14/2.5 are a totally different story.
That's a good point. I was thinking mostly of the early lenses. The Panny 20mm f/1.7 lens has some pretty intense distortion if I remember correctly.
--
Help Fight Disease! http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
Please join and be part of the solution! Lives can be saved.

I fold under the name RattyM. > 90 Work units completed, BILLIONS of calculations done, all from a Dell laptop. Everyone can be part of the solution. You just have to get started.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top