Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: where does it fit?  (Read 7906 times)
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 688


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2010, 04:58:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Please, correct me if I did not completely understood this new concept, but the proposed solution to avoid changing your camera when a new sensor technology arises is... change all your lenses; sorry? This does not make any sense at all! A sensor is just a chip, and a camera us mostly electronics and some mechanics; a lens is pure optics. There is a "logical" bond between the camera and the sensor, but the lens lives in another completely unrelated world. An interchangeable sensors could be something interesting, but I do not see the point in having on binned to each lens.

In my humble opinion, this looks to me as a desperate attempt to present something different (but not necessarily better) to the market.
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2010, 05:21:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Am I the only photographer who still believes in the single, great shot?

Rob C

No, you are not alone, Rob. I've been looking for it for the past 50 years. I'm still hoping  

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2010, 05:41:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Edu,
of course the Ricoh solution is completly silly not allowing lens mount. If so, that would have been another story.
As it is, this Ricoh is nothing more than another gadget, although very competent.
But the point is that they show that this technology is available right now, and can be properly implement in a better design.

Rob,
I come from another generation where I grew-up with film and came back to photography with digital. I love digital but certainly not spending my all life in post-production, or accumulating softwares, and learning each year the last printing profiles or whatever new fashionable tech. That just drive me nuts and I simply avoid it.
My position is sharp clear about that: prints are for printers, PP are for techs and designers. This means that I always prefer to trust somebody's knowledge (delegate) and concentrate on my task. This is true with film or digital in my approach. Others will love to take care of the all process and will think that they can not delegate. That's fine.
Just supervise the work, decide everything but  listening to the printer opinion-experience or any person involved in the chain. Time saving, better results and peace of mind (and work for others).

No doubt that if I grow up in photography I'll have "50" assistants for any kind of task because it's just the way I am and I want to work.
I'm not interested a second in color profiles, computer sofwares and even camera specs. Technicaly speaking, I'm just interested in the handling and design. Point. I'm totally useless in technical aspects out of the shooting, I do not even know most of the tech posts here about color profiles or whatever exotic technology.

That's why I tend to "minimalist" cameras in the style of the Contax 645. Hate loosing time with multi-task tech. Just feel like a cat in the water.
Now I'm doing my PP myself but I reach a point where I won't, in a way or another. In fact I simply hate all the circus that has come with digital, as I hated the darkroom. (it's not that I hate it literally, I simply feel that it is someone else's task, not mine). Oh, and I also hate the medium sensor's files.
Got a guy in the country who's doing large prints with special paper and a lab here for huge sizes and I can ask them whatever I need to know etc...
No hassle. Professionals, you pay them for that.

The only real thing where I'm interested in is the viewfinder, composing and pressing the button. Visualising the artwork and finally give to others the production tasks.

So yes, The contax 645, or the H 500 are pretty much in my philosophy, as the single great shot.

When I started again with digital, I was shooting like crazy, very excited about the unlimited options, the sofwares etc...Now I just hate that path.
I shoot less and less, I've erased 90% of all my pics, made room in my hard drives and I'm looking to work more and more with MF LF because of the different approach, lets say more contemplative.
Even in my street attempts, I'm trying to shoot less and see more.
When I'm back in the studio, I don't have to handle with 500 shots of the day and when I just made 10 or 20 I just feel happy.

Passed from C1 to LR because of C1 unstability, in fact I hate these things. I almost do not use these software any more, I just devellop the raws directly in Photoshop. Don't even shoot jpegs any more. As CBarett says here: Less is more.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 07:00:47 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2010, 07:44:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Passed from C1 to LR because of C1 unstability, in fact I hate these things. I almost do not use these software any more, I just devellop the raws directly in Photoshop. Don't even shoot jpegs any more. As CBarett says here: Less is more.

Cheers.



Fred

Caramba! That's what I used to do too, getting into it directly from the card reader and Nikon software that I needed in order to make NEFs readable by Photoshop. Then, mocked by my fellows, I decided to try using other ways, and since I don't process the same files twice, I can't really say if it is any better using a raw developer instead. What I do notice, however, is that using the ETR system and checking out the histogram on the camera, when I get the NEF into the RAW developer, the files always have to be greatly de-exposed (to coin a poor phrase). It really seems that digital is full of contradictions and shibboleths designed to make one feel ever more insecure and stupid. Perhaps that's one reason for loving film: it loved me back. Even Kodachrome.

Rob C

PS Working on the website later today after the gestoria visit...
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2010, 08:00:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
When I started again with digital, I was shooting like crazy, very excited about the unlimited options, the sofwares etc...Now I just hate that path.
I shoot less and less, I've erased 90% of all my pics, made room in my hard drives and I'm looking to work more and more with MF LF because of the different approach, lets say more contemplative.
Even in my street attempts, I'm trying to shoot less and see more.
When I'm back in the studio, I don't have to handle with 500 shots of the day and when I just made 10 or 20 I just feel happy.

Me too. I was out all afternoon yesterday (great light, nice skies), I shot 10, and kept 6. Out of those, I will probably print 3 or 4 to completion. That's plenty to keep me busy in the evenings until next weekend. That's pretty much the same number of frames as I would have shot with film, and it is the kind of workrate which I am comfortable with. See more, shoot less, as Fred says.

John
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 08:01:23 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2010, 12:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

It is not at all clear that the Ricoh approach increases modularity overall compared to competing "mirrorless interchangeable lens compact" (MILC) camera systems like Micro Four Thirds, Samsung's NX or Sony's coming NEX: it adds modularity in one place at the cost of removing it in another. The plusses and minuses I see are:
+ adding a different format for a different purpose does not require also buying a new "body back" for the new sensor.
+ upgrading body back stuff like the LCD and controls does not require buying a new sensor and DSP chips (but how often would you want to do that?)
+ upgrading to a newer sensor does not require replacing the "body back", but
- upgrading to a newer sensor does require replacing each lens in that format in order to use that lens with the new sensor, and you must buy a new sensor plus DSP electronics package for _each_ lens to be used with it.
- adding a new lens requires buying a new sensor plus DSP electronics package; Ricoh's prices show the penalty here.

Since lenses are often the least frequently replaced and a large proportion of total kit cost, while sensors and related electronics are the most frequently updated and somewhat expensive in DSLR formats, it seems a bad idea that the relatively frequent upgrading of sensor plus DSP electronics is more expensive, requiring the replacement of perfectly good optical components.

The place I see this making most sense is where the multiple sensor+DSP parts are inexpensive: with the small formats of current compacts, and for those who want perhaps just one lens foe use with a larger sensor. Maybe this is Ricoh's goal, given its lens unit offerings so far: one or both small format zooms and maybe one of the larger format primes.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2010, 01:29:39 PM »
ReplyReply

But then BJL, your points immediatly lead me to a question: Modularity has been always the central point of the MF-LF systems, and it does not seems that it had cause problems with the lenses when upgrading backs, and more importantly, that the users are complaining about this flexibility.

Regards.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2010, 10:13:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
... Modularity has been always the central point of the MF-LF systems, and it does not seems that it had cause problems with the lenses when upgrading backs, and more importantly, that the users are complaining about this flexibility.

Regards.
I do not understand your comment: MF-LF systems do not require purchasing one back for each lens, or getting new lenses each time you upgrade to a new back, which is effectively what the Ricoh GRX system requires. My quick summary is that the GRX system by requiring that each lens has its own sensor and DSP system, is
- more modular than "monolithic" small sensor compact cameras, but
- in practice, less modular than other interchangeable lens systems, where lenses are separate items, not bundled with a sensor and DSP components, and where one "digital part" purchase (DSLR body or MF-LF back) is usable with multiple lenses.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 10:17:04 AM by BJL » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2010, 10:23:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
I do not understand your comment: MF-LF systems do not require purchasing one back for each lens, or getting new lenses each time you upgrade to a new back, which is effectively what the Ricoh GRX system requires. My quick summary is that the GRX system by requiring that each lens has its own sensor and DSP system, is
- more modular than "monolithic" small sensor compact cameras, but
- in practice, less modular than other interchangeable lens systems, where lenses are separate items, not bundled with a sensor and DSP components, and where one "digital part" purchase (DSLR body or MF-LF back) is usable with multiple lenses.
I think that's because you did not read all my previous posts.
My points were: Ricoh opened a path, but did it badly because of the lens-sensor in one unit.
So when I support modularity, it is obviously not with the "stupid" Ricoh solution.
But this can be solved at any time by them or any other manufacturer who is willing to play this path.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2010, 03:08:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
My points were: Ricoh opened a path, but did it badly because of the lens-sensor in one unit.
So when I support modularity, it is obviously not with the "stupid" Ricoh solution.
But this can be solved at any time by them or any other manufacturer who is willing to play this path.
So we agree, at least mostly.

But if you are thinking it would be better to go one step further in modularity, with three parts, roughly as in DMF:
1. lens
2. sensor+DSP unit
3. rest of the body (LCD, EVF, battery compartment, memory card compartment buttons and dials)
the idea is appealing in theory, but I strongly suspect that for mainstream priced cameras, the extra cost and bulk would lose out compared to the efficiencies of integrating parts 2+3.
For most cameras, my guess is that part 3 does not add a lot to the price relative to a good sensor+DSP component.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 03:10:18 PM by BJL » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2010, 03:26:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
So we agree, at least mostly.

But if you are thinking it would be better to go one step further in modularity, with three parts, roughly as in DMF:
1. lens
2. sensor+DSP unit
3. rest of the body (LCD, EVF, battery compartment, memory card compartment buttons and dials)
the idea is appealing in theory, but I strongly suspect that for mainstream priced cameras, the extra cost and bulk would lose out compared to the efficiencies of integrating parts 2+3.
For most cameras, my guess is that part 3 does not add a lot to the price relative to a good sensor+DSP component.
Yes,
The Ricoh body is priced at about 500 and the lens-sensor module A12 about 800. It's 1300, not that cheap, and that is without the EVF.
But it's to be considered that the price of the sensor include a very good lens, so we could deduct + or - that a sensor+dsp would cost arrownd 400. So that would normally be a 900 camera without lens.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8845


« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2010, 11:35:49 PM »
ReplyReply

It would seem to me that a sensor/lens combination, designed as a single integrated unit, could in theory produce better results than a detachable, generic lens of similar quality. It should be possible to devise more sophisticated and accurate lens corrections using the sensor itself, than is currently available from software such as DXO and Photoshop CS5. That's the only advantage I can see.

Since Photodo ceased providing MFT tests for lenses, we've generally had to rely upon 'system' resolution and other system qualities which are the product of a particular lens and a particular sensor. It then becomes difficult to compare a Canon lens with an equivalent Nikon lens because both lenses will be tested in conjunction with a particular Canon or Nikon sensor.

Integrating the lens with the sensor seems partly a recognition of how things are in practice as regards lens performance. If Ricoh's concept eventually allows for better 'system' performance at a given price, I'd be in favour of this approach. The camera and lens/sensor modules might seem a bit pricey at present simply because it's a new idea.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2010, 02:34:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
The camera and lens/sensor modules might seem a bit pricey at present simply because it's a new idea.



Seems a strangre perspective: in the 50s you could buy a 2.4 Jaguar, brand new, for around 1600 quid; I bought my new Humber in '73 for around 1100 quid  (today, they give you more in the scrappage schemes to induce fresh car sales) and by 1980 an AlfaSud cost over 4000 quid! I think that all the pricing for new systems shows is nothing more than fresh routes to upping said prices and gouging more money out of the public for not much more and probably less. As with the cars, that's how you feed or create price inflation: you push as far as you think the market can bear it. And boy, do they know how to push! And to create obsolescence.

Rob C
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2010, 03:42:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Seems a strangre perspective: in the 50s you could buy a 2.4 Jaguar, brand new, for around 1600 quid; I bought my new Humber in '73 for around 1100 quid  (today, they give you more in the scrappage schemes to induce fresh car sales) and by 1980 an AlfaSud cost over 4000 quid! I think that all the pricing for new systems shows is nothing more than fresh routes to upping said prices and gouging more money out of the public for not much more and probably less. As with the cars, that's how you feed or create price inflation: you push as far as you think the market can bear it. And boy, do they know how to push! And to create obsolescence.

Rob C
Totally agree with all your lines. Hey, I had an Alfasud Ti, that was fun to drive!
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2010, 04:11:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Totally agree with all your lines. Hey, I had an Alfasud Ti, that was fun to drive!



I had one after I traded my Fiat X1/9, simply because at the time, all the bad publicity (true) about Lancia and rust meant that no other dealer would take the Fiat, I tell you what, though, if the X1/9 had had the Alfa boxer engine, it would have been perfect. I got rid of it when it was under two years old because of the wheels. I noticed some corrosion around the balance weights one day and when I took it to the dealer (good friends!) I was told that Fiat had been offering replacement wheels because of the known mistake in using non-insulated weights. Even a friend doesn't tell you? I guess return/complaint figures meant something even then.

Rob C
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2010, 11:31:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
It would seem to me that a sensor/lens combination, designed as a single integrated unit, could in theory produce better results than a detachable, generic lens of similar quality.
True, but as with so many of these theoretical considerations, the potential advantages need to be quantified and weighed against other factors: even if the difference exists, is it significant, or worthwhile?

I predict that with mirrorless systems (from Leica M to Micro Four Thirds, Samsung NX and soon Sony NEX), the great flexibility offered by very shallow lens mounts and absence of a mirror box gives lens designers all the room they need to almost completely optimize lenses, so "monogamous" lens-sensor pairs will have no significant advantage in practice over the gleeful promiscuity of interchangeable lenses, SLR-lens-to-mirrorless-body mount adaptors, and such.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 11:32:15 AM by BJL » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2010, 12:17:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
the great flexibility offered by very shallow lens mounts and absence of a mirror box gives lens designers all the room they need to almost completely optimize lenses, so "monogamous" lens-sensor pairs will have no significant advantage in practice over the gleeful promiscuity of interchangeable lenses, SLR-lens-to-mirrorless-body mount adaptors, and such.



A nice idea, but hasn't ultra closeness to focal plane been the bugbear of sensors and wide-angle lenses since sensor took over from film?

I didn't know that this had been overcome all that well (no pun etc.).

Rob C
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2010, 01:19:34 PM »
ReplyReply

My Alfasud had corrosion problems also. And constant electric failures. But the boxer noise was Whaoo. They know how to make good motors and designs, but for engineering: german lands!
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2010, 07:42:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
... hasn't ultra closeness to focal plane been the bugbear of sensors and wide-angle lenses since sensor took over from film?
A short lens mount in no way forces closeness of rear lens elements to the focal plane; it simply allows more options in lens element positioning, while removing none: nothing prevents the lens body having the rear elements well forward of the lens mount.  For example, just about every SLR and rangefinder lens in existence can be used on a Micro Four Thirds body with an appropriate adaptor.

Also it is common photography forum myth that having rear elements close to the sensor automatically leads to highly off perpendicular angle of incidence and thus poor "telecentricity". What counts is the exit pupil height, which can be large even when the distance from rear element to focal plane is short. Many compact digicams and the Sony R1 "big compact" have rear elements extremely close to the sensor, yet with good "telecentric" properties.

What is more, the need for near-telecentricity in SLR sized sensors is becoming less and less with developments in sensor and microlens design. Dalsa has a microlens design that can handle up to 30º off-perpendicular light with vary little fall-off in sensitivity.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2010, 12:21:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
A short lens mount in no way forces closeness of rear lens elements to the focal plane; it simply allows more options in lens element positioning, while removing none: nothing prevents the lens body having the rear elements well forward of the lens mount.  For example, just about every SLR and rangefinder lens in existence can be used on a Micro Four Thirds body with an appropriate adaptor.

Also it is common photography forum myth that having rear elements close to the sensor automatically leads to highly off perpendicular angle of incidence and thus poor "telecentricity". What counts is the exit pupil height, which can be large even when the distance from rear element to focal plane is short. Many compact digicams and the Sony R1 "big compact" have rear elements extremely close to the sensor, yet with good "telecentric" properties.

What is more, the need for near-telecentricity in SLR sized sensors is becoming less and less with developments in sensor and microlens design. Dalsa has a microlens design that can handle up to 30º off-perpendicular light with vary little fall-off in sensitivity.



Thanks for the info: now I am sure of even less than I was before!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad