The sensor that could save Olympus DSLRs

http://www.ccd.com/pdf/ccd_29050.pdf

It looks good from every angle, and would put Olympus on the map in FF. If
they'd swallow their pride, leave 4/3rds to the micro end of things.

 

Stop fantasising. Olympus has no intention of making the same mistake
as it did with Four Thirds and investing vast amounts of money in
something that won't sell. Nikon and, to a lesser extent, Canon, have
the full frame market sewn up.

I posted details of that Kodak sensor just a few days ago in a
different discussion. It is a very expensive item, one that costs
more to buy than the retail price of an Olympus Four Thirds DSLR. So
the market for it is very limited indeed.

I am told that several camera manufacturers have looked at it and
rejected it on cost grounds. One manufacturer is still evaluating it
as an upgrade to an existing model that uses a Kodak full frame CCD.

That manufacturer is not Olympus. As I explained in another thread,
following the Four Thirds fiasco, the relationship between Olympus and
Kodak is dead.

 

Like for the Leica M9. Yes, it is expensive and it would be nice to
see a camera with a really good sensor, other than just the medium
format units we see. I say, compound it. Mount it in an original
(though modded for digital use) OM-1n body (which to reproduce would
cost a lot, more than a current APS metal body) and sell it to those
who really want something good. Have the back removable and have the
optional B&W sensor available as well. Why give up all DSLR market
(which is where they are headed) when a new niche could be created?
After all, that's what micro 4/3rds is.

 

But the exact opposite niche? Using this in a DSLR would be like Sigma's
new model, although granted it does actually have the advantage of more
sensitivity - but that comes as a trade-off where you get only half the
color detail. In these Kodak truesense designs, half the pixels are
'clear' with no color filter. That's why they state it's intended for
machine vision and security, not general photography. I would rather see
a true black and white DSLR with 50 megapixels, clean ISO 6400 and the
dynamic range of black and white ISO 25 film. But that's not likely to
happen either for an acceptable budget.

 

Not so. These Kodak sensors can be made in Bayer pattern (RGGB
pixels), with increased sensitivity at the expense of colour fidelity
(RGBP pixels, where P is a panchromatic photosite) or in full
panchromatic pattern with all pixels responding to luminance (with no
RGB filters on any pixels at all).

We have previously discussed the Phase One monochrome digital back for
medium format cameras, which would get reasonably close to your wishes
except for price. And availability because, while quite a few people
have heard of it, no-one seems to own or use one. ;-)

But there really isn't any need, because ADOX Pan 25 film offers a
resolution that lenses for 35mm film/FX digital will probably never be
able to match. It can be developed in environmentally friendly
chemistry and scans extremely well. So whether you use a wet
darkroom, or the digital version, you can achieve truly astonishing
results. This is now my first choice black and white film.

 

Sure they could do it any number of ways and all that needs to change is
the raw conversion, which makes me wonder why Nikon can't just run a
batch without the color filters. Heck, even if the firmware handles the
jpegs wrong in-camera, you'd have the raw files to convert properly
later. It shouldn't cost anything, it should cost less.

Yeah, that's why I suggested to the guy asking about medium format B&W
film, to just use 35mm B&W film, since he probably didn't need enormous
prints. I guess you could even develop that yourself and scan pretty
easily? That's definitely the budget option.

 

You will see it in 2012 - as long as the world doesn't end first. ;-)

Fujifilm got *very* close to that with the FinePix X-100. A version
with interchangeable lenses would get even closer; Fujifilm will make
it if the X-100 is judged a commercial success.

The problem is, it would be far too expensive. You are already
griping about the cost of the X-100 which uses a mass produced sensor
that is not the 2011 state of the art. Your proposed "OM-1D" would
cost several times more - in fact just the Kodak 29 MP sensor would
cost several times more.

 

Kodak already offers that.

I agree, and so do a great many fans of monochrome. It is a mystery
to so many people that it hasn't been done. But it is possible that
the history of monochrome sensors that didn't sell is what informs the
camera and sensor manufacturers who (understandably) prioritise
profits over satisfying a niche market.

ADOX Pan 25 develops best with little or no agitation. That's counter
intuitive to most home developers. But take that on board, and Pan 25
can easily be developed at home in a daylight tank. The chemicals are
very gentle on the environment, so can go into a domestic drain or
septic tank without problems.

The film base is clear so it scans beautifully. My Nikon Coolscan
5000ED with 4000dpi gives an excellent 21.4 MP image, but the ADOX Pan
25 negatives will yield additional fine detail at much higher
resolution.

It's more than a budget option. For black and white prints from 35mm
film, it is almost certainly the best option available.

 

The Kodak sensor isn't mass market, to be sure. Which is why it will be
used in medical and other scientific equipment where they can't tolerate
the flaws found in the mass market Sony, Panasonic and Canon CMOS
sensors. I'd like to see the cost of one of the development kits for it.