APS sized sensors or smaller are the future of the professional market

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by deryck lant, Mar 13, 2005.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    More and more people are beginning to realize this.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dof-rebuttal.shtml

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12606303

    The 35mm format was adopted, largely by accident, 80 years ago, for a
    totally different capture medium.

    These are the concluding words in a technical report in this weeks
    The British Journal of Photography. The article analyses all the optical
    aberrations encountered in digital imaging.

    Next week the 16th of March they begin a 2 weeks review of the D2X.

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Mar 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Just because something is "the future" doesn't mean it's necessary,
    desirable, or even a good idea. At this point the sole reason for APS
    sensors is economic, to make cameras less expensive and more saleable.
    In a decade or so, after we've scrapped all our full-frame lenses,
    "professional size sensors" will come out, and we'll regret it.
     
    Scott Schuckert, Mar 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. deryck  lant

    ian lincoln Guest

    Scheimflug effect?
     
    ian lincoln, Mar 13, 2005
    #3
  4. deryck  lant

    ian lincoln Guest

    black and white film is still available. 35mm slrs even cheap ones are
    still made. Medium format and larger are still made. aps sized cameras
    have died once. There will always be two tier in digital. The budget aps c
    sized dslrs and the professional stuff. What will happen is that the
    previous medium format stallwarts will become the full frame 35mm
    stallwarts.

    As far as built in ram goes its cheap enough but still not plentiful when
    bought with a camera. Not even available at all with dslrs. It adds to the
    bottom line cost. You are still lucky to get more than 16mb memory cards
    supplied despite the vast increase in megapixels and the vast reduction in
    cost. I predict that anything smaller than 16mb will cease production.
    When all reserves are used up then 32mb will go. As it is the retail cost
    between 16, 32 and 64 is less than £5. 64mb and 128mb is less than £5. It
    is becoming economically pointless to make anything smaller than 64mb. What
    i do predict is handheld drives getting popular, cheaper and larger
    capacities.
     
    ian lincoln, Mar 13, 2005
    #4
  5. deryck  lant

    Alan Browne Guest

    noise == 1/sensor_size
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 13, 2005
    #5
  6. deryck  lant

    Colin D Guest

    I take it that's a question meaning "what is Sheimflug effect?'

    First, it's spelt 'Scheimpflug' after Theodor S. (b. 1888) whose work
    was primarily opthalmology, but whose name was given to the Scheimpflug
    Rule for obtaining increased depth of field with large-format movement
    cameras.

    see:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~akj19/scheimpflug.html

    Colin.
     
    Colin D, Mar 13, 2005
    #6
  7. deryck  lant

    HvdV Guest

    That's too simplistic. Larger sensors only lead to less noise when aperture
    is kept constant (for a particular view angle), and pixel count remains
    constant. That means larger pixels (so less noise) and more optical bandwidth
    wasted. Better keep the pixel size as is or shrink it until anti-aliasing
    filters are not necessary anymore. Then the tradeoff between resolution and
    noise can be made in the postprocessing.

    Economically very important is that keeping the aperture constant means a
    larger, more expensive lens. Lens cost rises steeply with increased size, see
    the recent posting in rec.photo.digital by Ilya Zakharevich. So it might well
    be that cameras with say 35mm sensors would be ideal for photography, but
    wiped from the market by much cheaper good-enough cameras with small sensors.

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Mar 13, 2005
    #7
  8. deryck  lant

    Alan Browne Guest

    Given the simplistic nature of the subject, the simplicity of the reply
    is entriely appropriate. Pixel size on the sensor will always trump
    over any other parameter for keeping S/N in check. No tradeoffs should
    be made in postprocessing as that is never lossless: you are suppressing
    noise at the expense of MTF.

    So, keep the sensors large, signal large and noise low and MTF will be
    maintained high.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 13, 2005
    #8
  9. the recent posting in rec.photo.digital by Ilya Zakharevich. So it might well
    This is part of a much larger pattern, which I think of as the 30/70
    guideline. More and more, for 30% of the price, you can get 70% of
    the quality. We've seen this in digital photography, digital music,
    home publishing, etc. 70% is often good enough, but it's frustrating
    for those who liked the quality they had before, and I think it will
    be frustrating for everyone after the second iteration, when we have
    less than half of the quality left, even though we're paying only 1/10
    of the price.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 13, 2005
    #9
  10. deryck  lant

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    OTOH this could be marketing hogwash to make us accept APS-C sensors
    and partial frame lenses before the fad passes.

    The only convincing argument I read at either of the URLs you cited
    was about "corner shading is substantial" with the Canon 1Ds Mark 2
    and 17-40/4 lens. I take it this means the purple fringing problem.
    Seems like that can be solved easily in software. It's just that
    software engineers have been working on other problems.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Mar 14, 2005
    #10
  11. deryck  lant

    Bandicoot Guest

    Not exactly 'more' depth of field, just moving the plane of focus about. If
    you can align that plane with the plane of interest in the photograph,
    however, it has the same usefulness.

    Not only large format either: you can get tilt lenses for both medium format
    and 35mm that allow you to use (some) Scheimpflug movements on smaller
    formats. Of course, the lesser DoF of larger formats is one reason why you
    need the movements more as film size increases - just as it is one reason
    why APS sized sensors are simply not going to be the universal future of
    professional photography: they limit the availability of shallow DoF.



    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Mar 14, 2005
    #11
  12. Exactly.

    Seems to me this trend began sometime in the 80s? At some point product
    quality came to be considered a liability rather than an asset. Companies
    felt they could save more money by producing cheaper products rather than
    make more money by selling quality products. And with a new generation of
    consumers who came of age being taught that normal product lifetimes are
    measured in months instead of years or decades, the circle is complete.

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Mar 14, 2005
    #12
  13. Shorter focal length lenses with limited coverage (for a small sensor)
    have advantages in size or aperture or something (the space the
    designer makes tradeoffs within is bigger). We haven't really started
    to see those benefits yet, but if the small sensors stick around I
    think we will.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 14, 2005
    #13
  14. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    The lengthy BJP technical report says briefly:

    Digital sensors are very unforgiving when the light strikes them at a glancing
    angle. The problem is most evident with wide angle lenses, from which light
    emerges at a steep angle. This can cause vignetting and colour fringing. The
    solution to these problems is to have a telecentric design lens.

    To accommodate the telecentric lens design the camera lens mount opening
    has to
    be twice the diagonal of the sensor.

    Full frame diagonal of 35mm film/imager is 43.3mm.

    The Nikon lens flange opening is 45mm.
    The Canon lens flange opening is 48mm.
    The Olympus 4/3 system is 46mm (this is why the Olympus is larger than
    you expect)

    A full frame digital camera at 43.3 frame diagonal would require a
    flange opening
    of 87mm, wider than a 6x7 camera.

    APS sized sensors enable the manufacturer to do their best to make the
    newer WA
    lenses as telecentric as possible.

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Mar 14, 2005
    #14
  15. SNIP
    No, they are referring to vignetting that's present in all lenses,
    especially visible when used wide open. Since the tonal range in dSLR
    images usually isn't compressed in the shadows and highlights, like it
    is in film), it can become more visible. Also the angle of incidence
    of light projected on the sensor plays a larger role than on film,
    unless the microlens design is adjusted to compensate for that (like
    in the Mark II series).
    Yes, software can compensate, although it will be less efficient than
    microlens design and anti- vignetting filters, because both of those
    will improve signal to noise due to higher exposure levels (but that's
    more of a subject for another newsgroup).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 14, 2005
    #15
  16. deryck  lant

    columbotrek Guest

    We will get what we settle for. If we are willing to settle for APS
    sized sensors to go with our 35mm format lenses, then that is what we
    will get. From what I understand the smaller size is a compromise to
    accommodate sensor limitations on the angle light can strike the sensor
    from. A 35mm format or larger sensor size is not a problem for MF
    backs. So then that will be required to solve this is a break through
    in sensor technology to remove the angle limitation. Then all the APS
    format sensors will be yesterdays news. If you want to buy it twice,
    buy it now. If not wait until they are selling what you are buying.
     
    columbotrek, Mar 14, 2005
    #16
  17. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    Anders Uschold in the previous week's BJP tested the EF 17-40 f/4 L USM,
    the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM and the EF
    70-200mm f/4 L
    USM. The camera was the EOS 1Ds Mark II.

    The EF 17-40mm. Showed 60 to 100 percent corner light fall off. Also
    resolution was
    restricted and required the lens to be stopped down. Very high
    distortion at 17mm.

    The EF 24-70mm. Showed over 60 to 100 percent corner light fall off.
    Lens should be
    stopped down one or two stops to improve resolution etc. Optical
    distortion is good.

    The EF 70-200mm f2.8. Showed around 60 percent corner light fall off.
    Resolution not
    wonderful. Optical distortion normal to good.

    The EF 70-200 f/4. Showed around 50 percent corner light falloff.
    Resolution is good
    and optical distortion normal. This is the only lens of the four he
    recommended for use
    on the EOS 1Ds Mark II.

    All the lenses were recommended to stopped down one or two stops.

    Regarding noise. Technology is developing fast. Panasonic have announced
    a sensor
    with two micron elements. Panasonic reduced the conductor path wiring
    from 2.5 to 1.5
    microns, providing an extra 40 percent of the chip space for
    light-gathering. Despite
    doubling the number of photo diodes in a given area, noise should not
    increase.
    This sensor, if scaled up to Four Thirds size, would have 36 million pixels.

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Mar 14, 2005
    #17
  18. deryck  lant

    Paul Bielec Guest

    The film format requires much more standardization than digital.
    Lets say that you buy Kodak film to run it inside your Canon Camera and
    have it processed on a Fuji lab. All these manufacturers are physically
    bound to the 35mm format. There is no way that anybody could change that.
    With digital, it is different. The only restriction is the file format
    and connection to a computer. So, the manufacturers need only to decide
    how much of their existing gear they want to be compatible with the new
    one. Nothing forces any of the manufacturers to keep their sensor sizes
    comparable to any of the existing film formats, nor keeping any of the
    existing lens mounts.
    It has nothing to do with the image quality, at least not directly, it
    has to do with profits.
     
    Paul Bielec, Mar 14, 2005
    #18
  19. deryck  lant

    Sander Vesik Guest

    This is essentialy incorrect. What is smaller for APS-C is the image
    circle - and wide angle lenses with a smaller image circle are not
    just harder to make but will also distort more. The light needing to be
    more collimated is another issue for digital.
     
    Sander Vesik, Mar 14, 2005
    #19
  20. deryck  lant

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Its also a problem with flatness of field and inability of digital
    sensors to reasonably cope with the incoming light being at an angle.
     
    Sander Vesik, Mar 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.