Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why not a CMOS sensor in the Phase One IQ series?  (Read 5587 times)
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2011, 05:20:09 AM »
ReplyReply

The biggest challenge for CMOS developers is to be able to make them at sizes larger than 24X36 and to maintain a reasonable (read financially viable) yield. This, for the time being, makes this debate irrelevant...
Yair

and when this happens i'll be at the front of the queue.
a 42-50 mpixel back/camera with 48x36 chip, usable up to 1200 asa and live view that works.
Canon have already shown that they can design/make lenses with bigger image circles (24ts-eII) it's well within their capabilities to design a 35, 50, 80, 120macro and 150 to cover this size chip.

unlike small scale medium format manufacturers that have launched then folded or just died a slow death a Canon or Nikon (or Pentax) could produce such a camera and lens system and develop it further.
the price tag would be high but certainly not higher that the current players, the rental houses would not shy away from investing either (never seen a contax or rollei HY6 camera for hire in the U.K.)

no idea if this will happen but i'm happy to wait as i'm still waiting for a digital back with the same noise at 800asa as a canon/nikon
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 11:45:52 AM by MrSmith » Logged
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2011, 06:05:07 AM »
ReplyReply

My dream would be a Foveon sensor — S2 dimensions would work.

A Foveon with [high-enough] sensitivity and a [large-enough] yield of a [large-enough] sensor would be a unique beast (told you it was a dream).

Could even be marketed as the Bayer Basher!
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1150



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2011, 06:35:36 AM »
ReplyReply

and when this happens i'll be at the front of the queue.
a 42-50 mpixel back/camera with 48x72 chip, usable up to 1200 asa and live view that works.
Canon have already shown that they can design/make lenses with bigger image circles (24ts-eII) it's well within their capabilities to design a 35, 50, 80, 120macro and 150 to cover this size chip.
I don't think that neither Canon nor Nikon has an interest in marketing a camera larger than 35mm
Quote
unlike small scale medium format manufacturers that have launched then folded or just died a slow death a Canon or Nikon (or Pentax) could produce such a camera and lens system and develop it further.
Just as a reference...first Leaf DCB (36x36, 4MP) came out in 1992
First Canon Powershot 600 (0.6MP, chip size of a baby's fingernail) came out in 1996
First Nikon D1 (2.7MP, a fairly small CCD) came out in 1999
All 3 companies still make digital cameras/ backs successfully and 80MP at 54X31mm the Aptus-II 12 is still more than twice as large and approx X4 the resolution...
Quote
the price tag would be high but certainly not higher that the current players, the rental houses would not shy away from investing either (never seen a contax or rollei HY6 camera for hire in the U.K.)
In the early 2,000's Contax was probably the most popular MF rental platform, at least in London, alongside the RZ and 500 series Blads
Re Hy6 you're right but the I believe AFi is still available in rental through Peartree
Quote
no idea if this will happen but i'm happy to wait as i'm still waiting for a digital back with the same noise at 800asa as a canon/nikon
At what size print?
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2011, 08:09:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think that neither Canon nor Nikon has an interest in marketing a camera larger than 35mmJust as a reference...first Leaf DCB (36x36, 4MP) came out in 1992
First Canon Powershot 600 (0.6MP, chip size of a baby's fingernail) came out in 1996
First Nikon D1 (2.7MP, a fairly small CCD) came out in 1999
All 3 companies still make digital cameras/ backs successfully and 80MP at 54X31mm the Aptus-II 12 is still more than twice as large and approx X4 the resolution...In the early 2,000's Contax was probably the most popular MF rental platform, at least in London, alongside the RZ and 500 series Blads
Re Hy6 you're right but the I believe AFi is still available in rental through PeartreeAt what size print?

rental i'm talking about the big three. pro-center/flash center/calumet(and not forgetting the excellent Teamwork). peartree i have heard of but they certainly were not around when i started using rental accounts, Direct lighting were the only other rental house that offered a range of kit that an account was worth opening.
i don't remember seeing a contax on the shelves just blad and mamiya RZ. i find the idea of contax being the most popular rental platform hard to believe. i was assisting in the early 2000's in London and never once touched a contax camera only Hblad/mamiya/sinar/linhoff
even now the couple of dozen photographers i know 3 have H/blad the rest use phase backs

i'm fully aware of the digital history and the big jumps in technology/affordability/usability that occurred
(for me personally they were 1ds2, 5d, 5dII, 22mpixel (h/blad/phase) and 39mpixel (when all the 5x4 users i know jumped ship to digital)

maybe canon and nikon are not interested in making a back/camera system but if they did and the chips performed the same or better than the current 35mm offerings then i wouldn't entertain a phamiyaleafblad. and until a usable 800iso appears i'm still not going to.

print size? any size the client might end up wanting to use the image and not complain "what is all that gritty stuff everywhere"

Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2894


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2011, 08:11:59 AM »
ReplyReply

no idea if this will happen but i'm happy to wait as i'm still waiting for a digital back with the same noise at 800asa as a canon/nikon

http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/03/30/phase-one-p40-versus-canon-5dmkii-iso-800/

An IQ180 will go to ISO3200 at 20mp (ISO800 at 80mp).

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2011, 08:36:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm glad you asked the question! If I were the emperor I would have:
Had Nikon develop a medium format sensor
Had Burr Brown develop a 24 bit a/d converter insuring 16 clean bits
Had Adobe implement their products with a full 16 bits
Had Pentax produce the DB for 10K!
Marc

FWIW, the Adobe part you mention already exists for Camera Raw and Lightroom (>= 16 bits).
Logged

yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1150



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2011, 08:45:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Calumet had LOADS of Contax kit in London at the time and it was THE digital platform until the H1 came along

Oh and there are more than 24 photographers in London, trust me :-)

At one point (early 2006), the yellow pages had nearly 16,000 (!) registered within 2 miles from Old St. Roundabout...I don't know ALL of them but I know quite a few...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2011, 08:59:07 AM »
ReplyReply

and it took the kodak rep a day to get from one end of great sutton st to the other Roll Eyes

Yaya, i only hired once from calumet, the lens was so worn all the distance markings had rubbed off and the front element was wobbly, at least the pro-center replaced every hire item after 2-3 years depending on use.

i'm fully aware of what sensor+ can do but i want it to do that at 40mpixel not 15 especially if i'm paying 16K for it, until then i'll hire or borrow.
i look forward to sensor manufactures increasing the sensitivity and noise  characteristics of their chips over mpixels because to me anything over 40-50 doesn't make my life easier, higher iso usability does.
 i'll sit tight until that day comes maybe canikon will have changed their minds by then :-)
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2011, 10:04:04 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks for taking the time for this lengthly answer! eleanor

In the M8 and M9, Leica had the special challenge that some of its lenses deliver light to the sensor at a highly off-perpendicular angle (far more so that with any SLR lens), which is difficult to do when microlenses are also wanted for the sake of better low light performance. This was solved with Kodak's innovation of off-set microlenses. I believe that [active pixel] CMOS designs also inherently require the microlenses to be further from the wells than with the simpler full frame CCD design because of the extra circuitry on top of the well, and the microlenses also have to be stronger to get the light into a target region that is a smaller fraction of the photosite, both of which makes the "off-perpendicular" problem worse for CMOS than for FF CCD.

So there are two possible reason why Leica went with Kodak FF CCD's for it s rangefinders:
1. the inherent advantages of CCD in respect of handling highly off-perpendicular light when microlenses are wanted, and
2. Kodak's willingness to work on a custom design for a low volume, high price product.

Kodak and Dalsa seem far more oriented to the more specialized, low-volume end of the sensor business, while Canon, Sony, Panasonic etc. are more oriented to higher volume products. And when it comes to volume comparisons, even the original 1Ds, at 24,000 a year, was a high volume product compared to the Leica M8, or M9, or any MF sensor.

The "custom design" argument probably applies to the R2 sensor, where Kodak was willing to  design and produce that 45x30mm sensor exclusively for one very low volume product. Maybe this is also why Olympus originally chose Kodak for its 4/3 sensors, before Panasonic saw the potential for a far higher volume through the transition to Micro Four Thirds, which I suspect was in Panasonic's plans from the beginning.

Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2882



« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2011, 12:09:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm glad you asked the question! If I were the emperor I would have:
...
Had Adobe implement their products with a full 16 bits

FWIW, the Adobe part you mention already exists for Camera Raw and Lightroom (>= 16 bits).

ACR may have a full 16 bit path, but as far as I know, Photoshop is still 15+1 bits. That is sufficient for all my photographic work, but sometimes I want to work in Photoshop with full 16 bit files from DCRaw or Iris, and the 15+1 is annoying.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8028


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2011, 02:50:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

+1

There is a lengthy comparison between D3X and M9 by Erwin Puts here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml

My take is that experienced photographers like Michael Reichmann and yourself are very satisfied with the image quality of the M9.

My guess is that using CMOS instead of CCD would improve high ISO performance and possibly shadow detail. On the other hand, integrating a CMOS sensor is probably quite different from doing the same job with CCD. AFAIK Jeonptik was developing camera electronics for Leica M8/M9 while Leica developed the firmware for the S2 with help from the Uiversity of Technology in Cologne (?).

I'd suggest that Leica would have a great benefit from the lenses. They used to be truly excellent, at least what I can see from MTF curves so they would transfer very good fine detail contrast, enhancing texture over noise. This characteristics would also cause a lot of aliasing. Aliasing is essentially "fake detail".

This is very well described in a document from Schneider Optics: http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/whitepapers/optics_for_digital_photography.pdf of a screen dump of an illustration from that document is enclosed. Please note that all information in the sensor response is fake. Targets is black and white and contains 20 black lines but image contains only 12 black lines and lines with "invented" gray tones. The image looks perfectly good, but is no reproduction of the test target.

Theoretically, a high fill factor would be beneficial in reducing aliasing effects. This would also benefit CCD vs. CMOS, but once both CMOS and CCDs have microlenses this may matter little.

Best regards
Erik

thanks for taking the time for this lengthly answer! eleanor

« Last Edit: January 29, 2011, 09:20:08 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3909


« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2011, 05:11:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Regardless of sensor type or manufacture, what about the effect that the signal A/D converters have on the result? We never seem to see this discussed or measured anywhere, but in audio (which is another of my passions) the quality of A/D converters when recording music is quite crucial to the end result.

Hi John,

Besides the analogies, there are significant differences between audio and image signals. One of the differences is Photon shot noise. At low signal levels, the Signal to Noise ratio is dominated by Photon shot noise. In audio it's the amplifier/circuit noise that's the killer.

Another issue is the "well depth" of sensors. With a maximum well depth of 50,000 electrons, and a (mostly) read noise of 10 electrons, we have a dynamic range of 5000:1, or a little more than 12 bits of real DR. A 14-bit DAC would be adequate, and cheaper than a 16-bit DAC. Of course I assume that the DAC and circuitry doesn't introduce huge (>1.5 bits) amounts of noise itself.

As sensors get denser with a smaller sensel pitch, and no real progress in storage capacity (which mostly scales with surface area, not depth, for now), the storage capacity per sensel will rather decrease than pose a challenge for DACs. There will still be benefits from low noise circuitry, but it's not the only source of noise when photons are involved.

Added to that, the optical system can limit the scene DR that is projected on the sensor to, say, 9 stops quite easily. There may also be other factors, e.g. pixel uniformity that are a priority to address. There are lots of improvement possibilities, but there may be diminishing returns involved with some of them as well.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad