This is NOT a troll

[Mike Johnston]

I swear this is NOT a troll, but I have a question:

Apart from convenience during one's conversion phase (i.e., 35mm to digital), WHY do people think it's such a good idea to use existing 35mm lenses for digital??

I have a little digital p/s, and one of the great advantages of it is that the CCD is small, and so the lens is very short, very small, very light, and very fast. And has great d.o.f. for any given angle of view. These are real advantages. The way I see it, 35mm lenses may be as much as 2/3rds larger than they have to be to cover a CCD the size of the D30's. And of course much heavier, and much slower.

Obviously all fixed-lens digicams have lenses designed to cover their specific CCDs. But isn't it throwing away an obvious advantage of digital for digital SLRs to use existing 35mm lenses?

I for one want an SLR with DEDICATED lenses--designed for the smaller CCD size--smaller, lighter, faster.

--Mike J.-- http://www.37thframe.com

 

[Troy C.]

I swear this is NOT a troll, but I have a question:

Apart from convenience during one's conversion phase (i.e., 35mm to
digital), WHY do people think it's such a good idea to use existing
35mm lenses for digital??

I believe the general thinking is that the camera manufacturers will eventually get the imager in the pro cameras up to the size of 35mm film.

It is in their best interests to keep the lenses as they are because they have significant investment tied up in the lenses design. If they were to switch to a smaller lense to fit the current imager size, they would have to redesign the entire line of lenses.

Also, all of the photographers that have many thousands of dollars tied up in high quality 35mm glass would be considerably upset.

As for why 35mm frame size seems to be desired, take a look at the quality of the pictures that come out of the smaller consumer imagers. Sure they are nice, but they are not up to pro standards. Bigger imagers with bigger pixel sizes seem to provide better images. 35mm size seems to be the target size precisely because of the reasons mentioned above, all of the existing equipment designed for it. Sure, and even bigger imager would be good, but then you are back to redesigning all the lenses again...

Troy
(Be gentle on me, i'm new at this....)

 

[Jay Bean]

As with anything, you want your tool to fit the purpose. If image quality and shooting flexibility/control is what you need, then you need the control and interchangeability of an SLR body with multiple lenses. If you want something small and lightweight, then the P&S digicams are great. The smaller sensors suffer quality loss and, as you noted, you get great DOF, which for many professional shots is considered bad, not good. And how many digicams can shoot at 3 FPS or faster? It wouldn't surprise me if many members of this forum own both types of cameras. I've not made the digital switch yet, yet I often carry a Canon Sure Shot with me because it is smaller and lighter and will fit in my pocket. I can have it with me all the time when I can't carry all my gear and lenses. You never know when an opportunity might present itself. When I switch to Digital, I'll get either a D30 or maybe go for the 1D. But I'll also probably buy a P&S digicam for the same reason I have a Sure Shot.

I swear this is NOT a troll, but I have a question:

Apart from convenience during one's conversion phase (i.e., 35mm to
digital), WHY do people think it's such a good idea to use existing
35mm lenses for digital??

I have a little digital p/s, and one of the great advantages of it
is that the CCD is small, and so the lens is very short, very
small, very light, and very fast. And has great d.o.f. for any
given angle of view. These are real advantages. The way I see it,
35mm lenses may be as much as 2/3rds larger than they have to
be to cover a CCD the size of the D30's. And of course much
heavier, and much slower.

Obviously all fixed-lens digicams have lenses designed to cover
their specific CCDs. But isn't it throwing away an obvious
advantage of digital for digital SLRs to use existing 35mm lenses?

I for one want an SLR with DEDICATED lenses--designed for the
smaller CCD size--smaller, lighter, faster.

--Mike J.
--
http://www.37thframe.com

 

[Mike Johnston]

The smaller sensors suffer quality loss

Jay,

That's a pretty far-fetched point, since smaller sensors are all we have right now!

And I'm not arguing against SLRs...I'm saying that it would be an advantage to have lenses specifically made for the digital SLRs. Made to cover, say, the CCD of the D30.

As far as Troy's point is concerned, how does introducing one, two, or three new lenses specifically for the digital cameras obsolete all the other lenses in the line?? It wouldn't do so, obviously....

--Mike

 

[Troy C.]

As far as Troy's point is concerned, how does introducing one, two,
or three new lenses specifically for the digital cameras obsolete
all the other lenses in the line?? It wouldn't do so, obviously....

I think maybe I took it a bit to the extreme in that I assumed he meant by "new lenses" that it would entail a new an entirely new lense connection. I suppose it would be possible to make a D-30 specific lense using the same size and EF connections.

But what would be the point of that? As we have seen already, the D-30 ahs a 1.6 multiplier and the EOS-1D has a 1.3 multiplier. I'd imagine anyone who had bought an expensive lense specifically for the D-30 would be upset that they couldn't use the lense when they upgrade to a future SLR which may have yet another multiplier or none at all.

I still think it is a valid point that the manufacturers will eventually get to a full 35mm frame sensor size simply because they already have too much invested in this to scrap it for something else. Although I bet they would just LOVE everyone to have to buy a whole new set of L glass....

Troy

 

[Joo]

I don't think it would be reasonable to make lenses specifically for digital SLRs for the simple fact that sensor sizes are not constant. Take for example, the D1 series has a focal length multiplier of 1.5x, the D30 has a focal length multiplier of 1.6, the 1D is 1.3x, the Kodak 760 is 1.3x, etc...

Before you can think of making interchangeable lenses specifically for digital SLR bodies, they need to standardize on the CCD size. Otherwise, you'll have to buy all new lenses each time you change bodies.

Also, when Jay mentions smaller sensors, he is referencing the CCDs in consumer level cameras which are MUCH smaller in physical size than the professional digital SLR CCDs / CMOS sensors. In comparison, the smaller consumer sensors suffer a quality loss when compared to the larger professional sensors.

Once the sensor sizes are standardized across all bodies and manufacturers, then you can start making lenses specifically for digital cameras. But, I suspect that eventually the standard sensor size will end up being a full frame 35mm.

Joo

The smaller sensors suffer quality loss

Jay,
That's a pretty far-fetched point, since smaller sensors are all we
have right now!

And I'm not arguing against SLRs...I'm saying that it would be an
advantage to have lenses specifically made for the digital SLRs.
Made to cover, say, the CCD of the D30.

As far as Troy's point is concerned, how does introducing one, two,
or three new lenses specifically for the digital cameras obsolete
all the other lenses in the line?? It wouldn't do so, obviously....

--Mike

 

[Peter Foiles]

The smaller sensors suffer quality loss

Jay,
That's a pretty far-fetched point, since smaller sensors are all we
have right now!

Oh, but we do have differnt size sensors now. An individual pixel for a P&S type digicam is about 3-4 microns. For the D30, 1D, Nikon D1 etc. the pixels are on the order of 10 microns. I own both a D30 and G2 and even though the D30 has fewer pixels the images it produces are clearly superior.

And I'm not arguing against SLRs...I'm saying that it would be an
advantage to have lenses specifically made for the digital SLRs.
Made to cover, say, the CCD of the D30.

Only if the "digital" format was a fixed target which it is not. Already in the Canon lineup we have three different sizes for SLRs: full frame 35mm for film, the 1.6x D30 and the 1.3x 1D. You think three different sets of lenses is an advantage?? I don't think so!

==Peter F==

 

[Doug Walker]

There already is a standard - it's called 35mm (24mmx36mm). There are already lenses for this standard. Many consumers and pros have thousands of dollars wrapped up into 35mm lenses and aren't about to invest in some quasi-standard that has no basis (neither are the manufacturers). The general thinking is that in about 12-18 mos. the sensors will be at 1:1. This is a much cheaper approach for manufacturers and consumers than to start producing specialized lenses - and to what specification? 1.6:1, 1.5:1, 1.3:1? It makes no sense to take this approach and you will not see it happen so don't hold your breath. The 35mm technology spans decades, affects many aspects of photography and there is no reason to throw it out.

You've been trying to make this case for months over at rec.photo.digital. Sure looks like a troll to me!

I swear this is NOT a troll, but I have a question:

Apart from convenience during one's conversion phase (i.e., 35mm to
digital), WHY do people think it's such a good idea to use existing
35mm lenses for digital??

I have a little digital p/s, and one of the great advantages of it
is that the CCD is small, and so the lens is very short, very
small, very light, and very fast. And has great d.o.f. for any
given angle of view. These are real advantages. The way I see it,
35mm lenses may be as much as 2/3rds larger than they have to
be to cover a CCD the size of the D30's. And of course much
heavier, and much slower.

Obviously all fixed-lens digicams have lenses designed to cover
their specific CCDs. But isn't it throwing away an obvious
advantage of digital for digital SLRs to use existing 35mm lenses?

I for one want an SLR with DEDICATED lenses--designed for the
smaller CCD size--smaller, lighter, faster.

--Mike J.
--
http://www.37thframe.com

 

[St Marks]

One reason for the growing migration to digital (I'll probably get slammed for this ) is the growing realization that digital imaging is better than film.

 

[Karl Guttag]

A bit over a year ago, before getting more serious about photography, I was asking the same question on this sight.

A Bigger pixel size results in a better image at any given resolution. The size of the pixel has a definite coorelation to the quality of the pixel. Take a look at the reviews of the E-20 or Minolta Digimage7 and you will see a very noisy image at equivalent ISO levels to a D-30. It is a problem of the signal/light to noise.

Then there are optical issues. As one scales down a camera and lens system tollerances get much tighter and more critical. It is not possible to get the same quality with smaller lens systems. Once again if you look at the smaller camera, you will see things like chroma aberations. For higher quality than 35mm pictures today, a pro will use the much larger medium format film and lens systems. Even with a D30 using high quality lenses, one can seem lens limitations when the images are blown up.

To get any advantage out of a smaller sensor, the whole camera and lens system has to be redesigned. Let's say we accept that the quality will not be quite as high as a 35mm based system, but still much better than today's P&S by using a D30 size sensor (very close to APS size). You would move the lens closer to the sensor (I think by about 1.6X over 35mm) which would facilitate getting a wide angle at lower cost. Weight would reduce by amost the cube of the reduction (ie. 1.6x1.6x1.6=4x). All this would yeild a very nice small SLR.

The problem is getting a camera company to really commit and lock down on a size so they could build a reasonably high quality lens system build around it. Minolta did try this for APS, and probably should have tried it for digital but they cannot seem to get their act together. From a business point of view, the other camera companies have in effect adopted the P&S imagers and build a fixed lens around it (ala the Pro90, E10/D20, Digiimage5/7, and Sony 707).

Developing an interchangable lens system is a very major commitment. They will have to lock down on an imager size (phyiscal dimensions). These camera companies don't sell hugh numbers of any given lens in a given year. The way they make money and build up the variety of lenses is to sell the same lens design for 7 and 10 years or more to recoup the R&D. They can't be building lens systems and then change the sensor's size to keep up with the sensor technology. I think they feel that the people that will buy the interchangible lenses are wanting higher quality and are thus aiming more at eventual 35mm sized sensors

Pesonally I do think we will see a scaled down SLR system some day, but it will take a while for things to settle out. Unfortunately today there is a very big gap in the image quality that can be achieved between the non-intechangable lens SLRs using the puny sensors and the D30 using a 35mm/1.6 sensor.

Karl

The smaller sensors suffer quality loss

Jay,
That's a pretty far-fetched point, since smaller sensors are all we
have right now!

And I'm not arguing against SLRs...I'm saying that it would be an
advantage to have lenses specifically made for the digital SLRs.
Made to cover, say, the CCD of the D30.

As far as Troy's point is concerned, how does introducing one, two,
or three new lenses specifically for the digital cameras obsolete
all the other lenses in the line?? It wouldn't do so, obviously....

--Mike

 

[JCDoss]

I for one want an SLR with DEDICATED lenses--designed for the
smaller CCD size--smaller, lighter, faster.

Kodak and Olympus are "joining forces" to build a camera system exactly as you describe. They are basing the system around the "4/3" sensor, which weighs is about 3mm shorter and 1mm skinnier than the D30's sensor (it's a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor), and is supposed to be 5MP.

The good news include all the things you mentioned: Smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses designed for the sensor. But the bad news is that this system will certainly have exponentially fewer lenses with far fewer features than the Canon 35mm lineup. Don't expect USM, IS, or fast, fixed aperture zoom lenses for quite a while.

It'll be interesting to see what develops from the partnership, though.

JCDoss

 

[JCDoss]

The general thinking is that in about 12-18 mos.
the sensors will be at 1:1.

I think that was the general thinking 12-18 months ago, too.

I'll bet that in 12-18 months, one of the major companies will be demonstrating a full-frame sensor at trade shows. Another 12-18 months after that, there'll be at least one DSLR on the market with a full-frame sensor (and about a million and a half threads bitching about how expensive it is). And 12-18 months after that , there will be competition in the full-frame sensor DSLR market.

Frankly, I'm happy with a 1.3x multiplier... it gives a telephoto "boost" (regardless of how artificial some of you think it is) while allowing moderate wide angle photography and keeping costs down.

JCDoss

 

[Mike Johnston]

You've been trying to make this case for months over at
rec.photo.digital. Sure looks like a troll to me!

For the record, Doug is mistaken. I've never participated on rec.photo.digital.

--Mike Johnston
http://www.37thframe.com

 

[Andrew Booth]

Mike,

Thsi makes perfect sense. Quite which sensor size to standardise on is a difficult question to ask though. There are benefits to larger sensors, so deciding on a standard small sensor size now could be limiting.

One thing I would like to see though, is fully digital viewfinders, and the elimination of the mirror box/pentaprism from the SLR. If we can view exactly what's hitting the sensor, exposure control/framing/etc. becomes more accurate, and it becomes a lot easier to design and build high quality wide angle lenses. I'd be interested in seeing a company like Leica enter this area, since I believe these digital rangefinders could be the future.

Andy

I swear this is NOT a troll, but I have a question:

Apart from convenience during one's conversion phase (i.e., 35mm to
digital), WHY do people think it's such a good idea to use existing
35mm lenses for digital??

I have a little digital p/s, and one of the great advantages of it
is that the CCD is small, and so the lens is very short, very
small, very light, and very fast. And has great d.o.f. for any
given angle of view. These are real advantages. The way I see it,
35mm lenses may be as much as 2/3rds larger than they have to
be to cover a CCD the size of the D30's. And of course much
heavier, and much slower.

Obviously all fixed-lens digicams have lenses designed to cover
their specific CCDs. But isn't it throwing away an obvious
advantage of digital for digital SLRs to use existing 35mm lenses?

I for one want an SLR with DEDICATED lenses--designed for the
smaller CCD size--smaller, lighter, faster.

--Mike J.
--
http://www.37thframe.com

 

[Matt Kim]

With someone of your supposed background, how can you ask
such a stupid assed question?????????

Matt

I swear this is NOT a troll, but I have a question:

Apart from convenience during one's conversion phase (i.e., 35mm to
digital), WHY do people think it's such a good idea to use existing
35mm lenses for digital??

I have a little digital p/s, and one of the great advantages of it
is that the CCD is small, and so the lens is very short, very
small, very light, and very fast. And has great d.o.f. for any
given angle of view. These are real advantages. The way I see it,
35mm lenses may be as much as 2/3rds larger than they have to
be to cover a CCD the size of the D30's. And of course much
heavier, and much slower.

Obviously all fixed-lens digicams have lenses designed to cover
their specific CCDs. But isn't it throwing away an obvious
advantage of digital for digital SLRs to use existing 35mm lenses?

I for one want an SLR with DEDICATED lenses--designed for the
smaller CCD size--smaller, lighter, faster.

--Mike J.
--
http://www.37thframe.com

 

[Doug Walker]

I extend my apologies if I have you confused with someone else.

You've been trying to make this case for months over at
rec.photo.digital. Sure looks like a troll to me!

For the record, Doug is mistaken. I've never participated on
rec.photo.digital.

--Mike Johnston
http://www.37thframe.com

 

[JCDoss]

I didn't think it was a troll anyways... it's a valid question that deserves intelligent discussion.

The typical troll would go something like this, "I bought the D30 and it sucked so bad I sent it back. I don't know why you people like it so much... it sucks... Nikon rules." The intent of the example was to inflame we D30-philes and provoke words. Clearly, that intent is not reflected in Mike's post. Instead, I thought it was (and is) valid and deserves air-time. And I'm glad to see it's getting it.

JCDoss

 

[JCDoss]

One thing I would like to see though, is fully digital viewfinders,
and the elimination of the mirror box/pentaprism from the SLR. If
we can view exactly what's hitting the sensor, exposure
control/framing/etc. becomes more accurate, and it becomes a lot
easier to design and build high quality wide angle lenses. I'd be
interested in seeing a company like Leica enter this area, since I
believe these digital rangefinders could be the future.

I think the single most important drawback for DSLRs as they are today is their lack of electronic viewfinding. Although I don't think that today's technology is adequate to completely replace the optical viewfinder, I do think it should be an available option. I'd LOVE to have a large, adjustable, flip/swivel LCD display with preview for a number of applications. Having one's face against the camera back isn't always necessary, desirable, or even possible. Therefore, a 2" (or larger) adjustable screen would make a difference in macro or candid shots. Further, electronic viewfinding would enable a live video-out feed which would help a LOT in the studio.

A user selectable aspect ratio can also become a reality. It should be relatively simple to select 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, or square aspect ratios through a custom function. Changes would be simple to see on the LCD, and an adjustable viewfinder mask could be used for the optical path. Further, it should be possible to shoot in landscape or portrait orientation by pressing a button rather than turning the camera... may not be a big deal, unless you're sitting at your computer rotating about a million photos you took in portrait mode to their proper and intended orientation.

Electronic viewfinding is more than just a compositional aid. Verification of focus, exposure, and white balance can be done easily before the shot... which may be important with sports photography where a re-take ain't gonna happen. If the sensor is linked to the AF and exposure meters, floating spot focus/metering points would be possible. In fact, Minolta has something like this in their D5 and D7 cameras.

How do you do this and still keep the mirror and prism? No big deal... let the main sensor do all the work during MLU. The optical viewfinder is blacked out during this time, but since you're using the rear LCD it shouldn't matter. Then again, it would be entirely possible to fit a tiny LCD behind the prism which would turn on automatically during MLU! Then, you've got an EVF and rear LCD preview.

Hopefully the manufacturers (CANON) are listening,
JCDoss

 

[Chris Fritz]

Take the APS film case. That "smaller" file size has been around for years, but they still require the same 35mm lenses to be used on this format.

If you look at the economy of scale, i suspect that it is cheaper to offer the current 35mm lens line up which is reduced in cost due to the increase in volume than to make a lower production quantities of APS or Digital Still Camera lenses. Not to mention the available wider selection of lenses.

Chris

I swear this is NOT a troll, but I have a question:

Apart from convenience during one's conversion phase (i.e., 35mm to
digital), WHY do people think it's such a good idea to use existing
35mm lenses for digital??

I have a little digital p/s, and one of the great advantages of it
is that the CCD is small, and so the lens is very short, very
small, very light, and very fast. And has great d.o.f. for any
given angle of view. These are real advantages. The way I see it,
35mm lenses may be as much as 2/3rds larger than they have to
be to cover a CCD the size of the D30's. And of course much
heavier, and much slower.

Obviously all fixed-lens digicams have lenses designed to cover
their specific CCDs. But isn't it throwing away an obvious
advantage of digital for digital SLRs to use existing 35mm lenses?

I for one want an SLR with DEDICATED lenses--designed for the
smaller CCD size--smaller, lighter, faster.

--Mike J.
--
http://www.37thframe.com

 

[Matt Kim]

This guy is a joke, take a look at his online resume. Why
do we need to explain this to him???

Matt

A Bigger pixel size results in a better image at any given
resolution. The size of the pixel has a definite coorelation to
the quality of the pixel. Take a look at the reviews of the E-20
or Minolta Digimage7 and you will see a very noisy image at
equivalent ISO levels to a D-30. It is a problem of the
signal/light to noise.

Then there are optical issues. As one scales down a camera and
lens system tollerances get much tighter and more critical. It is
not possible to get the same quality with smaller lens systems.
Once again if you look at the smaller camera, you will see things
like chroma aberations. For higher quality than 35mm pictures
today, a pro will use the much larger medium format film and lens
systems. Even with a D30 using high quality lenses, one can seem
lens limitations when the images are blown up.

To get any advantage out of a smaller sensor, the whole camera and
lens system has to be redesigned. Let's say we accept that the
quality will not be quite as high as a 35mm based system, but still
much better than today's P&S by using a D30 size sensor (very close
to APS size). You would move the lens closer to the sensor (I
think by about 1.6X over 35mm) which would facilitate getting a
wide angle at lower cost. Weight would reduce by amost the cube of
the reduction (ie. 1.6x1.6x1.6=4x). All this would yeild a very
nice small SLR.

The problem is getting a camera company to really commit and lock
down on a size so they could build a reasonably high quality lens
system build around it. Minolta did try this for APS, and probably
should have tried it for digital but they cannot seem to get their
act together. From a business point of view, the other camera
companies have in effect adopted the P&S imagers and build a fixed
lens around it (ala the Pro90, E10/D20, Digiimage5/7, and Sony 707).

Developing an interchangable lens system is a very major
commitment. They will have to lock down on an imager size
(phyiscal dimensions). These camera companies don't sell hugh
numbers of any given lens in a given year. The way they make money
and build up the variety of lenses is to sell the same lens design
for 7 and 10 years or more to recoup the R&D. They can't be
building lens systems and then change the sensor's size to keep up
with the sensor technology. I think they feel that the people
that will buy the interchangible lenses are wanting higher quality
and are thus aiming more at eventual 35mm sized sensors

Pesonally I do think we will see a scaled down SLR system some day,
but it will take a while for things to settle out. Unfortunately
today there is a very big gap in the image quality that can be
achieved between the non-intechangable lens SLRs using the puny
sensors and the D30 using a 35mm/1.6 sensor.

Karl

The smaller sensors suffer quality loss

Jay,
That's a pretty far-fetched point, since smaller sensors are all we
have right now!

And I'm not arguing against SLRs...I'm saying that it would be an
advantage to have lenses specifically made for the digital SLRs.
Made to cover, say, the CCD of the D30.

As far as Troy's point is concerned, how does introducing one, two,
or three new lenses specifically for the digital cameras obsolete
all the other lenses in the line?? It wouldn't do so, obviously....

--Mike