Nikon D3 hints at a way "out" for Olympus

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by RichA, Sep 24, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Bad wording. I meant a 1.33:1 ratio sensor the size (increase the
    height) of an APS sensor. Just to get away from the 3:2 ratio.
    The images they produce at the moment are 1.33:1
    22mm diagonal "circle?" Is that like, the other "side" of a pillar?
    I guess you meant diameter?
    RichA, Sep 26, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Yes, but I wouldn't describe long zoom P&S cameras as compact.
    No, because the market has conditioned the buyers to look for zoom
    range and megapixels. A 6 megapixel 4/3 size sensor in a compact
    camera would be nice.
    RichA, Sep 26, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Well, I would certainly describe the Panasonic TZ3 as compact:

    Lens: 28-280mm (35mm equiv)
    Dimensions: 105 x 59.2 x 36.7 mm (4.20 x 2.37 x 1.47 in)
    Weight (excl batt): 232 g (0.51lb)

    David J Taylor, Sep 26, 2007
  4. Bear in mind that it does! I initially measured the SENSOR light fall
    off almost two years ago and reported the results in this forum at the
    time - slightly less fall-off than film with the full frame Canon 5D.
    Since then, a couple of others have confirmed similar results with the
    same camera. Light fall-off with full frame sensors is just one of the
    many misconceptions that pushed Olympus into the corner they now find
    themselves in.
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 26, 2007
  5. You will find that most of Canon's tele lenses are just as telecentric
    as any lens in the entire Olympus line-up.
    In which case the advice that it is better to shut up and be thought an
    idiot than to speak up and remove all doubt seems most appropriate!
    Only at wide apertures - and that is clearly a lens issue, not a sensor
    issue. Put the camera on a tripod, shine a flashlight in the eyepiece
    and look at how that circular full aperture appears lie a cat's eye when
    you stand near the edge or corner of the field - THAT is why the lens
    vignettes, and THAT is why the issue disappears when the lens stops
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 26, 2007
  6. 4:3 is the aspect ratio. 4/3 is the format.
    No actually, I meant a 22mm diagonal FRAME.
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 26, 2007
  7. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    The issue is sharpness and/or chromatic aberration, yes? Largely
    corrected by microlenses but caused by the angle of light hitting pixels
    with depth versus flat film for wide angle lenses. If that's the case,
    Canon's closer sensor to lens design mount is a bit more problematic but
    a Nikon lens on a Canon would retain it's telecentricity. I'm not saying
    it's a huge problem but this is what we are discussing.
    Olympus should actually have more of an issue with this since their
    mount is even closer and the lenses need to be wider... although the
    sensor is smaller so that decreases angle right there.
    Paul Furman, Sep 26, 2007
  8. No - the issue is the statement quoted in the top line above: light
    Silicon sensors have LESS absorption depth than film! The Olympus
    misconception was that the microlenses, added to increase the pixel fill
    factor, caused reduced absorption with angle of incidence. At least in
    some cases that has certainly been proven to be false.
    It isn't a problem at all within the constraints of the Canon mount on a
    full frame sensor. Quite the opposite actually.
    Precisely, but that is completely the opposite of what Olympus were
    peddling - they used telecentric lenses because of light fall off
    concerns, not because they chose an excessively short backworking
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 27, 2007
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    And yet they still have rotten edge definition. Compare Canon, either
    a 1.5 or full frame with one of their WA zooms to an Olympus using
    their 11-22mm. The difference at the edge is pretty shocking.
    The reason I qualified it was that I had heard Canon was working on
    new microlens arrays for it's sensors. Using them in a certain way
    can alleviate some of the problems with light fall off of sensors due
    to photons not hitting the bottom of the "well." It's possible by
    doing that they can keep using their poor WA lenses.
    In one sense, that is actually good. It means there is little use in
    spending four figures for an f2.8 zoom when an f4 will function
    similarly, since you MUST stop down the f2.8 to get a decent image.
    Even Canon's 17-40L f4 lens stopped down to f5.6 showed marked edge
    RichA, Sep 27, 2007
  10. Which proves, does it not, that the "telecentric argument" is complete
    Why would Canon need to be working on a new means of reducing light
    fall-off when measurements of light fall off on the two year old 5D show
    it is better than film already?

    Hint: higher fill factor is not the same thing, and that is what Canon
    have brought to market.
    Cobblers - that is NOT what it means at all!
    And you will have to stop down an f/4 lens even further!

    This is a lens design issue and if a lens designer considers a
    cost/performance compromise acceptable in an f/2.8 design then he is
    likely to consider, at the very least, that the same cost/performance
    compromise is acceptable in the lower priced f/4 equivalent.

    Life has always been this way. You can't afford a lens without
    compromise. The only question is which compromises you can afford to
    live with.
    Edge distortion is something completely different from what is being
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 28, 2007
    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.