50mm
Newbie
this is a test of posting
Nemo
Established
The bigger the sensor, the better the image quality, caeteris paribus,
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
Epson is working in a new rangefinder camera. See the last question of this interview:
http://www.zone-numerique.com/DetailTest.aspx?Testid=40&p=1
(it is in French).
Translation:
Indeed, we have already started working on the next one. We don't have a release date yet but we can say that if we, at Epson, are ending the production of compact digicams, we are definitely going for the digital rangefinder market.
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
Epson is working in a new rangefinder camera. See the last question of this interview:
http://www.zone-numerique.com/DetailTest.aspx?Testid=40&p=1
(it is in French).
Translation:
Indeed, we have already started working on the next one. We don't have a release date yet but we can say that if we, at Epson, are ending the production of compact digicams, we are definitely going for the digital rangefinder market.
R
RML
Guest
Nemo said:
Is it just me who finds this interesting?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Remy: I find it interesting as well. Also of interest will be the price.
iUser
Established
I doubt the next epson RF will be full frame.
nrb
Nuno Borges
Price of digital has been and is exceedingly excessive, anyway.
At least we should care not to buy twice... as it will happen when, sooner rather than later, the standard of sensors will become a 24 x 36 mm full frame.
Notwithstanding, the right price for digital technology is in fact a mere fraction of analogical. If you'll care to compare with, say, timekeeping devices...
Even single use digital cameras are being thought out now.
At least we should care not to buy twice... as it will happen when, sooner rather than later, the standard of sensors will become a 24 x 36 mm full frame.
Notwithstanding, the right price for digital technology is in fact a mere fraction of analogical. If you'll care to compare with, say, timekeeping devices...
Even single use digital cameras are being thought out now.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
What I think is more likely to happen is that the notion that 24 x 36mm is a magical dimension that somehow defines "full" frame will become technologically obsolete, as did the notion of describing camera formats by "full plate," "half plate", and "quarter plate."
Most people entering the photography marketplace now are doing so either via camera phones or low-end digital cameras. Telling those people that they need a camera with a 24x36mm sensor because that was a popular size back in the olden days of film is not going to make sense to them.
Most people entering the photography marketplace now are doing so either via camera phones or low-end digital cameras. Telling those people that they need a camera with a 24x36mm sensor because that was a popular size back in the olden days of film is not going to make sense to them.
pfogle
Well-known
there's a lot of discussion around re the legacy image sizes, and the appropriate lenses.jlw said:
I think an interesting analogy is with movie film - started out 100 years ago or so with the 18x24mm format (which gave rise to the leica 24x36mm as an exposure testing body using two movie frames at a time) and persisted for many years.
So what interests me is, are the modern lenses on CCD movie cameras (I'm talking here about the pro ones for feature films) still made in focal lengths that were originally designed for 18x36? If so, by analogy one might suspect that the inertia of the 24x36 format may mean that it's around for a long time. Just a guess, of course...
nrb
Nuno Borges
Question is the Summicrons and Summiluxes and all the other great lenses will be suddenly out of their old jobs. On the dole will also be the rangefinder system where they fit.
And we all in this RFF will mourn their demise...
And we all in this RFF will mourn their demise...
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
nrb said:
Nah, 50s make great portrait/moderate tele lenses on a DX-format sensor, and 35s make nice "normal" lenses. So these great old optics won't be out of a job, they'll be gainfully employed in a new position!
aizan
Veteran
your 90mm might be out of a job, but then you could trade that in for a wide.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
aizan said:
If you don't mind using an accessory finder, your 90 can stay gainfully employed on a DX-format camera. You just need to find a 135mm viewfinder, still fairly common.
The attached photo of some tired dancers after a rehearsal is one I shot last month using an 85mm f/1.5 Canon lens on an R-D 1 with a Komura 135 brightline finder (very nice finder, if you can, er, find one.) I was quite a distance from the stage (maybe 50 feet???) so needed a bit more "reach" than I would have gotten with the 50mm lens I normally use for stage photography. An 85 or 90 gives considerably more magnification, but isn't too unwieldy to use.
nrb
Nuno Borges
When 24 x 36 full frame rangefinders will become obsolete, I hope that at least its accessories won't.
Last edited:
MarkM6
Established
I am a bit confused.
I am a bit confused.
I am a bit confused.
Are you saying that the sensors will get larger than the "full frame"? Or that they might even get smaller, or such as the "DX" format can become a new standard?
Aren't the major manufacturers of the sensors are trying hard to develop the sensors that meet the capabilities of the lenses and not the other way around? For the sake of Photography let the lenses be the dictator of the sensor technology.
Knowing that the good ole Sony manufactures Nikon's DX format, sensors, (correct me if I am wrong) I can't help but recall the infamous Sony-formats; the Betamax, MiniDisc and that memory stick. And I am watching the DX format joins that list.
And how many Nikon lenses are "designed" for the DX format; 7, according to the website.
Do we really think Nikon (and Sony) will continue the DX format?
I am a bit confused.
jlw said:
I am a bit confused.
Are you saying that the sensors will get larger than the "full frame"? Or that they might even get smaller, or such as the "DX" format can become a new standard?
Aren't the major manufacturers of the sensors are trying hard to develop the sensors that meet the capabilities of the lenses and not the other way around? For the sake of Photography let the lenses be the dictator of the sensor technology.
Knowing that the good ole Sony manufactures Nikon's DX format, sensors, (correct me if I am wrong) I can't help but recall the infamous Sony-formats; the Betamax, MiniDisc and that memory stick. And I am watching the DX format joins that list.
And how many Nikon lenses are "designed" for the DX format; 7, according to the website.
Do we really think Nikon (and Sony) will continue the DX format?
R
RML
Guest
What is the DX format? APS-C perhaps?
I don't think Canon makes the Nikon sensors, and if they do they should use those Nikon sensors themselves. I find the image quality of my R-D1 leagues ahead of that of my Eos 300D.
I don't think Canon makes the Nikon sensors, and if they do they should use those Nikon sensors themselves. I find the image quality of my R-D1 leagues ahead of that of my Eos 300D.
pfogle
Well-known
RML said:
As far as I know, the R-D1 uses the same chip as the Nikon D100, a CCD made by Sony.
Canon make their own sensors in house, and now mostly use CMOS technology.
Their qualities are different, reflecting the underlying technology, but whether one is better than the other seems to be largely a matter of personal taste.
To my eye, the CCD gives a more 35mm film-like quality, while the CMOS tends to be smoother toned, rather like medium format. So I tend to use the R-D1 where I might once have used a Leica (b/w, 35mm) and the Canon for studio and tripod work.
Others will have different opinions, I'm sure.
MarkM6
Established
pfogle said:
One word came to me; grainy. Especially at higher ISO speeds. But it is not a disadventage.
CCD or CMOS may be another can of worms but whoever gets to the "full frame" that meets the demand of fast wide lenses will win the Pro market.
I was looking at the Canon 5D last week and their "plastic" feel reminds me that this is a piece of electronics. What it counts is all inside.
Nikon cameras and their lenses with textured paint feels like a quality pieces. Then I saw "Made in XXXXXXXXXX" Yup, I've not guessed it that only a few are now made in Japan.
pfogle
Well-known
There is a difference between grain and noise... grain is clumpy, so it has a sort of fractal quality - for instance with a film like tri-x and pushed development, you can get lots of grain in the areas of smooth tone, while getting lots of sharp detail and little grain in the detailed areas, if you get my point.
Noise, on the other hand, is random - it affects large tone areas and detailed areas equally. So a noisy digital image may look like grain superficially, but you don't get that nice acutance (sharp, contrasty detail) that you get with film.
I don't know any way to emulate this digitally - maybe someone else has some ideas on this? Perhaps, like the dynamic range issue, this is one of those areas where the non-linear nature of film just can't be copied in digital media. Any thoughts?
Noise, on the other hand, is random - it affects large tone areas and detailed areas equally. So a noisy digital image may look like grain superficially, but you don't get that nice acutance (sharp, contrasty detail) that you get with film.
I don't know any way to emulate this digitally - maybe someone else has some ideas on this? Perhaps, like the dynamic range issue, this is one of those areas where the non-linear nature of film just can't be copied in digital media. Any thoughts?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
MarkM6 said:I am a bit confused.
"DX" is what Nikon calls their APS-C sensor size. Every Nikon DSLR to date has used this size sensor, so it seems reasonable to say that Nikon has "standardized" on it. (Of course, any such standard is subject to later change.)
Sensor manufacturers, in my interpretation, aren't particularly struggling to catch up to lens quality, or film quality, or anything else. They're just trying to build products that the public will buy. The public has overwhelmingly "voted with its wallet" that it doesn't give a hoot [not OUR Hoot] about sensor size, as long as the camera takes what the user considers to be good pictures. Since many users are perfectly satisfied with the pictures they get from (yuck!) camera phones, this obviously is a very elastic standard!
The only people who do care a lot about having a 24x36mm sensor are people who already have collections of wide-angle lenses for their 35mm systems. That group of people is significant in size, and they're certainly vocal, but their numbers are dwarfed by the number of people to whom this factor is irrelevant -- which includes not only most present-day photographers, but people in emerging markets who have never owned an interchangeable-lens camera (or in many cases any camera at all.)
That's why I feel that the 24x36mm-sensor segment is never going to be anything more than a short-term niche market, although the people who fill that niche certainly deserve consideration.
VinceC
Veteran
Seems like something of a dilemma here. Some folks would prefer a full-frame sensor so they don't have to buy a new wide-angle lens, but the cost of that larger sensor would likely approach the cost of a new wide-angle lens.
An advantage of the smaller sensor is that you could compromise on the quality of the new wide-angle. Many economical lenses fall apart on the edges but are quite useable in the center of the frame. A smaller sensor effectively crops out the soft edges and keeps the sharp mid-sections. Sounds like there would be a good market for a faster CV 15mm dedicated to the smaller sensor size.
An advantage of the smaller sensor is that you could compromise on the quality of the new wide-angle. Many economical lenses fall apart on the edges but are quite useable in the center of the frame. A smaller sensor effectively crops out the soft edges and keeps the sharp mid-sections. Sounds like there would be a good market for a faster CV 15mm dedicated to the smaller sensor size.