New DRF's via rumour mill

Tom, do u think it will come with a EVF or Contax-G style optical viewfinder ? An EVF would kill the whole picture taking experience
 
Double Negative said:
I can agree with all of this. Leica has the most to gain in seeking a RF format camera that's full frame. It's their niche. Canon on the other hand, and even Nikon - I don't see the push as much except for "bragging rights" as mentioned earlier. For one thing, Leica has the reputation in the RF format and secondly, a ton of LTM/M mount lenses out there. Canon and Nikon have both been off the scene for some time and would need to come up with new lenses to go with their new baby.

The recent rumblings about the Micro 4/3rds format lenses is interesting for several reasons indeed. Personally, unless they move away from the current 2x crop factor of regular 4/3rds, I don't know that I'd really be interested. I've done the 1.6x thing, and it's not my thing (I lean towards wide angles) and am currently enjoying 1.3x as a reasonable compromise against FF. I'd love a FF DSLR but as also mentioned above, the file sizes are insane and the resolution is overkill - at least for MY needs, anyway. So 1.3x it is. The RF format is typically centered around wide-to-normal focal lengths, so the advantage of high crop factors would be somewhat lost here, IMO. While it's great for birders, it doesn't help wide angle junkies like myself.

My original point in this thread was just that it would suck in the sense that you'd have to buy into yet another lens system. Like I said earlier, I've already got M mount lenses, FD mount lenses, EF mount lenses... With a lot of focal lengths (e.g. 50mm) in all three! I don't care for a fourth. 😛
Click to expand...

We seem to agree pretty much on this -- a rarity on the internet when two people start out by expressing different viewpoints!

Cheers,

R.
 
I'd love to see a new dRF and would likely get one if:

1. Priced below Leica
2. M-mount or adapter available to use M-mount/LTM lenses.

Along with that, it would be exciting if someone developed a film canister w/ sensor that allowed to turn your film camera into a digital.
 
A lot of people will believe in anything without proof.

Bigfoot, the Earth is Flat, Intelligent Design, the infallibility of government's handling of your privacy, Josh Groban is a singer... oh, so many items, so little time.

😱

I will reconfirm my lack of confirmation announcing my run for President. Or not. Maybe.
 
hope cosina will release some adapters so we can use the old RF nikon and contax lens as well, that will be fun.

digital SP sounds, and looks, cool.
 
The comments about the immutability of the "physics" with respect to light fall-off in the corners of a larger sensor are fine and dandy, except that they rely on an unspoken set of assumptions:

1) that the sensor is flat
2) that the sensor is rigid

So how about a curved, flexible sensor:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/07/eye-shaped-camera-uses-curved-sensor/

Get the pixels small enough to be useful, and then the obvious next step: control the shape of the sensor with nano-actuators. Optimize the image for a particular lens and focus distance. Warp the sensor in ways that would make a view camera enthusiast green with envy. My guess is, commercial practicality is about 10-15 years off. Although by then, maybe glass lenses will be obsoleted by metamaterials, and we'll be measurebating over whose lenses have the more negative index of refraction.
 
ferider said:
(snip)
Meaning new sensors can have more bits per pixel. Increasing the dynamic range.
(snip)
Click to expand...
Bits per pixel determines the number of levels within the dynamic range. DR is a function of the sensor - the number of stops between zero signal and maximum white (blow out). They are not related.
 
JohnL said:
Bits per pixel determines the number of levels within the dynamic range. DR is a function of the sensor - the number of stops between zero signal and maximum white (blow out). They are not related.
Click to expand...

They are in an efficient sensor architecture. For cost reasons.

PS:

[GEEK ALERT]

- in signal processing, given a black box, its dynamic range (also the "signal/noise ratio") is the ratio of largest to smallest signal that can be processed. In analog systems measured in "deciBel (dB)", in digital systems measured in bits.
- in signal processing and information theory, #bits is only a unit to measure information quantity.
- if you look at the entire sensor chip as black box (light in, digital bus out), the sensors DR is indeed the #bits, including possible control bits used to add/subtract sensor gain. To be more precise, the #bits needed to represent all possible sensor outputs with a uniform binary code.
- if you split the sensor into image input device (for example CCD or CMOS transistors), A/D converter and digital output processing, the system better be balanced, with the input device, A/D converter and output logic having similar DR. Otherwise components of the architecture are either over or under-designed.

[/GEEK ALERT] 🙂
 
Last edited:
Jerry Thirsty said:
The comments about the immutability of the "physics" with respect to light fall-off in the corners of a larger sensor are fine and dandy, except that they rely on an unspoken set of assumptions:

1) that the sensor is flat
2) that the sensor is rigid

So how about a curved, flexible sensor:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/07/eye-shaped-camera-uses-curved-sensor/

Get the pixels small enough to be useful, and then the obvious next step: control the shape of the sensor with nano-actuators. Optimize the image for a particular lens and focus distance. Warp the sensor in ways that would make a view camera enthusiast green with envy. My guess is, commercial practicality is about 10-15 years off. Although by then, maybe glass lenses will be obsoleted by metamaterials, and we'll be measurebating over whose lenses have the more negative index of refraction.
Click to expand...

We've been here before. Sadly, this wouldn't work - M lenses direct light beams to focus on a flat sensor, ie film.

Yes, you could have curved sensors, but you would need lenses specifically designed for them - and defeat the point, namely of having a camera that works with the vast existing base of M and LTM lenses.
 
I think one solution for a DRF sensor is to use 2 APS-C sensors, rotated. You then get the coverage (and a bit more) of FF, can leverage existing peripherals and firmware, just need to add some plug-in values for vignetting with very wide lenses, or let uses do it in photoshop from the raw data depending on their lens and correction wanted on the edges. You can also get 2 half frame images per click, if you're running low on batteries or want to save file space, and not need to crop in photoshop later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom