Now, the next BIG contest is ON!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Here Comes the 3-D Camera: Revolutionary Prototype Films Worldin Three Dimensions
Next: Why the Nikon Coolscan V ED is so expensive event on vintage market ?
From: Bruce on 13 May 2010 16:24 On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:27:32 -0500, BFD <bfd(a)zipnullnada.org> wrote: > >I still don't understand this ignorant desire to base digital sensors on a >35mm frame size. As if that is somehow the holy-grail of sensor sizes. Even >now, 1/2.5 sensors surpass the dynamic range of 35mm films. As technology >improves even more (as with the recent introduction of inexpensive back-lit >sensors, or technology that hasn't even been dreamed of yet) there is zero >reason to desire a digital sensor with a 35mm film frame size. That is the >desire of a fool. I use three sensor formats in my work; Hasselblad medium format digital, Nikon full frame digital and Micro Four Thirds. As a social photographer, the level of control over depth of field is one of the most important issues that influence my choice of equipment for a job. In almost all cases, I choose the Nikon full frame digital equipment because it gives me the range of levels of control of depth of field that best suits what I do. The Hasselblad format tends to give me too little depth of field, and the Micro Four Thirds too much. I only use Micro Four Thirds so I can carry a camera with me at all times, but the comparative lack of control of depth of field is a constant problem. If you cannot understand the importance of depth of field, and the significant effect on it of physical sensor size (as distinct from pixel count) then it is you who is the fool.
From: Bruce on 13 May 2010 16:26 On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??! > >What is the point? It would only make sense if they make the lenses >small as well and that affect IQ. The Leica M9 full frame compact camera accepts lenses that are absolutely *tiny* by the standards of DSLR lenses, yet their image quality is unsurpassed.
From: BFD on 13 May 2010 16:50 On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:24:38 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:27:32 -0500, BFD <bfd(a)zipnullnada.org> wrote: >> >>I still don't understand this ignorant desire to base digital sensors on a >>35mm frame size. As if that is somehow the holy-grail of sensor sizes. Even >>now, 1/2.5 sensors surpass the dynamic range of 35mm films. As technology >>improves even more (as with the recent introduction of inexpensive back-lit >>sensors, or technology that hasn't even been dreamed of yet) there is zero >>reason to desire a digital sensor with a 35mm film frame size. That is the >>desire of a fool. > > >I use three sensor formats in my work; Hasselblad medium format >digital, Nikon full frame digital and Micro Four Thirds. > >As a social photographer, the level of control over depth of field is >one of the most important issues that influence my choice of equipment >for a job. In almost all cases, I choose the Nikon full frame digital >equipment because it gives me the range of levels of control of depth >of field that best suits what I do. > >The Hasselblad format tends to give me too little depth of field, and >the Micro Four Thirds too much. I only use Micro Four Thirds so I can >carry a camera with me at all times, but the comparative lack of >control of depth of field is a constant problem. > >If you cannot understand the importance of depth of field, and the >significant effect on it of physical sensor size (as distinct from >pixel count) then it is you who is the fool. > > I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF effects can be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the focal-length used. But since you are limited to small apertures at longer focal-lengths with larger sensor cameras, you fail to realize this or know how to make use of this in smaller sensor cameras. The long focal-lengths required with useful apertures are not even available for larger sensor cameras. Instead of changing aperture I quickly change focal-length and change my distance to the subject accordingly. No different than someone who uses larger apertures and then gets up closer to a subject to photograph it. You can walk away from a subject just as easily as you can walk toward it. The added benefit of using this method is that you are now also diminishing the background clutter by using much narrower FOVs. There's less things to have to try to blur in the background and foreground. With a further added benefit; that it now becomes possible to quickly compose your image to use the OOF bokeh behind the object to frame, highlight, and enhance which parts of your subject that you wish to frame, highlight, and enhance; by moving only very small directions laterally to your subject. You're just so used to using aperture to change DOF that you can't get around this simple switch in technique, by easily changing focal-length instead. You'd have to fumble around with lugging 30 lbs of lenses to try to accomplish the same thing. Missing many shots while changing them and/or getting filth or condensation on your sensors and mirrors. I used to be just like you. That's why I know. The only difference is that I am able to quickly and easily invent and adapt new techniques as they are required and presented to me. Methods far more beneficial and efficient. I try to never cripple myself by stubbornly holding onto the past out of habit or learned ignorance.
From: RichA on 13 May 2010 17:53 On May 12, 6:30 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??! > > Leica already did it with the M9. Wikipedia says: > > "The Leica M9 is the second digital camera in the rangefinder M > series. It was introduced by Leica Camera AG on 9 September 2009. It > uses a 18.5-megapixel Kodak KAF-18500 Full Frame CCD image sensor." > > Next question? It costs $10k with a 50mm lens. NEXT!!!
From: RichA on 13 May 2010 17:54
On May 13, 2:27 pm, BFD <b...(a)zipnullnada.org> wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:25 -0400, Bowser <Ca...(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: > >On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:30:57 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> > >wrote: > > >>On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > >>wrote: > > >>>WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??! > > >>Leica already did it with the M9. Wikipedia says: > > >>"The Leica M9 is the second digital camera in the rangefinder M > >>series. It was introduced by Leica Camera AG on 9 September 2009. It > >>uses a 18.5-megapixel Kodak KAF-18500 Full Frame CCD image sensor." > > >>Next question? > > >The M9 is hardly compact, really. And it relies on an antiquated > >mechanical focusing rangefinder design that has not only seen better > >days, but even hard-core Leica shills, like Michael Reichman, calling > >for Leica to abandon it in favor of something developed over the last > >couple of decades. > > >I think it's only a matter of time before we see some major > >manufacturer introduce a new system with a new mount, kind of like > >Sony's NEX cams but with a larger sensor. Not necessarily 35mm sized, > >but it would make sense to use that size since you can then tap into > >the wealth of lenses already on the market that support that size. > >Advances in contrast-detection AF have greatly improved the usability > >of such systems, so it seems that one barrier after another is being > >eroded, and the days of the mirror box are numbered. As for > >rangefinders? Who cares? If some shooters are willing to spend three > >times more for a less capable camera, let them. > > I still don't understand this ignorant desire to base digital sensors on a > 35mm frame size. As if that is somehow the holy-grail of sensor sizes. I agree. It is stupid, but then so is the 3:2 format. Alas, we still suffer with it. |