Why not a Super Camera?

[Mel]

Also, embroider "steal me" on the main flap.

I prefer inconspicuous consumption, tends to help me hold onto stuff longer.

After spending a career in Law enforcement I can tell you most accurately that theives don't go by the name on the bag or camera strap. They already know better than us, what each model is worth and which ones are the top of the line. You protect nothing by having a name hidden or omitted on gear. (in the US anyway)

But please continue my lens aperature 101 instruction as this is very informative.
--
Mel

 

[Stephen Schwartz115733]

Instead of the all in wonder, why not put the $$ into a camera with more technological longevity than the current disposables?

Lets start with a true square sensor .. the quantum world ain't rectangular.

BUT. lets make the sensor itslef, like memory interchangeable.

Then lets add interchangeable choices of VF .. including optical and electronic.

Interchangeable lenses+a high quality lens mount plus interchangeable memory and interchangeable data backs .. an investmetn that lasts!

Also, imagine the choice of data backs. Someone mught want lots pixels bit someone else might want a cooled CCD that is uper sensitive in low light.

Oh yeh .. lets add a cell phone and GPS.

--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

 

[Mel]

Now the discussion is taking some form rather than humor.
Agreed, why not?

I still say "all in wonder" would appeal if it could be made to be "all in wonder" (as you jokingly state). Those who want to keep the current systems could still do so as other models aren't going to dissappear for pros.

I just think we are due for something new and a square sensor would be a good start as well.

--
Mel

 

[nickleback]

As I stated in my last thread
here, and what you took wrongly as aperature numbers. . .5.6 for
the 70-300mm is the "LENGTH" of the lens. I own the lens and am
well aware of the aperature.

Then you would be aware that it's max aperture is f/5.6. Despite how confusing your wording was, I realized you were talking dimensions.

Same with the 28-70, 4.9 is the
"LENGTH", I am speaking of.

I know that lens is f/2.8. I referred to this lens as f/2.8.

AGAIN, what I asked and stated was if
we can have these two lens TODAY, is it that far from reality to
invision a lens with a diameter between these two (72mm) as an
example? With enough diameter and length to be in the ball park?
Heck the 18-200mm is almost in the ball park. It is exactly a 72mm
lens and under 4 inches.

It is also f/5.6.

What could it be at say 5.6 inches as I
gave in example and comparison to the 70-300 VR?

If you want 450mm f/5.6 (which most DSLRs need to focus), that's going to be at least 80mm diameter. You can shorten the lens with diffractive optics. See the Canon 70-300mm DO for instance:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_70~300_45~56dois_usm.html

But you do make compromises to get to this size. Least of which is a telescoping design, which is basically impossible to seal (unless you want to pull vacuum at you are extending the lens).

If you want 32x zoom you'll make a ton of other compromises as well.

please explain why the above in example, are
the miles away (as you suggest) from the 14 to 450mm I initially
mention? I just did a quick check and Sigma has a 28-300mm 3.5
inches in length at 90mm. Yes it is 3.5 and not 2.8 or certainly
not 2.0, but AGAIN, the exact aperature is not my point and was
only an example to indicate wanting to obtain the best image
quality one can get with a proposed DSLR like this.

The Sigma lens you point out is f/3.5-6.3. At 300mm is it f/6.3. Not so super. It is also far short of you 14mm and 450mm goal.

If you want to see a "serious" lens in this ballpark, check out the Canon 28-300mm IS:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_28~300_35~56lis_usm.html

And despite the heft and cost of this lens, it is only f/5.6 at the long end. A great PJ lens, not great for a lot of other things.

My mistake for throwing out numbers with the design. But now you
have some definite exacts and actual realities to work with.

Perhaps you might now understand why "superzoom" digicams use tiny sensors? That way they can use a moderate size lens and get to "450mm" (in 35mm equivalent). Even these designs have a hard time doing wide angle, let alone ultra-wide. Ultra-wide and long tele really don't mix.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Mel]

Great explanations and patience here Nickelback,
Thanks you!
--
Mel

 

[nickleback]

Again though. No lock in on APS size sensor. I never mentioned that
as a size, someone else did or "asumed". 1:1 or FF would be the
sensor I would propose. 4/3 also not out of the question.

You usage of 1:1 is unusual. Please explain it.

Larger sensor = larger lens. If you want something you can hold without having to hit the gym, you'll want a smaller sensor.

Considering those two sensors, the definite need for storage
becomes apparent.

There are already sensors with more MP. They do fine with CF. 25mp raw would be about 25mb. You could store 320 shots on an 8GB CF card. 16GB and 32GB are on the way. Storage is getting cheaper faster than MP are going up.

If anyone would have said Nikon would be producing a camera with a
1:1 sensor, say, 18 months ago. I would bet many would have jumped
on it as a ridiculous concept being so close to FF.

OK, so 1:1 isn't FF, it is "close to FF". Please tell me what a 1:1 sensor is.

Also in
complete denial at that time, that the F mount was an issue
regarding FF.

Would be strange, as there have been FF F-mount cameras in the past (Kodak...).

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[nickleback]

Also, embroider "steal me" on the main flap.

I prefer inconspicuous consumption, tends to help me hold onto
stuff longer.

After spending a career in Law enforcement I can tell you most
accurately that theives don't go by the name on the bag or camera
strap. They already know better than us, what each model is worth
and which ones are the top of the line. You protect nothing by
having a name hidden or omitted on gear. (in the US anyway)

About 8 years ago my car was parked downtown in a large city. We were coming home from a long vacation, in the trunk were our suitcases and camera gear.

When we got back to our car we noticed a quarter window was smashed. The thief had broken this little window to get into the car, then popped the trunk release and taken only one bag -- the camera bag. Nothing else in the trunk was disturbed.

I would have been better off leaving my dirty unmentionables in the camera bag, and the camera in a suitcase.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[nickleback]

I just think we are due for something new and a square sensor would
be a good start as well.

A square sensor gives you the choice of one format. You can of course crop to any other shape, but you are losing pixels unless your end result is square.

A rectangular sensor gives you the choice of two formats. As with square, you can crop, but you can also choose to hold the camera in the way that is closest to how you want your result.

BTW, the largest square sensor that would fit in a 35mm DSLR is 24x24.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Mel]

Sorry to hear that you went through this but it happens and the name on your gear won't matter to the thief who knows his products.
Believe me they do. They research this stuff in detail.

Cars, drugs, jewelry, camera gear, computers, you name it. If it has some value, they will know the items by shape. Even color, as in your camera of choice lens line. To the thief, white lens means pretty certain canon gear.

I have also had this happen with guns and video equipment and know well the experience and empty feeling you are left with.
--
Mel

 

[nickleback]

Sorry to hear that you went through this but it happens and the
name on your gear won't matter to the thief who knows his products.

It's not the name on the gear that's the issue. It's the gear in something that's obviously a camera bag. Nothing in the trunk was disturbed, just the camera bag was lifted out.

I have also had this happen with guns and video equipment and know
well the experience and empty feeling you are left with.

The empty feeling was for the couple dozen rolls of exposed film...

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Mel]

Okay 1:1 and past FF models.

First, 1:1 crop factor sensor is one that is being tossed around as the next Nikon DSLR. There are some privately "connected" sources that say the Nikon D3 or D3x will be a 1:1 sensor.

FF models with the F mount have all failed to be the "all around" capability camera's they would need to be to survive and exist such as the D1 and D2 series. The Kodak you speak of is the 14N and you can't get a new one anymore. While great in some aspects, it had definite "edge of lens circle" issues and very limited high speed application such as almost all of the Nikon D series models have. The Contax N was a similar situation in that it apparently produced excellent studio images where everything is controlled for lighting, but failed miserably for everything else.

I believe (which is not worth much to you here realizing my technology challenged state), that the F mount diameter is too small and the reason Nikon may come out with the 1:1 size. We will soon know however and either I will be right or appear even more challenged. Go ahead, you can say it . . . I have thick skin.

Even the Canon mount, whiich as you know is bigger, has "some" issues with FF and edge of cirlce. This from reading poster on that board.
--
Mel

 

[nickleback]

Okay 1:1 and past FF models.

Please explain what 1:1 is as it relates to sensor size. You said in another post that is isn't "FF" (i.e. 35mm format, 24x36mm), but now you seem to be saying it is.

FF models with the F mount have all failed to be the "all around"
capability camera's they would need to be to survive and exist such
as the D1 and D2 series. The Kodak you speak of is the 14N and you
can't get a new one anymore. While great in some aspects, it had
definite "edge of lens circle" issues and very limited high speed
application such as almost all of the Nikon D series models have.

The Kodak lacked microlenses, which loses about 2 stops of speed. It also used a very inexpensive (for 35mm format) sensor that had a number of other... challenges. Kodak folded up shop just before the Canon 5D was introduced.

Edge of circle issues can happen if the lens in question has a short exit pupil distance. Digital doesn't work too well with that. Please note that this has nothing to do with any particular mount, it's a lens vs. sensor issue. You can design the sensor to be more friendly to such lenses, and you can design lenses to be more friendly to sensors, or some combination of both.

The Leica DMR and M8, a few medium format cameras/backs, and perhaps (if you believe the rumors) the Canon 1Ds mk2 use offset microlenses, which allows use of lenses with shorter exit pupils (basically, many wide-angle lenses). Other lenses (most wide-angle) have been designed or re-designed for longer exit pupil distance, the Canon 16-35mm mk2 being just one of many examples.

The Contax N was a similar situation in that it apparently produced
excellent studio images where everything is controlled for
lighting, but failed miserably for everything else.

The Contax N has the largest mount of any 35mm SLR. But as I wrote above, it isn't the mount, it's the lenses vs the sensor. In the case of Contax, it was apparently the sensor and the electronics that were to blame.

I believe (which is not worth much to you here realizing my
technology challenged state), that the F mount diameter is too
small and the reason Nikon may come out with the 1:1 size.

So please tell me, what is 1:1 size?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Marcel Geers]

MP3 player? You'd be tempted to start jiggling your legs and body to all that nice music playing (if you can lugging that thing around) and then suddenly.......while you're busy jumpstyling.......the camera slips from your neck!

 

[Marcel Geers]

35m is just a number, why not make something like 35x35mm ? You'd always be throwing away pixels if you want a shape other then the shape of the sensor.

 

[spt_gb]

Okay 1:1 and past FF models.
First, 1:1 crop factor sensor is one that is being tossed around as
the next Nikon DSLR. There are some privately "connected" sources
that say the Nikon D3 or D3x will be a 1:1 sensor.

The talk in the Nikon forums is of 1.1 crop, not 1:1. This is in respect to 35mm, so we're talking about 32.7x21.8 sensors. We're stil ltalking about a HUGE lens to get a 14-450 equivalent.

FF models with the F mount have all failed to be the "all around"
capability camera's they would need to be to survive and exist such
as the D1 and D2 series.

Only Kodak has tried this on F mount, and they cut corners with the sensor (no AA filter or microlenses). They compounded matters with clunky handling and slow processing speed. Even after all that there are still 14n faithful who love the camera.

The Kodak you speak of is the 14N and you
can't get a new one anymore. While great in some aspects, it had
definite "edge of lens circle" issues and very limited high speed
application such as almost all of the Nikon D series models have.

Because of the above reasons. The problem wasn't that the 14n was full frame (if it had been 1.5 crop it would have been just as bad, but without the image quality that causes it's fans to forgive so much).

As for your zoom lens, you're asking for a zoom range of 32x. Only video lenses cover that kind of range, and for two very good reasons. Firstly video sensors are much smaller (so easier to design for) and secondly video quality is much lower than still so the flaws in such a design aren't as obvious. Take a look at this lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/462712-REG/Fujinon_A42x9_7BERD_S48_Fujinon_A42x9_7BERDS_2_3_42x.html
Its designed for 2/3" video, weighs 11.2 pounds, is 13.3" long and costs $46K

 

[Stephen Schwartz115733]

There is nothing God given about the 35mm format or even about rectangles. Optics are naturally circular ... a cricular sensor would make sense once the cost per pixel becomes trivial.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

 

[Stephen Schwartz115733]

The rectangular format is an artifact of how images are viewed. You eye is round. Round images allow the maximum of "seeing it as it is."

The only reason for any format other than a circled is the cost of pixels.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

 

[Mel]

Interesting concept Stephen and again, this type of discussion is what I was hoping for as I seem to learn a bit more with each new thread.
--
Mel

 

[Mel]

No just mis- typed. As you say:

--The talk in the Nikon forums is of 1.1 crop, not 1:1. This is in respect to 35mm, so we're talking about 32.7x21.8 sensors. We're stil ltalking about a HUGE lens to get a 14-450 equivalent.

My point however is still the same in that this is just a tad smaller than FF and if the "rumors" are correct (and they seem to be stronger than mere speculation, although currently not anymore factual) then my suspicion remains the F mount. Otherwise if it is so time proven with other models (even few as they are), why deviate?

I am sure there must be another reason if 1.1 actually comes about as it seems my thoughts about the opening size apparenlty have nothing to do with FF and the F mount.

Thanks for the explanations!
Mel

 

[Mel]

Sorry for my confusion in getting across here what I mean. Another poster has stated things better here and this is the quote:

The talk in the Nikon forums is of 1.1 crop, not 1:1. This is in respect to 35mm, so we're talking about 32.7x21.8 sensors.

I was writing it down incorrectly and as you see, 1.1 is correct.

But again, my point remains the same in that if this size of 1.1 is just a tad smaller than FF, then I suspect the F mount is the reason.

I have also been "shown the light" regarding the opening size of the F mount as a possible reason for the rumored change. Which leaves me even more curious as to why Nikon would change an apparently time proven system?

As I stated in another thread here, I am sure there must be some other logical reason then if the opening size doesn't relate and would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Contax (as I was reminded), had/has the largest mount opening and they specifically designed their camera this way in anticipation of issues with FF. I even spoke with a tech supervisor person for them back during that time (referenced somewhere in my past postings history), and was told directly by Contax at the time that the opening size for FF did matter. Perhaps (and very likely), I misunderstood him. But it now seems strange after so many opportunities of being able to bring a FF model to the table, that Nikon may very well do so in a "reduced size" sensor as their best offering with the F mount.

AND, of course this 1.1 has absolutely "NO" basis in fact, so I (as many others) am making a huge leap in faith (so to speak) in believing that this may/will actually come about. But in my very laymans mind of viewing it all. Nikon has made smaller pixels and crammed more into a limited space. It seems to be widely agreed that a larger gathering surface (imager) would collect the most and best light creating the best image as far as noise etc. This rumor of 1.1 would give much larger photosites? If I understand things right, and also eliminate any edge of circle phenomena (if such actually exists other than in the minds of persons like me), and basically be the cats meow for the next generation DSLR sensor.
--
Mel