Digital rangefinder cameras please?

Never had a problem with batteries, bought them all over the world from Shanghai to San Juan and Tromsoe to Lisboa. Even with the regular blackouts in Cuba I had time to reacharch my laptop and dSLR.

The longest blackout I ever experienced was in San Pedro de Marcorix in April 2001, three days without electricity and it didn't stop us at all.

The four BP511 batteries I have for my D60 last for some 1000 pictures, that's usualy enough.

Oh, and by the way, ever tried to push start a diesel? Or a car with automatic transmission?
 
Andy K said:
I only drive manual cars, automatics are for old ladies. 😉

Ok, so no BMW M5, Audi S6 or Mercedes SLK 55AMG for you 🙂

But there is some truth in it, my mother, who'd scold me for calling her an old lady at just 70, had a BMW M3 with automatic transmition for a couple of years.
 
Socke said:
Ok, so no BMW M5, Audi S6 or Mercedes SLK 55AMG for you 🙂

But there is some truth in it, my mother, who'd scold me for calling her an old lady at just 70, had a BMW M3 with automatic transmition for a couple of years.


Not for me, maybe for those with mid-life crises or people smaller than five foot six. 😉 This is more my thing.
 
Last edited:
One wish list that's been oft thought of and hyped, but never fulfilled - and that would take care of all the ones mentioned above: DIGITAL FILM! There are some web sites still extant that proclaim the just-around-the-corner availability of a digital package that will slip into a 35 in place of film and record digital images. Nice thought, but never available, probably not feasible even with the most rubust R&D budgets.

john
 
Kev wrote:

>>I'd speculate that new sensors based on nanotechology which does not involve capturing light photons is the key to the future...

lets see...

Nanotechnology - has something to do with manipulations at the molecular level to achieve a specific goal to meet specialized needs unique to miniature environments.

35 mm film - one or more layer of homogeneous emulsion layers composed of dyes that irreversibly change when exposed to light photons. The dyes are sets of organic chemical molecules refined by decades of global R&D in advanced organic chemistry. Each dye is designed for a specific roll. A large amount of information about light photons must be encoded in a limited amount of space. By the way, it turns out one of the classic monographs on 35 mm format photography has miniaturization in it's title: "35 MM Photo Technique, Miniature Camera Practice" H.S. Newcobe, 1945.

Congratulations Kev, you may have the most wickedly satirical post on RFF.


By the way, how do you find the performance of the Kodak sensor? I would love to look at some uncropped wide-angle photos.
 
willie_901 said:
Kev wrote:

>>I'd speculate that new sensors based on nanotechology which does not involve capturing light photons is the key to the future...

lets see...

Nanotechnology - has something to do with manipulations at the molecular level to achieve a specific goal to meet specialized needs unique to miniature environments.

35 mm film - one or more layer of homogeneous emulsion layers composed of dyes that irreversibly change when exposed to light photons. The dyes are sets of organic chemical molecules refined by decades of global R&D in advanced organic chemistry. Each dye is designed for a specific roll. A large amount of information about light photons must be encoded in a limited amount of space. By the way, it turns out one of the classic monographs on 35 mm format photography has miniaturization in it's title: "35 MM Photo Technique, Miniature Camera Practice" H.S. Newcobe, 1945.

Congratulations Kev, you may have the most wickedly satirical post on RFF.


By the way, how do you find the performance of the Kodak sensor? I would love to look at some uncropped wide-angle photos.
Hi Willie,

Thanks again, I'm gratified by your kind interest in my ideas for the imaginary cameras as well as sensor technology...

I'll be very frank here, I did not pass my high school physics exams in the distant past, which sort of explain why I ended up being an apprentice to a commercial photographer... 🙂 I suppose it's why I also take such insane liberties with my technological speculations!

In atonement for my youthful folly, I currently get suscription of Photonic Spectra magazine... And have been following with interest for a recent innovation in the field of photonics; Its known as Quantum Dots, otherwise known as Artificial atoms.

This technology is being applied to the production of highly stable and accurate color dyes for medical and biological imaging research, as well as for high-end color fast LEDs...

Something 'clicked' in my mind then, and ever since, I've often wondered if this form of nanotechnology could someday end up in our DSLR's imaging sensor...

The current problems of both CCD & Cmos sensors is they're both essentially monochromatic, hence in turn requiring CFAs (Color Filter Arrays) which are basically destructive to the integrity of the image quality. They capture photons to create images instead of being like Silver Halide film which reacts to light photons... Aside from the CFA layer on top of the sensor, we need IR filtration, Anti-Aliasing filtration, Microlens arrays, etc. The image is basically 'F..ked' (pardon my French, I'm ethnic Chinese!) before we even record it to digital.

With nanotechnology, the possibilities for an imaging sensor that does not require any prior destructive filtration become possible, most importantly, a true full RGB color spectrum sensor instead of today's 'color-blind' sensors! Sensor self noise is virtually gone, and finally we go back to the same light reactive imaging recording principle of film instead of light capturing with today's sensors...

Is that wicked satire? Hands on my heart, I hope not! For all of our sakes...

Regards,
Kev
 
Kev T said:
Hi Willie,
The current problems of both CCD & Cmos sensors is they're both essentially monochromatic, hence in turn requiring CFAs (Color Filter Arrays) which are basically destructive to the integrity of the image quality.

Well Foveon sensors are not monochromatic, but don't seem to offer huge advantagesover traditional CCDs or CMOS (you get indeed with a 3 MPixel Foveon sensor a picture quality similar to a 6 MP CMOS, but with similar cost and higher luminance noise)
 
Socke said:
And it's just as push startable as the Landy 🙂
Nope, unfortunately not. It's a diesel. You need a battery to pre-heat.

You just have to carry spares for when you run out of juice 🙂 But only if you're really insecure..
 
Last edited:
fgianni said:
About 10 or 12 megapixel I am not convinced, RF users don't usually get too excited about megapixel wars, The RD-1 resolution is good enough for me.
You are mostly right about the megapixel thing: 6 MP will give you up to A3 in good quality prints, Some things that are nice about a surplus of MP's are the possibility of cropping the final print and the better colour rendering. The rest is a marketing hype.
 
jaapv said:
You are mostly right about the megapixel thing: 6 MP will give you up to A3 in good quality prints, Some things that are nice about a surplus of MP's are the possibility of cropping the final print and the better colour rendering. The rest is a marketing hype.

Definitely, I did not want to imply that more megapixels are not a nice thing to have, but there are other considerations that take precence for the RF user.

Indeed you can't crop a lot, but that just means that you have to compose it correctly when shooting (which is what we all try to do anyway)

For most of the non RF users a 10MP camera is 4MP better than a 6MP one no matter what.
 
fgianni said:
Well Foveon sensors are not monochromatic, but don't seem to offer huge advantagesover traditional CCDs or CMOS (you get indeed with a 3 MPixel Foveon sensor a picture quality similar to a 6 MP CMOS, but with similar cost and higher luminance noise)

Hello Francesco,

Indeed, I've tested the SD9 at the studio I was working at, when they first came out some years ago... I thought the results were remarkable for a 3.4Mp camera in the controlled studio conditions, and nearly as good as the then Nikon flagship 5.3Mp D1. Further test in various location shoots revealed the noise issues and we never bought the Sigmas.

The Foveon Cmos is certainly technically elegant, capitalizing on the variable depth penetration of the RGB spectrum into the silicon substrate of the pixel architecture... Unfortunately Silicon in itself is not the best conductor of light photons, tending to scatter and even absorb the photons, hence the less than ideal quantum efficiency of the Foveon sensor.

The other factor against it is the unfortunate higher than usual crop factor of 1:1.7x, if Foveon had followed the 1;1.5x crop factor, the sensor would automatically porvided 4Mp (or 12Mp in Foveon speak!) 🙄

Let's see what we get with the next generation of Foveon sensors in the up-coming Sigma SD10 replacement...

Warmly,
Kev
 
Kev T said:
Let's see what we get with the next generation of Foveon sensors in the up-coming Sigma SD10 replacement...

Warmly,
Kev

Upcoming new Foveon Senor?
Pah, humbug, next thing you'll tell me is Apple produces Intel based computers and Microsft gives access to source code 😀
 
Socke said:
Upcoming new Foveon Senor?
Pah, humbug, next thing you'll tell me is Apple produces Intel based computers and Microsft gives access to source code 😀

Hi Socke / Volker,

I don't really follow the progress of Foveon sensors nor Sigma's DSLRs, but either they both fold up the DSLR & sensor business, or they update the technology, its only logical to do so however slow they may be at gong at it.

They simply cannot afford to stagnate. Not in face of the progress by everyone-else still in the DSLR business. Especially with the Panasonic / Sony / Samsung Trinity and getting into the act now too.

BTW, I don't where you've been, but Apple PCs now ARE INTEL DRIVEN, AND CAN WORK ALMOST EQUALLY WELL WITH BOTH OSX & WIN XP. Go check it at Apple's website.

Cordially,
Kev
 
Kev T said:
BTW, I don't where you've been, but Apple PCs now ARE INTEL DRIVEN, AND CAN WORK ALMOST EQUALLY WELL WITH BOTH OSX & WIN XP. Go check it at Apple's website.

Cordially,
Kev

I know, I have one here, and access to some Windows Source code, too.

Working on porting an application from Mac OSX PPC to Max OSX Intel.

Edit:

The worst thing on the move from PPC to Intel was the choice of processors. Last year we ported lots of our stuff to 64bit and now we have to weed that out 🙁
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Socke said:
I know, I have one here, and access to some Windows Source code, too.

Working on porting an application from Mac OSX PPC to Max OSX Intel.

Edit:

The worst thing on the move from PPC to Intel was the choice of processors. Last year we ported lots of our stuff to 64bit and now we have to weed that out 🙁

Hi Socke,

I know, that's the thing that's keeping me away from the Intel Macs as we're still doing lot's of stuff with the G5 Dual 2.5Ghz, I'm also currently using Win XP 64 with an Acer Ferrari 4000 notebook, and for the life of me I wonder why the Intel can't keep the EM-64 function with the M dual-core CPUs... Is that too much to ask for? I don't know.

Perhaps Apple should keep Intel on their toes by including 1 model with AMD CPUs here and there. 🙂

Regards,
Kev
 
Kev T said:
and for the life of me I wonder why the Intel can't keep the EM-64 function with the M dual-core CPUs... Is that too much to ask for? I don't know.


Intel can, the Pentium D has dual core and 64bit extensions. Apple uses Intels notebook processors, probably to keep their computers as cool and quiet as possible.

AMD has the better memory throughput, that's something Intel is still working on.
I've heard about people running Mac OSX for Intel on AMD Athlon FX2 CPUs, even on Opteron based systems in VMWare virtual mashines 😉
 
Back
Top Bottom