Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jul 16, 2007.
Put the coffee down, take 3 steps back and breath slowly...
Oskar's contribution to the debate.
No worse than that of many who haven't used a full-frame sensor.
Starting the brood off young then
I think we need another poll here. ;-)
Hmmm, looks like just you and me have voted - and one option is waaaaaay out in front.
I was tempted to set a voting time-limit about a minute after posting so I could guarantee a 100% result, but I suspected it might not be necessary.
Nick is not a smug, supercilious, green tights-wearing toe-rag. He sometimes wears shorts.
Damn - I didn't consider that possibility! TBH, the very thought of it is so repulsive I don't think I could have brought myself to type it out if I had.
Well i hasn't happened that much this year, I can tell you. In fact the last time was at Easter - which is also the last time the camera got serious use. What a summer.
Blimey, a summer so cold you haven't had to prop your door open since Easter!! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Indeed - that's why I've been able to sell some of my door props - FE, FM2 and F... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I used to know a Steve Muff. His nickname was Jacques Cousteau. I wonder why....?
I think I may be a touch too stoopid to comment about all this but my understanding is, that if I put a Nikkor AFS 12-24 on a D200 and someone sidled up next to me with a Canon 5D with a 16-35 and we both took pictures of the same landscape I'd be getting the same field of view in the resultant image and would have significantly more money left over for beer.
Also, in the unlikely event that someone wants to swap their D2X for my wee D50 I don't have to put all my lenses on Ebay and buy a load of expensive new ones 1.6X longer.
Or is that all wrong.
Mayvbe, but if I sidled up to you with my 5D and 12-24, we certainly wouldn't get the same field of view. And if we shot at ISO 800, we wouldn't get the same quality either. And I can use all my old film lenses, and not have to buy ones 1.6x shorter...
There are pros and cons to each.
A surprising number of people appear to be taking the above poll (i.e. not the principal one motivating this thread) really quite boringly seriously. Is this yet more evidence of global climate change, and the encroach of Brussels on our national life? Something should be done.
Worried, of Dorset.
Re: Dear Marjorie...
Worrying, ain't it?
Theoretically this should be a no-brainer. Bigger photosites mean higher signal-to-noise ratio for the same light level and more pixels mean a higher definition image to work with. After all, 35mm half frame failed because of image quality due to limitations in the (1960s film) sensor technology, despite the size and weight advantage and lower running costs. (Aside - film has improved so much that, if half frame had been delayed for a couple of decades, it probably would have become dominant!)
I think that everyone with any knowledge accepts that no digital compact with a sensor area of around 35 sq mm gets anywhere close to what can be achieved with a C size sensor.
However, digital sensor technology causes problems that need to be resolved. As has been pointed out on many occasions, sensors need to receive incoming light almost perpendicularly. This imposes limitations on lens design which (a) are maybe not yet being fully overcome by the designers, and (b) tend to make the lenses much larger (therefore heavier) than they would need to be if they were designed for film cameras using the same size sensor. Telecentric design criteria also rule out lens designs that are "fast" i.e. significantly faster than f/2, without inflicting an unacceptable level of colour fringing (often misleadingly referred to as chromatic aberration - even in AP).
Note that Olympus E series, using 4/3 sensors (quarter frame) are only just getting close to the size and weight they achieved in the OM range nearly 30 years ago. Note also that the E-1 (a monster by Olympus standards) with "only" 5 megapixels was achieving very creditable results with their first generation telecentric lens design, possibly because the lens and sensor were matched to each other - something which has been lost with the later E series models with more pixels.
Personally I don't think the problem is going to go away until someone invents a sensor which responds to incoming light in the same way as film does i.e. isn't shiny, doesn't rely on microlenses and has a random distribution of sizes and types of sensor site (thus fixing the pitiable dynamic range of existing sensors, and allowing re-sizing of images without the introduction of offensive processing artifacts).
Hopefully it will be self-cleaning as well....
One final thought. Apart from manufacturing convenience, there is no reason why digital sensors have to be flat. If they were made concave, then (by fixing the position of the nodal point of the lens with respect to the sensor) telecentricity could be built in, and pinhole/barrel distortion removed at a stroke. The lens design would need to be recomputed to give a curved "focal plane" but that would reduce complexity rather than increasing it. I wonder why none of the clever people at Canon, Nikon or Olympus have thought of that?
Didn't work with APS, though.
Somebody called Wagner at Princeton University did think up such an idea, and we first discussed it here over 6 years ago... it was in New Scientist, 14th April 2001 on page 23.
Separate names with a comma.