Post Your Camera setup!

[VJ]

Originally posted by az
BTW, 35mm lenses cap out at ~11mp, where the 1Ds is at the moment - Oly claim 4/3 lenses have twice the resolution potential.

Couldn't higher resolution lenses be made in the 35mm standard ? (previously there was no need, but now there might start to appear a need....)

Oh, and yes, dSLRs likely have some electronic vignetting reduction, to compensate those effects to some extent. BTW, 4/3 lenses have all kinds of information stored in them (as well as user upgradable firmware in the cam, lens, and flash!), they tell the cam what kind of distortions they have (every lens has a little), which includes this info in the picture file, I think, so that software can autocorrect it with the optimal values for each lens.

The current Nikon D and G lenses have their own processor and also communicate with the body. Currently, this is mainly used for distance and exposure information (e.g. 3D matrix metering), but the result is that the camera knows what lens is connected. I don't think the lenses currently "state" their distortions, but I do know that not all the pins connecting the body and lens are used. So this still allows for a similar upgrade... But I think the attitude of Nikon is more "let's try to minimize the distortion in the lens, rather than solve any problems later in in-camera post-processing".
The light fall-off is dependent on the aperture, focal distance and perhaps some distance factor, but this information is currently present in NEF-files. I'm not 100% sure to what extent this information is taken into account in both the camera and software (the lenses I use have a large aperture (f/2.8), so it could be that the light fall-off compensation is not required... (I really should test this further)

Maybe the cam does some kind of correction itself, too, I don't know. Oh, and the lens info is used to adjust the flash zoom motor, etc.

Yes, the Nikons also do this. The flash knows to which focal distance the lens is set (I believe it also knows the subject distance).

Bottom line, this is a system designed for digital, with less compromises than existing dSLR systems, which are basically aSLRs with digital backs. Sad though that Oly didn't keep their ingenious prism system instead of the mirror they had in the previous E cams.. it allowed you to use both the LCD and view finder for preview, as with a conventional digicam with EVF (only that it was no EVF).

Personally, I can't shake the feeling that Olympus is now making a lot of commotion about certain features that are hidden but present in some DSLR cameras. Of course, there are some new features that might be interesting, but it just seems like re-inventing the wheel... It is a very brave step by Olympus, but I fear the lack of lenses 4/3 lenses might pose problems to convince buyers.

The prism had two major disadvantages: only half of the incoming light reached the imaging sensor (requiring this to be more sensitive, which in turn might impact the noise levels), but also only half of the light reached the viewfinder, resulting in a relatively dark viewfinder.


Jörg

[HedsSpaz]

I can't imagine this new system taking off unless this group gets either Canon or Nikon on board, preferably both. Canon and Nikon are both unlikely to do so as the risk of alienating millions of customers who currently have invested in traditional 35mm hardware would be far too great. I could see them possibly starting a companion line of camera's with a seperate series of lenses, but 35mm is not going to go away anytime soon regardless of the merits of a newer system. (Kodak advantix film anyone?)

Meanwhile, Olympus and other smaller camera companies have less to lose as they have a much smaller installed customer base. While a system of lenses designed to appriately handle the... nuances of a digital sensor would be nice, it's also nice to be able to pull a lense off your dslr an put it on a film slr in the event that you need to shoot film.

As an aside, Canon has release a dslr with a full frame sense, the 1Ds.

Ian

[az]

Originally posted by VJ
Couldn't higher resolution lenses be made in the 35mm standard ? (previously there was no need, but now there might start to appear a need....)

I don't know why, but I think I have read from several sources that that's not going to happen (I think the beams not coming right-angled have something to do with it, and I think it is not possible to construct 35mm lenses for APS- or full-frame sized sensors that have 100% parallel rays).

The current Nikon D and G lenses have their own processor and also communicate with the body. Currently, this is mainly used for distance and exposure information (e.g. 3D matrix metering), but the result is that the camera knows what lens is connected. I don't think the lenses currently "state" their distortions, but I do know that not all the pins connecting the body and lens are used. So this still allows for a similar upgrade... But I think the attitude of Nikon is more "let's try to minimize the distortion in the lens, rather than solve any problems later in in-camera post-processing".
The light fall-off is dependent on the aperture, focal distance and perhaps some distance factor, but this information is currently present in NEF-files. I'm not 100% sure to what extent this information is taken into account in both the camera and software (the lenses I use have a large aperture (f/2.8), so it could be that the light fall-off compensation is not required... (I really should test this further)

I think Olympus also don't produce lenses with a lot of distortion intentionally
If you're really interested about 4/3, there are good previews about the E-1 at both dpreview and steve's digicams. They both seem to like 4/3, so there has to be something to it. The dpreview guy even hinted that we should expect performance at least similar to current 6mp dSLRs from this 5mp one.

Personally, I can't shake the feeling that Olympus is now making a lot of commotion about certain features that are hidden but present in some DSLR cameras. Of course, there are some new features that might be interesting, but it just seems like re-inventing the wheel... It is a very brave step by Olympus, but I fear the lack of lenses 4/3 lenses might pose problems to convince buyers.

I think Olympus is the first to create a SLR for digital sensors, without compromises and 35mm film compatibility ballast, which is brave, and the right way to go in the long term IMHO. And of course they point out all good things they can

The prism had two major disadvantages: only half of the incoming light reached the imaging sensor (requiring this to be more sensitive, which in turn might impact the noise levels), but also only half of the light reached the viewfinder, resulting in a relatively dark viewfinder.

I understand the problem, but why don't they do this: All those dSLRs have mirror pre-lock-up, so the CCD is in the light path - you COULD use that for image preview like on a conventional digicam now. This, coupled with an automatic eye sensor on the viewfinder which flips the mirror up and down automatically, would be great. I would never buy a dSLR if I can't have preview on my LCD - one of the main advantages of digicams.

HeadsSpaz: Neither Nikon, nor Canon will ever jump on the 4/3 bandwagon. Nor Leica. MAYBE Minolta, since their lens mount is losing popularity (though they plan on releasing a dSLR later this year, 8mp I think). I don't think Sigma will, but maybe they'll produce 4/3 lenses. Fuji might change from using Nikon bodys to designing their own 4/3, or maybe using Oly OEM parts and their own SuperCCD.

AZ

[VJ]

Originally posted by az
I think Olympus also don't produce lenses with a lot of distortion intentionally

No, that wasn't what I meant. I just fear that - if they are not carefull - they could start to rely on the post-processing too much to correct lens distortions. After all, it most likely is a lot more expensive to make a lens with less distortions.

They both seem to like 4/3, so there has to be something to it. The dpreview guy even hinted that we should expect performance at least similar to current 6mp dSLRs from this 5mp one.

Yes, I also read it. Still the performance of the camera itself is not the same as e.g. the number of lenses available. Also, the dpreview guy (Phil ) has some questions regarding the price - allthough that can change later on.

I think Olympus is the first to create a SLR for digital sensors, without compromises and 35mm film compatibility ballast, which is brave, and the right way to go in the long term IMHO. And of course they point out all good things they can

Yes, of course. However, the large userbase of Nikon and Canon might be reluctant to change. This however doesn't mean the camera won't perform well, furthermore, it might indeed appeal to users that want a more advanced digicam (without having used SLR before).

I understand the problem, but why don't they do this: All those dSLRs have mirror pre-lock-up, so the CCD is in the light path - you COULD use that for image preview like on a conventional digicam now. This, coupled with an automatic eye sensor on the viewfinder which flips the mirror up and down automatically, would be great.

The imaging sensor used in DSLRs doesn't allow for this. Check out

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_01.htm

for the difference between "interline" and "full frame" - here this has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.

Then again, the Foveon sensor would allow this: its technology allows pixels to be grouped to form larger pixels (thus resulting in the entire chip to be used, but outputting a lower resolution; the framerate is dependant of this resolution).

However, the imaging sensor is not the only problem. In DSLRs, the AF sensor and eposure meter are located near the opposite end of the viewfinder (using a penta-prism). This means that light need to bounce of off the mirror in order to reach these components. With you suggestion, this is out of the question, and other AF and exposure technology would be needed. I do think that these other techniques are still not up to par regarding speed with the current techniques used in DSLRs.

I would never buy a dSLR if I can't have preview on my LCD - one of the main advantages of digicams.

Well, if your viewfinder is great, it doesn't matter that much. Not having to use the LCD has a number of advantages, e.g. in the sun (where the LCD might become more difficult to use) or regarding stability (it is not that easy to hold a camera perfectly still at arm distance); but also regarding battery autonomy (I can shoot about 700-1000 pictures on a single charge). There are of course some disadvantages (most important to me is that - with a foldable/rotating LCD you can shoot from difficult angles).

HeadsSpaz: Neither Nikon, nor Canon will ever jump on the 4/3 bandwagon. Nor Leica. MAYBE Minolta, since their lens mount is losing popularity (though they plan on releasing a dSLR later this year, 8mp I think).

There have been rumors about Pentax joining in with a DSLR. Perhaps they might consider the 4/3 system...


Jörg

[az]

Thanks for the info about dSLR sensors and AF/exposure meters

I don't think Olympus will become lazy because of their lenses knowing their distortion - I think this is not corrected automatically, but rather allows automatic correction at the push of one button in software.

The new Pentax dSLR is the *ist D (yes, including the asterisk, and yes, no one knows how to pronounce that name ), and it will have the Pentax K mount. Will be smaller than the current dSLRs though.

AZ

[VJ]

Oops, I had forgotten that Pentax already came out with that model... Guess 4/3s is out of the question for them.

Oh, some info on the pentaprism (not all SLRs use pentaprisms, but it comes down to a similar effect):

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLRs

Here is a cross-section of a Canon D30:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/page3.asp

The bottom comment is about a semi-transparent mirror that reflects the image onto the AF-sensor. I'm not sure how other manufacturers work, but I do know that they don't use the main CCD/CMOS sensor for focussing. I also know that the Nikon F5 (35mm analog) uses a 1005 pixel CCD for metering the exposure (it tries to identify the scene based on this low-resolution image and the distance information a D-lens provides: e.g. dark subject in front of light background, ...). I think this CCD is located somewhere along the pentaprism; if I'm not mistaken, even the D1x/h have this smaller CCD for metering the exposure.
(I have worked an F5, and I can confirm that its automatic exposure is always spot-on )

But of course: this is all thinking in terms of SLRs being designed as film cameras with an imaging sensor. Throwing away this concept might open the door for other approaches. I do have the impression that no manufacturer - at present - wants to go that far: their current AF-sensor, exposure meters, ... are proven technology and they don't seem very keen on throwing that knowledge away. (even the Olympus is relatively traditional in its layout, when it concerns the mirror, ... The previous model was in that respect more "advanced")


Jörg

[VJ]

Euhm, Az, do you think we pulled this thread way way waaaay of topic ?



Jörg

[az]

WEEEE? We NEVER pull digicam threads off topic

AZ

[mutz]

What was the topic?

Got lost in your dialogs...

[VJ]

Originally posted by az
WEEEE? We NEVER pull digicam threads off topic

I didn't think so either... just checking.


Jörg

[az]

AZ

[RedRed]

nokia 7650

Use Film for everything else....


I reckon I have taken more shots with the phone than the camera since I got the Phone - I allways have the phone to hand - not so the camera


I keep meeaning to buy a semi decent digital camera - but I havent got round to it yet......
RedRed

[VJ]

Well, that is actually an argument that one needs to consider: portability. If you have a small camera, chances are that when you go for a walk you'll just take it with you. When you have to carry around 1.5-2kg or more, you'll start having "regular walks" and "walks with the purpose of making pictures" (allthough I must say, after a while I just take my camera almost everywhere - except when going out or going into town).

This is a personal thing, but quite important.


Jörg

[GuchiGuh]

@az: your camera professional isnt it?

[az]

Nope - I'm a very crappy photographer (purely amateur), and only bought the cam I have for my ego, and because I'm a technology freak

AZ