| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 03:06:40 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Debating with hokie is always fun! ;o) |
Dats cause I am a Wild and Crazy Guy!
(hokie Does Steve Martin dance with arrow through his head) |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:23:03 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Debating with hokie is always fun! ;o) |
Dats cause I am a Wild and Crazy Guy!
(hokie Does Steve Martin dance with arrow through his head) |
If your in the phone book you must be famous.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:56:30 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If your in the phone book you must be famous. |
:-(...I'm unlisted...man..isn't that a motto for life :-/ |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 04:05:06 PM · #54 |
Ramblings of a mad man, I know, but I want to disagree with hokie and Brent.
I don't want more dynamic range. I want less digital behaviour at the ends of the current dyanmic range. I don't actually mind the dynamic range I have right now, I just hate how it clips to 0 or 255 at the ends. Film doesn't have much more dynamic range, it just degrades gracefully off at the edges - so you don't get abrupt changes. That's what I want.
And I don't really care about physically larger sensors. 1.3 or 1.6 is about right - we'd get smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper lenses. There's nothing magical about 35mm format - it was just two bits of film on its side, stuck together. If you want quality go for medium format sensors.
But what I want is 100% light gathering sensors. I don't want the current sensors with metal and non-light gathering stuff over the sensor. I don't want 40% of each pixel not doing anything active to capture light. That'd be nice. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 04:20:22 PM · #55 |
I want a D70 with the bayer filter taken off, so that it shoots full resolution b&w as opposed to interpolated RGB. It would be nice if it did noisefree ISO200 to 12800.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 16:20:59.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 04:21:39 PM · #56 |
If anyone really wants a Nikon DSLR with a full frame sensor they are available from Kodak as the DCS Pro 14N, based on the Nikon F5 camera body. The image is 13.5 megapixels, complete review on Stevesdigicams.
This camera and it's siblings have been around for several years.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 04:26:54 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
If anyone really wants a Nikon DSLR with a full frame sensor they are available from Kodak as the DCS Pro 14N, based on the Nikon F5 camera body. The image is 13.5 megapixels, complete review on Stevesdigicams.
This camera and it's siblings have been around for several years. |
I started out shooting digital using the canon version when the 2MP cost right under 20k.
Ahh those where the days...
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 04:33:01 PM · #58 |
I really was gonna abstain from this, but I just gotta get my two cents in. There are two aspects to this, the marketing side and the engineering side.
From the marketing side, whether Nikon ever introduces a FF 35mm format sensor will depend on Canon's success at promoting this format. As an example, the APS-C film format never really caught fire, but APS-C format DSLRs are far and away the volume leader (I include both Nikon 1.5-crop and Canon 1.6-crop in that statement). If yoiu're entering this field today and want any sales volume at all, you'll have to play in the APS-C game.
From an engineering perspective, FF 35mm format is just that, another format. Physically smaller than MF digital, larger than APS-C, and between the two in cost as well. The unique technical advantage of 35mm is that it fully leverages the legacy of great glass designed for 35mm film cameras. It also uses nearly the largest sensor that's reasonable in the confines of that general body size. The 35mm film format owed its success to a number of things, among them:
- The outstandingly functional SLR design concept, due originally to Exakta.
- The good ergonomics of bodies designed around this concept
- Cheap, readily available 35mm film stock from movie industry
- The negative (or positive) size was a good compromise between quality and compactness/usability of the camera
I believe that Canon correctly perceives that there are markets for both 35mm and APS-C digital SLRs. Canon has made their course clear, they will continue to develop and support both formats (while dropping the intermediate 1.3-crop cams). While some perceive this as diluting the development effort for [FF or APS-C, insert one], in reality it is the recognition that these are two distinct formats that are both viable.
Now, back to Nikon. they are playing the marketing game. They don't *currently* have access to a 35mm-sized sensor at a cost that will put them in a good competitive position, so they are playing the wait-and-see game. If Canon fails with FF, they have saved themselves a bundle. If Canon succeeds, I'm sure that Nikon will find a way.
The Nikon executive quoted in no way denied that Nikon will ever offer a FF 35mm DSLR. He just obfuscated, IMO. If I had to predict, I'd give Nikon 2 years and they will offer FF as well. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 04:52:54 PM · #59 |
There's also a historical difference between Nikon & Canon in terms of the 'legacy of great glass' available for leverage.
Canon switched to electronic controls at a different time than Nikon and have different quantities of baggage wrt to the 35mm format. Canon have the stability, which actually makes them less agile - they are stuck with a large installed base of 35mm EF lenses.
Nikon with their faffing around, don't have much of a legacy anchor, so can ditch that with less concern.
You can look at a legacy of great glass as a unique technical advantage, or a millstone that inhibits progress.
Compare with the installed base of x86 software. Is that an advantage or disadvantage for Intel going forward. Are they thrilled to have to support an architecture designed over 20 years ago because of the 'legacy of great software' ?
It's a double edged sword. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:01:05 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
....From the marketing side, whether Nikon ever introduces a FF 35mm format sensor will depend on Canon's success at promoting this format.... |
Yes, exactly correct in regards to what Nikon and other WILL do.
What they SHOULD do based on the realities of the technology at hand (lenses, electronics etc) is a whole nother matter.
And I agree with Gordon regarding dynamic range. He put it very well. I also would be very happy if the clipping that goes on at the dynamic extremes (the highlights) would be addressed. That would be a huge step in the right direction.
Smaller sensor, large sensor..whatever. Its all about signal to noise and the right kind of noise.
People who are audio freaks probably know this but the same arguements about signal to noise and aesthetic noise characteristics have been an ongoing debate in the audio world since solid state became popular.
The right kind of noise at higher levels is acceptable if it fits the way people hear. Analogue for instance. Tube gear...it has the noise characteristics that is very pleasant versus cheap soild state digital.
Visual noise is the same. Luminance noise (light and darks spots) is not as bad to most people as chromatic or color fringing noise and can even help avoid the plastic digital look we associate with camcorders versus the smooth look of film or very hi-end digital.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 17:03:28. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:33:41 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Yes, exactly correct in regards to what Nikon and other WILL do.
What they SHOULD do based on the realities of the technology at hand (lenses, electronics etc) is a whole nother matter. |
Three words: "Beta and VHS." Tecchnology doesn't always win, in fact other factors very often take precedence. As an engineer in the electronics industry, I know this painfully well.
Originally posted by hokie:
And I agree with Gordon regarding dynamic range. He put it very well. I also would be very happy if the clipping that goes on at the dynamic extremes (the highlights) would be addressed. That would be a huge step in the right direction. |
I also agree completely with Gordon on this. Although the DR of current top-end cams is exceptional, in order to get there you need to squeeze out everything the sensor and associated electronics are capable of. that means abrupt endpoints, as Gordon noted, and they can be jarring. My old Nikon 995 was the king of "video highlights." The highlights did not transition well at all to blown-out areas. We've seen great improvements in this area, but we need more.
Originally posted by hokie:
Smaller sensor, large sensor..whatever. Its all about signal to noise and the right kind of noise.
People who are audio freaks probably know this but the same arguements about signal to noise and aesthetic noise characteristics have been an ongoing debate in the audio world since solid state became popular.
The right kind of noise at higher levels is acceptable if it fits the way people hear. Analogue for instance. Tube gear...it has the noise characteristics that is very pleasant versus cheap soild state digital.
Visual noise is the same. Luminance noise (light and darks spots) is not as bad to most people as chromatic or color fringing noise and can even help avoid the plastic digital look we associat with camcorders versus film or very hi-end digital. |
Now here's a debate that could just be more contentious than the film/digital quality debate ;-)
Time was when some folks maintained that CD quality sound was superior to even the best quality LP record. After all, the LP has a dynamic range of 65dB at most, where as a CD is 85, an astounding advantage. The frequency response of the CD doees not roll off until above the average human's hearing range, so there can be no difference there, right? WRONG. There's more to it than that, including the types and amounnts of distortion that are characteristic of digital audio vs. analog, along with a host of other things. With regard to sampling, surely one can mathematically "prove" that 44kHz is "enough", but in fact it is not, as it results in some nasty aliasing of higher harmonics. Those harmonics, though usually not heard directly, are a significant part of the character of sounds. Anyone who has listened to 96kHz/24-bit quantized stereo on good equipment will marvel at how much better it sounds than CD quality. An LP record, though having distinct disadvantages in many regards, still had advantages in some. I can honestly say, though, that at 96kHz/24-bit, analog doesn't hold a candle.
I won't touch the tube/solid state amplification debate, LOL.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:40:35 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I also agree completely with Gordon on this. Although the DR of current top-end cams is exceptional, in order to get there you need to squeeze out everything the sensor and associated electronics are capable of. that means abrupt endpoints, as Gordon noted, and they can be jarring. My old Nikon 995 was the king of "video highlights." The highlights did not transition well at all to blown-out areas. We've seen great improvements in this area, but we need more. |
It is still hideous. Look at the highlights in any untouched digital portrait. Horrible. Almost every digital portrait needs these retouched if it isn't going to look horrible. The Bayer fringing is a contributing factor, but highlight clipping is a big part too. Just nasty, nasty, nasty. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/29/2025 04:39:42 PM EST.
