1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The future of the E-system

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jun 23, 2007.

  1. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    Indeed I was.

    And on Nicks earlier post about APS-C being squeezed out by 35 mm and Four-Thirds, I very much hope that he is right. However, history would suggest that technology tends to become smaller rather than bigger, even if quality suffers.

    In the final analysis though I suspect it will be the format that is most cost effective to manufacture that wins the day.
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Not at all sure I agree. Yes, history shows a gradual move to smaller film formats until 35mm was reached - but after that, all attempts to further shrink the format failed sooner or later. Half frame never really caught on, for all that some of the cameras were excellent. It floundered on quality, nothing else. After that, most attempts to make the format smaller were based around convenience - with 110, 126, Disk and APS. Each of them flourished for a while, particularly with the snapshooting brotherhood, and each of them failed dismally with enthusiasts on quality grounds - only APS came close, because it wasn't as far away as the rest in quality terms. But very few enthusiast cameras appeared - a handful of SLRs (from memory, two each from Minolta, Nikon and Canon) and not much film choice - plenty of print film, but only ever one (chromagenic) B&W and one slide film. Not enough to persuade anyone that the downside of lower quality was enough to change for. And really only APS satisfied even the humblest snapper on quality grounds.

    Now I suspect that what we've been through, and what we're still in, is precisely one of these periods of growth following a new format - it's simply too early to say for sure what the future pattern is going to be, but if we're simply going on history, I wouldn't bet against the 35mm size.
  3. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    I thought the origional point of the 4/3 system was not sensor format, so much as the ratio of image circle to lens mount, the point being to allow for telecentric lens design. The 4:3 ratio just being the optimum use of the image circle, theoreticly, any sensor fittiing into the circle would be alowed. I may well be wrong about this, as it was a while ago that I read it (In AP) and I wasn't much interested in digital at the time. Although I like the idea of full frame, the off axis vigneting nad chromatic aberations concern me. Maybe that new design (By Panny?) with off-axis diffractive optics may solve the problem. Incidently the crrent APS-C sensors are very similar in size to the S35 cine frame.
    End of ramble,
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    How is a rectangle an optimum use of a circle? ;)
  5. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    I would guess that what dampened users enthusiasm for Half-Frame was the time it took to finish a roll of film, plus the cost of getting the photos printed. (72 images on a 36 exp film, doubling your D&P bill!)

    There certainly wasn't any issues regarding the optical quality with Olly's Pen-F, which if my memory serves me correctly, were rated as being absolutely outstanding.

    Regarding the issue of cropping off the un-used paper when printing the complete image, with APS-C and 35mm, the paper is cropped off the long sides of A4 paper, whilst on the 4/3rds format, you crop off the short sides, because 4/3rds images are 'squarer' than 35mm and APS-C images.

    The 'squarer' image suits my image taking-style, whilst some people prefer their images to look 'narrower' giving the the image the 'illusion' of being a wider angle of view, when in fact the angle of view is the same, and it's just that the 4/3rds format gives you additional image in the height, when printed out in Landscape mode.
  6. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    As the format wars seem to have seem out again, can I suggest that the logical format for digital is a circular sensor, with the user choosing how to crop the image later?

    This would preserve ALL the image captured by our expensive glass. At the same time making decisions between vertical and horizontal formats a thing of the past. Tilting horizons would also be very easy to correct.

    I believe that some early plate cameras used this format but it is obviously impractical with roll film, but with modern digital equipment it seems entirely practical
  7. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Round shutters would likely be a fair bit slower than rectangular ones in terms of flash sync and faster avalable shutter speed...unless you put them in the lens (like larger formats?).

    Shutters in lenses would make them more expensive....I expect!
  8. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Not to mention the bigger body you would need to take sensor with a diameter the same as the diagonal of current APS C sized sensors. Bigger monitor though the mirror would probably be no bigger than a 35mm SLR so the prism sould be ok too. The sensor would be more expensive so all those price drops in recent years would be reversed, not to mention the need for new flash guns, software upgrades etc. I really don't see it being practical.
  9. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    The technology is probably not here yet but it will not be long before shutters are no longer needed - the computer will just read the current liveview image and store it.
  10. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    Well digi video already uses "virtual" shutters, so thats no problem, but round sensors wouldn't make best use of the silicon wafers, so the chip manufacturers wouldn't ike it.
    Thinking about the sensor sizes, how about an APS-C cam with a PL mount so we can use all those loverly Cooke S4s, Zeiss UltraPrimes ans Panavision Superspeeds, and REALY drive ourselves into bankrupcy!
  11. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    Sadly, I don't think anyone's going to see any of the Cooke zooms up on E-Bay! Regarding the optimum sensor coverage of these optics, they are 22x16mm and 24x18mm. However, these lenses are designed for Cine, so I'd guess the Bayonet/C mount to imaging plane may well be considerably different to that of the 4/3rds camera mount and heavens only knows what a suitable adapter would cost! For those of you wanting a salivate, here is Cooke's website.

Share This Page