Small Digital Sensors

[NickTrop]

It was funny the first time you posted it. Kind of. Now it's not.

Hey, the Three Stooges made a career out of recycling "kinda funny" bits - for decades. Think of it as a "catch phrase" like Dyn-o-mite! Or "Oh no, Mr. Bill!!!" or "Doh"! Or "Aaaaay!" (Fonz/Happy Days), or "Ooooo Scarry"(SCTV, Count Floyd)...

 

[bmattock]

Hey, the Three Stooges made a career out of recycling "kinda funny" bits - for decades. Think of it as a "catch phrase" like Dyn-o-mite! Or "Oh no, Mr. Bill!!!" or "Doh"! Or "Aaaaay!" (Fonz/Happy Days), or "Ooooo Scarry"(SCTV, Count Floyd)...

But those were all said by funny people. Kind of.

 

[keithwms]

I have regained my aplomb.

Let me suggest stepping back from the keyboard and monitor for a day before dissecting another member's contribution line by line, it gives perspective.

Now, I will speak for myself only:

I have nothing but contempt for the idea that there are smart people using real gear and then there are the writhing masses using low-end p&s cameras, killing "real" photography with each mindless click. That kind of elitism just flies in the face of everything that I know and love about photography.

I could, and occasionally do, take the view that because of my experience, I have a bit broader perspective than some on the 'net. I have worked with students who've never touched anything but a digital p&s, and I have worked aorund people off in ULF land. To me, they are exactly the same photographer. The gear is just a thing.

My experience is that any gear can turn a person to serious photography. Any gear. For me, it was a trip up through Norway, the first time by myself, just a teen with a rail-pass, a bag of throwaway cameras, and no clear photographic intention whatsoever. I came back from that trip understanding, at least in my own thinking, what photography is all about. When you have that kind of experience - and I'm sure many here have - it becomes crystal clear who gets it and who doesn't.

Now how might the elitist regard that teen adventure? Silly fool, went off to Norway with sh*t cameras, couldn't possibly have gotten anything worth keeping... should have had an M7.

Needless to say, that kind of elitism is just totally contrary to my own thinking. For me, photography is all about discovering the scene, and gradually finding better ways to connect to it. Just like Henri, we all start by exploring new possibilities, we are all beginners.

There, now I have said my piece in a calm and clear way, I have the right to leave the thread.

 

[bmattock]

I have regained my aplomb.

I'm not a fan of plombs. I like bananas. However, I'm glad you found yours.

Let me suggest stepping back from the keyboard and monitor for a day before dissecting another member's contribution line by line, it gives perspective.

Thus spaketh the perfesser.

Now, I will speak for myself only:

So, no voices in the head?

I have nothing but contempt for the idea that there are smart people using real gear and then there are the writhing masses using low-end p&s cameras, killing "real" photography with each mindless click. That kind of elitism just flies in the face of everything that I know and love about photography.

You put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about the "writhing masses" doing anything naughty to "'real' photography."

It is not elitism to recognize that the majority of people on this planet who use cameras prefer them small and simple. Furthermore, simple sales trends seem to confirm that when presented a choice between image quality and size/price, they go with the latter nearly every time.

They are, however, not 'killing photography'. They're simply not practicing the form of it that you and I might prefer. They are taking snapshots of the kids around the tree at Christmas, school plays, Halloween costumes, and the occasional wife-in-the-bikini shot on holiday.

This is not wrong, and I don't condemn them for it. I point out that they want what they want, and 'good photogrpahy' isn't it.

Getting more to the O/P's point, I said that in my opinion, large sensors will not become more prevalent (and cheaper due to that) because of the advantages that larger sensors present, none are attractive to the hoi polloi. It might have been the case when a larger sensor was the only way to obtain low noise at higher ISO's, but this appears to be either defeated or well on its way to being defeated by Kodak's latest cell phone camera sensor.

I could, and occasionally do, take the view that because of my experience, I have a bit broader perspective than some on the 'net. I have worked with students who've never touched anything but a digital p&s, and I have worked aorund people off in ULF land. To me, they are exactly the same photographer. The gear is just a thing.

You work, sir, with students in an academic environment. That is no 'broad experience'. I have worked all around the world, in the real world, with people of every economic strata, and I have experienced a number of them myself. From my time in the military to my time in law enforcement, not to mention my time as a consultant in the IT industry. I have worked with the rich, and I have worked with the poor. Educated and non-educated. In addition, all my relations on my side of my family are largely rednecks and proud of it. All my relations on my wife's side are school teachers and religious leaders. I've got a photograph of myself with Ed Koch in tuxedos, and I've had dinner in a house in the Philippines made of cardboard c-ration cartons. Perhaps you can tell me more of this extensive broad perspective you seem to have obtained while ensconced in the halls of academia.

I have met 'the people'. And they are mostly in need of soap.

My experience is that any gear can turn a person to serious photography. Any gear. For me, it was a trip up through Norway, the first time by myself, just a teen with a rail-pass, a bag of throwaway cameras, and no clear photographic intention whatsoever. I came back from that trip understanding, at least in my own thinking, what photography is all about. When you have that kind of experience - and I'm sure many here have - it becomes crystal clear who gets it and who doesn't.

I don't dispute that. My first camera was a Diana, given me by my father - he had a darkroom and helped me develop the negs and print them.

However, I still say that 99.99% of the camera-using world doesn't 'get it' when it comes to photography. To them, a 'picture' is just that - a memory of an event that means something to them. It does not have to be great art, it does not have to be high-quality, and it does not even have to be in focus. You can chop off heads, have trees growing out of your subject's shoulders, be grouped uncomfortably around the Christmas tree in your pyjamas and everybody has red eye, but the important thing to the people who take those photos is that they know who these people are and it means something to them. A bigger sensor - less DoF - sharper focus - these are meaningless concepts to them.

Now how might the elitist regard that teen adventure? Silly fool, went off to Norway with sh*t cameras, couldn't possibly have gotten anything worth keeping... should have had an M7.

Not I - I haven't a Leica anything. Oh wait, I have a Hektor 135 in LTM, but I don't really use it.

Needless to say, that kind of elitism is just totally contrary to my own thinking. For me, photography is all about discovering the scene, and gradually finding better ways to connect to it. Just like Henri, we all start by exploring new possibilities, we are all beginners.

Again, I find it hard to disagree. My only counterpoint would be that your 'we' is a very small subset of the number of people who use cameras.

There, now I have said my piece in a calm and clear way, I have the right to leave the thread.

You always did. I just mocked you for fun because I enjoyed your puffery. We can also talk like adults, your choice.

 

[keithwms]

Perhaps you can tell me more of this extensive broad perspective you seem to have obtained while ensconced in the halls of academia.

I have met 'the people'. And they are mostly in need of soap.

As you wish.

I am 36 and spent the first half of my life in Africa, where my parents worked helping people with literacy classes and medicine. My father gave up journalism to go on this mission, and though he had a yashica tlr on "the field", we couldn't afford film for it in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) during the war and there was no processing except in Johannesburg, which was a long trek away that could be reached only by military convoy across the Limpopo. Everything was rationed in Rhodesia, even toilet paper. And so as a kid, I merely played with the tlr and my first 'real' camera was a throwaway many years later, as I mentioned.

Not that I regard it as a credential, but I got my books in the mail and taught myself well enough to have a reasonable shot at academia in the U.S. Where I am, as you put it, "ensconced."

Now, some photographers I know were born with a gold-plated camera in their hands. That doesn't mean they cannot become wonderful photographers. Likewise an African kid with polaroids and throwaways can too. The fact is that it is equally task for both of them to find real vision.

Your turn, dissect away. Tell me again how limited my view is.

 

[bmattock]

Now, some photographers I know were born with a gold-plated camera in their hands. That doesn't mean they cannot become wonderful photographers. Likewise an African kid with polaroids and throwaways can too. The fact is that it is equally task for both of them to find real vision.

Your turn, dissect away. Tell me again how limited my view is.

I find nothing wrong with that view. I agree with it. HCB was from a wealthy family. I recently read about a photographer from Africa who shot in the 1950's and 1960's as a village environmental portrait photographer on 5x7, buried his negatives in a tin in his backyard when photographer became anti-government, and in the last years of his life, was 'discovered' and became the toast of NYC - I am sorry to say I have forgotten his name at the moment.

You continue to take issue with things I have not said.

I don't think you are hearing what I am saying - or you don't want to. I do not denigrate anyone's innate ability to learn photography if they wish to. I'm an autodidact too, I used to buy out-of-date high school text books at nickel sales and bring them home in my red wagon - that was my idea of fun growing up.

What I have said about your limited view is that you simply do not seem to grasp the concept that most people DO NOT WANT to learn photography, to explore it as an art, craft, or hobby, nor are they particularly interested in any of the benefits that larger sensors bring. They don't care.

I'm not saying THEY CANNOT. I am saying THEY DO NOT WANT TO. This concept seems simple to me - and very clear and easy to understand by looking around you. If you can't or won't see that, I can only presume you are either incredibly isolated from the world, or you just don't want to see it.

And I do not criticize them for not caring - they want what they want, that's mostly Bud Light, the ball game on the big screen, and an SUV in the driveway. That's life, that's how it goes.

But marketers sell things to people based on what they seem to want - and manufacturers make things to cater to those needs. Cheap digicams outsell high-end manual-control capable cameras by hundreds or thousands to one for a very good reason - most people don't want the latter.

 

[antiquark]

What is the argument here anyway? That most people don't care about quality photography, therefore, quality cameras will vanish? Sounds like a specious argument to me.

 

[bmattock]

What is the argument here anyway? That most people don't care about quality photography, therefore, quality cameras will vanish? Sounds like a specious argument to me.

It would be, if that were the argument.

The argument has been that people desire higher-quality photos than they currently get, therefore things that permit those 'out-of-focus background' such as larger sensors will become more popular and subsequently drop in price.

I argue the opposite - that most people do not care about quality cameras or quality photographs. This will not cause quality cameras to vanish - but neither will they become commodity items. People won't be rushing to buy the newer and cheaper dSLR cameras because they do not want them. They want cheap, they want simple, and they want small. Cell phone cameras are small, simple, and cheap. dSLRs, no matter how small they get, won't compete with that.

EDIT: And as an aside, sonofdanang, I agree with your entire statement above.

 

[keithwms]

Cell phone cameras are small, simple, and cheap. dSLRs, no matter how small they get, won't compete with that.

Finally something we agree on.

But note, this thread was not specifically about dSLRs, nor does it need to be. It's a much broader issue of sensor size and what has kept larger sensors from coming to the shelf sooner.

N.b. please also refer to my recent thread about RFs being the future, in which I speculated about a necessary disappearance of reflex mirrors and, as I recall, you agreed with my basic points.

One more point on that somewhat OT area... look, the research I do and that is done at most camera companies is indirectly funded by revenue generated from purchases made by your average Joe Consumer. It's not like a bunch of sensor wonks congregate in a lab and decide they're going to build a bigger a six-million-dollar-sensor just because they have the technology. Defect tolerance and basic physics are the issues here, and negotiating that tortuous r&d path costs a lot of money.

Case in point: Fuji is still generating enormous revenue from the sale of film-loaded throwaways... still. Do you think they could have pressed ahead with their S/R and other programmes if they didn't have that revenue base? That is how they remained profitable for the last 5 years and were able to generate enough revenue to embark on new research. I think it can be argued that Fuji's film sector is being kept alive by that low-end market, and their digital sector probably is too. There are all kinds of technology spinoffs of their film sector, e.g. the new privacy screen technology found in laptops. R&D costs money, the money comes from revenue... even the Federal R&D money derives ultimately from consumer spending.

 

[bmattock]

Finally something we agree on.

But note, this thread was not specifically about dSLRs, nor does it need to be. It's a much broader issue of sensor size and what has kept larger sensors from coming to the shelf sooner.

N.b. please also refer to my recent thread about RFs being the future, in which I speculated about a necessary disappearance of reflex mirrors and, as I recall, you agreed with my basic points.

One more point on that somewhat OT area... look, the research I do and that is done at most camera companies is indirectly funded by revenue generated from purchases made by your average Joe Consumer. It's not like a bunch of sensor wonks congregate in a lab and decide they're going to build a bigger a six-million-dollar-sensor just because they have the technology. Defect tolerance and basic physics are the issues here, and negotiating that tortuous r&d path costs a lot of money.

Case in point: Fuji is still generating enormous revenue from the sale of film-loaded throwaways... still. Do you think they could have pressed ahead with their S/R and other programmes if they didn't have that revenue base? That is how they remained profitable for the last 5 years and were able to generate enough revenue to embark on new research. I think it can be argued that Fuji's film sector is being kept alive by that low-end market, and their digital sector probably is too. There are all kinds of technology spinoffs of their film sector, e.g. the new privacy screen technology found in laptops. R&D costs money, the money comes from revenue... even the Federal R&D money derives ultimately from consumer spending.

Still very little for me to disagree with here. We still disagree, it seems, on large format sensors coming to a cheap digicam near you soon, and the reasons why.

As to the funding, design, and what the future has to offer - not only do I believe you have a better handle on that than I, due to your work in the industry, but I agree that low-end sales pay for high-end R&D - the benefits of which supposedly trickle down to the masses in their cheap-n-cheerful digicams.

We only disagree, it seems, on the coming ubiquity of large sensors in small digicams. Technical difficulties aside, I don't think Joe Sixpack wants one, it gives him no benefit from his (limited) point of view.

 

[keithwms]

We only disagree, it seems, on the coming ubiquity of large sensors in small digicams. Technical difficulties aside, I don't think Joe Sixpack wants one, it gives him no benefit from his (limited) point of view.

Okay, fair enough. Then my final point will be that it doesn't really matter if Joe Sixpack thinks he needs/wants to buy larger sensors: he will eventually buy them regardless. Joe Sixpack has bought HDTV, GPS, cell phones, ipods, PDAs, laptops, and a whole lot of other unnecessary but cute technology that's out there.

[One of my biggest concerns about the direction of new technology is just how fundamentally unnecessary it is for survival... which, I worry, moves our whole consumer economy further away from sound fundamentals. Agriculture is vital for our survival; ipods - not so much. Are we going to be buying corn from China in the future? But I digress.]

Listen, I think the segway is a dumb implement, but Joe Sixpack will be running us over with them before long, just you wait!

A slightly different spin on the situation: it is our role as brilliant and skilled photographers <ahem> to show the consumer what we can do. We don't like to think of ourselves as a cog in a big mass-marketing machine, but... if we like our medium, whether digital or film, we have to fight to keep companies and their r&d afloat. It's not enough any more to be aloof and say, gee, I have a good camera; it's all I need; I am happy. Joe Sixpack and his consumer dollars are going on a wild ride, we're just holding on.

 

[bmattock]

Okay, fair enough. Then my final point will be that it doesn't really matter if Joe Sixpack thinks he needs/wants to buy larger sensors: he will eventually buy them regardless. Joe Sixpack has bought HDTV, GPS, cell phones, ipods, PDAs, laptops, and a whole lot of other unnecessary but cute technology that's out there.

I don't believe Joe will be offered digital cameras with larger sensors. As you've noted, he buys iPods. He is told what makes a TV good, and he buys that. He doesn't understand it, really, nor does he want to. In digital cameras, he is told by the marketing wonks that megapixels are good. More of them are better. So what do we see? The megapixel war continues. Oh, the pundits have announced it is over, but the truth is, we've just reached max density for a short amount of time. New tech breakthroughs will put more and more pixels onto the same tiny sensor, and it will sell because now that the 'more is better' meme has been implanted, Joe wants that.

Meanwhile, the marketing wonks have been hard at work trying to get Joe interested in some other aspects of digital cameras to make him want this year's model and discard last year's as trash. Face-recognition technology, oh boy. High zoom. Image stabilization - note that some are true optical or sensor shift technologies, and others just up the ISO to avoid hand-shake-induced fuzzy pics. And as always - proprietary batteries get redesigned every year, so last year's model soon won't have batteries available for it, and when it won't take a charge, you HAVE to buy the model. But I digress.

Nowhere in all this is the need for a large sensor, nor is it being pitched by the marketing types. You have to paw through the tech specs to even find the sensor size. As I've said - it MIGHT have been destined for the consumer market anyway a few months ago - because large sensors provide a number of benefits, and one of the side-bennies is low noise at higher ISO. This could have played well in a consumer digicam, but now Kodak has an even smaller sensor that has low noise, so oh well for that.

Look at the market reaction to cameras like the GR digital. I heard people complaining that it had no zoom. They didn't grok why you would not want a camera with zoom. The DP-1 has no zoom. It will likewise fail to be a big runaway hit with the stocking-stuffer crowd at Christmas time.

We get it - we understand the purpose of specialized cameras like the GR digital and the DP-1 (even if we don't agree with or want one, at least we know what market they're trying to serve).

I submit that if the DP-1 was sold for $150 and placed on Wal-Mart shelves, it would still fail to be a big seller. No zoom, no sexy TV ad campaign, no zoom, no anti-shake technology, no zoom, and a body as ugly as homemade soap. Oh, and no zoom. They don't want it. The sensor size never enters into it.

[One of my biggest concerns about the direction of new technology is just how fundamentally unnecessary it is for survival... which, I worry, moves our whole consumer economy further away from sound fundamentals. Agriculture is vital for our survival; ipods - not so much. Are we going to be buying corn from China in the future? But I digress.]

You and I might be able to share a beer or two over that one. I tried to reason with the numbskulls who thought fuel from corn was a good idea when corn is a zero sum game, but they didn't listen, and now food prices are going up due to corn shortages...duh. I think lack of genetic diversity in our food chain (GMO's) are terribly stupid and short-sighted, as we'll find out when one new mutant bacteria or virus wipes all our corn (or wheat, or soy, etc) crop in one fell swoop, because they're all genetically the same. We won't put up with irradiated food that would cut our food poisoning problems by 90%, but we've already had GMO escapes into the wild, and we just shrug - oh well, it's probably safe. God, we're a pack of morons.

Listen, I think the segway is a dumb implement, but Joe Sixpack will be running us over with them before long, just you wait!

Now you sound like me. But I don't think it will be Segways. I think it will be those little golf-cart devices at Wal-Mart put there for the use of the people who are so incredibly obese that they cannot walk anymore. Note how many of them there are on your next trip, if you can bring yourself to go to one.

A slightly different spin on the situation: it is our role as brilliant and skilled photographers <ahem> to show the consumer what we can do. We don't like to think of ourselves as a cog in a big mass-marketing machine, but... if we like our medium, whether digital or film, we have to fight to keep companies and their r&d afloat. It's not enough any more to be aloof and say, gee, I have a good camera; it's all I need; I am happy. Joe Sixpack and his consumer dollars are going on a wild ride, we're just holding on.

Looks like we've reached a state of agreement at last. Yes, some will rise out of the primordial ooze of "Married with Children" or whatever the hit du jour is on TV these days, and see a well-executed photograph and wonder if they could do something like that.

I am fully aware that if I had stayed where I was raised, among my friends and relations, I'd be running a Ditch Witch for a living and thinking that having an extra fridge on the back porch for my Pabst Blue Ribbon was pretty much living high too. I just got lucky.

 

[kuzano]

Sensor size, rangefinders and the M8

Sensor size, rangefinders and the M8

Look folks, I do not intend from now on to malign the M8 in any way. It's just another consumer choice in a specialized market.

However, the copy I intend to post here is a fairly straight forward explanation of why Leica made the sensor size choice that they did and why the rangefinder manufacturers will quite likely rely more on crop sensor and small sensor development, rather than spin their wheels on a full frame rangefinder camera.

This report was the Dpreview.com full review of the M8. Whether you like the report or refuse to read it, there is one clear passage on why Leica did not, (and may never) pursue a full frame sensor. Here is the passage:

"Because a rangefinder camera doesn't have a mirror box doesn't need to use retrofocus lenses, meaning they sit much closer to the film (or in this case the sensor). The problem with this comes with wide angle lenses (which are pretty much the main staple of the rangefinder camera). Towards the corner of the frame the angle of incidence of light coming from the rear of the lens is so severely off-perpendicular that they would not pass equally through the microlenses above the sensor leading to fairly strong vignetting. Even a modest wide angle lens at this kind of distance could produce a difference of a stop or two between the center of the frame and the edges using a standard CCD sensor.
Leica, obviously keen to solve this problem, took a three pronged approach with the M8:

1. Don't use a full frame sensor - at this time it would be cost prohibitive and too complex to produce a sensor which can cover the entire 36x24 mm frame and still work with rangefinder lenses. For this reason the M8's sensor measures 27x18 mm (or 1.33x crop).
2. Use offset microlenses - instead of placing all microlenses directly over the photodiode they are gradually offset as you get closer to the edge of the frame (see below).
3. Know which lens is being used and apply some software correction - all new M series lenses now carry a six-bit code which allows the M8 to identify which lens is used and (optionally) apply a 'final stage' software based vignetting correction (for RAW images the lens used is simply recorded, no change is made).

Below is a diagram provided by Leica which does some way to explaining how microlenses at the edge of the frame are offset from the photodiode below them, compared to a normal microlens / photodiode combination in the center of the frame."

I think this speaks to the need to continue to develop the smaller sensors and relegate the full frame sensors to very sizable cameras, wherein these lens shortcomings do not dictate small sensors.

The link to the whole review is here:


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/

This review has been online at Dpreview for almost a year.