Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: The View on June 11, 2008, 05:58:32 pm

Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on June 11, 2008, 05:58:32 pm
For those looking to upgrade their gear there are a lot of new full frame cameras expected for later this year.

Sony A 900 (I really like the way Sony cameras handle, and am very curious about this model)

Canon 5D MkII  (one day, there won't be rumors, but a camera of this name, love the 5D, this one must be great)

Nikon D10 (mid-range full frame, rumored)

http://www.photographybay.com/ (http://www.photographybay.com/)


Very exciting for those, who prefer full frame over aps-c, finally there's going to be choices!

Can't be too bad for the pricing of these new cameras.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BernardLanguillier on June 11, 2008, 07:23:10 pm
Quote
Nikon D10 (mid-range full frame, rumored)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are forgetting the D3x, IMHO the most interesting rumours of all.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on June 14, 2008, 12:18:47 am
The Sony is going to be 25 Megapixel.

I'm not sure if I want that at this moment. Between 13 and 15 is golden. Manageable file sizes, and good detail.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Kagetsu on June 14, 2008, 02:09:02 am
Lots of guesses I'd say at this stage. With all the rumors out there, one is bound to turn out right. ^_~
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: jonstewart on June 14, 2008, 07:23:03 am
Quote
The Sony is going to be 25 Megapixel.

I'm not sure if I want that at this moment. Between 13 and 15 is golden. Manageable file sizes, and good detail.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201497\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

13-15 is probably the best quality you can get out of a 35mm ff sensor. Yes, you can get bigger images, but probably no better!

If the 5DII has 16 (as rumoured) then this would be a great camera.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Czornyj on June 14, 2008, 08:16:22 am
Quote
You are forgetting the D3x, IMHO the most interesting rumours of all.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The rumor, that in fact becomes reality. Few days ago Nikon Poland asked Polish Nikon Useres Club to make their headquaters available for presentation of mysterious "new Nikon products". The presentation will take palce on 5-th of july, so one can expect, that Nikon should offically present new products before the end of June (I've heard something about 26th). The last time Nikon asked Polish Nikon Club to host a presentation, was the polish premiere of Nikon D3 and D300...
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Plekto on June 16, 2008, 07:48:33 pm
I really have always liked the Minolta/now Sony cameras a lot more than the others in terms of their lenses and features, but they didn't have a serious competitor to the overpriced Canons.  

I'm looking forward to this.   Hopefully it has nice "fat" pixels without much if any AA - so that it bumps into lower-end MF territory.  

Of course I really want Foveon to do something aggressive.  A higher resolution DB - say 4000x4000 true square format)  I'd even be happy with 3000X3000.  2,652 × 1,768 isn't quite good enough to compete with the new crop of 15-25MP cameras.  3000*3000 in a DB for say, $2,000 - that would be amazing.

Well, I can dream, no?  
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BryanHansel on June 19, 2008, 07:35:21 pm
Don't forget the D700, which I'd probably buy in a second.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: telyt on June 24, 2008, 09:20:11 pm
Leica R10, rumored to be larger than full frame.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on June 26, 2008, 12:21:02 pm
Quote
Leica R10, rumored to be larger than full frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Any Leica R10 is strongly indicated to be for use with existing Leica R 35mm format lenses (along with some new AF ones?), and this requires it to be in a format no larger than 35mm.

There is a  rumor of an R10 in a format larger than the 18x24mm of the R back and M8. Beyond that, there might be baseless speculation or wishful thinking about Leica adopting a format larger than 35mm, but I would not dignify it with the name rumor, which should supported by at least some hint of argument or evidence or reliable sources, not just wishful thinking.


P. S. On more credible rumors, I would be interested to see how the expected 12MP Nikon D700 and the long-awaited 25MP Sony flagship fare in competition, along with an expected new Canon model at some intermediate pixel count (my guess: a 5DMkII with 21MP, same as the 1DsMkIII).
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on June 26, 2008, 04:35:41 pm
Quote
Any Leica R10 is strongly indicated to be for use with existing Leica R 35mm format lenses (along with some new AF ones?), and this requires it to be in a format no larger than 35mm.

There is a  rumor of an R10 in a format larger than the 18x24mm of the R back and M8. Beyond that, there might be baseless speculation or wishful thinking about Leica adopting a format larger than 35mm, but I would not dignify it with the name rumor, which should supported by at least some hint of argument or evidence or reliable sources, not just wishful thinking.
P. S. On more credible rumors, I would be interested to see how the expected 12MP Nikon D700 and the long-awaited 25MP Sony flagship fare in competition, along with an expected new Canon model at some intermediate pixel count (my guess: a 5DMkII with 21MP, same as the 1DsMkIII).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


  I highly doubt that the 5DII will be use the 1Ds III sensor.  If anything, it'll probably have a 16mp like the 1Ds II.  I'm sure Canon is more concerned with the Nikon D700 than the Sony A900, and I'm betting the 5DII's megapixels will reflect that.  That'll leave the A900 in a nice little niche, being "affordable" and high res.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Misirlou on June 26, 2008, 07:17:14 pm
Quote
Beyond that, there might be baseless speculation or wishful thinking about Leica adopting a format larger than 35mm, but I would not dignify it with the name rumor, which should supported by at least some hint of argument or evidence or reliable sources, not just wishful thinking.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if a 35mm lens will cover 24X36mm at the film plane, it will also cover other permutations of dimensions that don't exceed the image circle required for 24X36. It's preposterous, but imagine a round sensor.

Personally, I actually like square images, perhaps having gotten used to composing with Hasselblad Cs and Rolleiflex TLRs. So, I've always dreamed of a square format SLR in 35mm form factor. Which would be possible, and I suppose might even exceed the sensor area of current "full frame" DSLR sensors, while still not going beyond the image circle of a 35mm lens.

But I will bet a very large sum of money that Leica isn't working on one, and neither is any other major manufacturer. If I'm proven wrong, I guess I'll just have to go buy one...
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on June 26, 2008, 09:34:09 pm
Quote
Well, if a 35mm lens will cover 24X36mm at the film plane, it will also cover other permutations of dimensions that don't exceed the image circle required for 24X36. It's preposterous, but imagine a round sensor.

Personally, I actually like square images, perhaps having gotten used to composing with Hasselblad Cs and Rolleiflex TLRs. So, I've always dreamed of a square format SLR in 35mm form factor. Which would be possible, and I suppose might even exceed the sensor area of current "full frame" DSLR sensors, while still not going beyond the image circle of a 35mm lens.

But I will bet a very large sum of money that Leica isn't working on one, and neither is any other major manufacturer. If I'm proven wrong, I guess I'll just have to go buy one...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Keep in mind that Leica is a member of the four-thirds consortium... not that that's particularly relevant in itself, but it bears the speculation that the new sensor could have a four:three aspect ratio more reminiscent of medium format but designed for the 35mm lens circle, and having the potential for greater vertical resolution at the same pixel pitch as a 24x36 sensor.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on June 27, 2008, 01:28:02 am
Quote
13-15 is probably the best quality you can get out of a 35mm ff sensor. Yes, you can get bigger images, but probably no better!

If the 5DII has 16 (as rumoured) then this would be a great camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely.

The 5D is already a great camera, and handles very well. Compared to it, the 40D is almost the same size, but an ergonomic nightmare with too small a handle and your nose rubbing the screen.

This camera is all the way on top of my wish list...
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on June 27, 2008, 01:29:31 am
Quote
I really have always liked the Minolta/now Sony cameras a lot more than the others in terms of their lenses and features, but they didn't have a serious competitor to the overpriced Canons. 

I'm looking forward to this.   Hopefully it has nice "fat" pixels without much if any AA - so that it bumps into lower-end MF territory. 

Of course I really want Foveon to do something aggressive.  A higher resolution DB - say 4000x4000 true square format)  I'd even be happy with 3000X3000.  2,652 × 1,768 isn't quite good enough to compete with the new crop of 15-25MP cameras.  3000*3000 in a DB for say, $2,000 - that would be amazing.

Well, I can dream, no? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, the Foveon sensor sounds interesting. They don't seem to have the kind of money to get ahead, but the concept could pop up with a very interesting sensor one day.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Misirlou on June 27, 2008, 02:48:42 pm
Quote
Keep in mind that Leica is a member of the four-thirds consortium... not that that's particularly relevant in itself, but it bears the speculation that the new sensor could have a four:three aspect ratio more reminiscent of medium format but designed for the 35mm lens circle, and having the potential for greater vertical resolution at the same pixel pitch as a 24x36 sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=203881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds good to me. I rarely print anything in dimensions other than 4X5 or square. I put a lot of 16X9 shots on the web, in digital photo frames, etc. So, the standard 35mm frame at 2:3 doesn't work for what I need to do most.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on June 28, 2008, 12:45:21 pm
I'm really curious at what price level those cameras will settle.

Full frame sensors seem to come down in price.

And the body size is just ideal. The 5D, for example, is only a fraction larger than the 40d.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: telyt on June 28, 2008, 12:51:18 pm
Quote
Any Leica R10 is strongly indicated to be for use with existing Leica R 35mm format lenses (along with some new AF ones?), and this requires it to be in a format no larger than 35mm.

Leica's owner Dr. Kaufmann and also the R product manager have both hinted that the next Leica reflex will be larger than full frame.  Existing R lenses can be accommodated by limiting non-ROM lenses to 24x36mm, and the camera can use ROM information to determine if lenses can cover the larger format.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: reillynevada on July 01, 2008, 01:10:17 am
Quote
I'm really curious at what price level those cameras will settle.

Full frame sensors seem to come down in price.

And the body size is just ideal. The 5D, for example, is only a fraction larger than the 40d.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am saving my money for the 5D Mark II...but when will it really happen?
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Yoram from Berlin on July 01, 2008, 03:11:14 am
Nikon D700 released.

DP Review Hands-On Preview (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08070103nikond700previewed.asp)
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 01, 2008, 04:12:33 am
Quote
I am saving my money for the 5D Mark II...but when will it really happen?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This autumn... say those, who seem to be able to feel camera change in their bones like the weather.

I just upgraded, so I'm more in the audience than in the buyer flock.

But I'm definitely curious what the 5D MkII will be able to do. This is why I got myself a D40, which is very close to the 5D MkI, but with more modern technology.

Generally, it will be interesting where the APS-C size camera will go. I guess, five years from now al pro quality gear will be full frame.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 01, 2008, 01:53:47 pm
Quote
Leica's owner Dr. Kaufmann and also the R product manager have both hinted that the next Leica reflex will be larger than full frame.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can you point to any source for this claim?
To repeat, what I have read from them is only hints that it will have larger sensor than the 18x27mm one of the R digital back and M8.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 01, 2008, 02:26:03 pm
Quote
Generally, it will be interesting where the APS-C size camera will go. I guess, five years from now al pro quality gear will be full frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
partly it depends on how ones defines 'pro': hopefully not "gear giving the highest image quality available", because that would mean medium format, not 35mm.

When it comes to what formats will be used for various types of professional and advanced amateur photography, I predict
1) An increased total number of 35mm format DLSRs in use. (Easy!)
2) Continued increase in the image quality and performance possible in any given format, including DX, EF-S and 4/3.
3) Many photographers including professionals what want a kit with good telephoto coverage that must sometimes be carried for many hours over significant distances will continue to prefer the smaller DSLR formats, smaller pixel sizes, and their associated smaller telephoto lenses and lower kit weight.
4) The last two items combined will continue to support a healthy market for ever higher quality gear in the smaller DSLR formats that will be used in some professional sector. (Note for example the arrival and great sales success of the D300 and 40D after the "5D revolution" and along-side the D3.)


With film, professional level 35mm and medium format SLR gear coexisted for decades, so it amazes me that some people still think that professional and serious amateur usage will ever entirely abandon the smaller DSLR formats that already easily outperform professional 35mm film gear in most respects.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 01, 2008, 08:53:54 pm
Quote
Note for example the arrival and great sales success of the D300 and 40D after the "5D revolution" and along-side the D3.)
With film, professional level 35mm and medium format SLR gear coexisted for decades, so it amazes me that some people still think that professional and serious amateur usage will ever entirely abandon the smaller DSLR formats that already easily outperform professional 35mm film gear in most respects.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I'm one of those who liked the 40d, and bought it. This is great quality, and it will stay for a good while. Especially with that great viewfinder the 40d has (often a downside on smaller sensor cameras).

I just saw that the body was not much smaller, nor much lighter, than a 5D's.

But the lenses are.

So I think your arguments pretty much on the money, and we will see a wide range of APS, full frame, and large format digital cameras.

Only regarding the four thirds system I have my doubts. It's a really, really small sensor, and I'm not convinced it will survive.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 02, 2008, 03:06:21 pm
Quote
Yes, I'm one of those who liked the 40d ... the body was not much smaller, nor much lighter ... But the lenses are. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed lens size is the key. I am glad we agree that there is a place even in professional level photography for a format like the 14.8x22.2mm of EF-S.

But then somehow you lose sight of this size+weight advantage when things get just slightly smaller:
Quote
Only regarding the four thirds system I have my doubts. It's a really, really small sensor ... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As we seem to agree that the 14.8x22.2mm of Canon EF-S sensors is an acceptable size for smaller, lighter kit, I do not see how the 13x17.3mm of current 4/3 sensors (with up to about 14.1x18.8 allowed in 4/3 according to the 4/3 patent) becomes "really, really small", and thus doomed.

Current FourThirds sensors are 12% less high and 22% less wide than EF-S, which means about 1/3 to 2/3 stop loss of light gathering power depending on desired print shape. When working within a weight limit, the somewhat shorter 4/3 lenses can easily be about 1/3 -2/3 stop brighter, neutralizing the speed effect of the size difference: consider the f/2.8-3.5 FourThirds zoom lens options for example. (I ignore the rather extreme f/2 FourThirds zooms.)


Somehow, a sensor format about five or more times larger than those chosen by over 90% of mainstream (digicam) camera buyers does not fit my idea of "too small", except for a small high end sector.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 02, 2008, 06:19:21 pm
Quote
Somehow, a sensor format about five or more times larger than those chosen by over 90% of mainstream (digicam) camera buyers does not fit my idea of "too small", except for a small high end sector.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed. If the companies promoting the 4/3 system manage to survive another 5 years or so, these sensors will have reached a level of quality/DR/noise that will be sufficient for 95% of applications.

My view is that FF will become more and more of a niche with 4/3 and APS becoming even more main stream.

The only people still shooting with FF will be the guys looking for a very specific look associated with limited DoF.

I do personnally see the agitation surrounding the Nikon/Canon FF releases as being mostly esotheric marketing fights with very little actual impact on the overall market.

My contention is that both Nikon and Canon are concentrating on their image by investing now in FF. They have also perceived a very profitable tactical niche with FF but they must be aware that the future doesn't lie there. I would be very surprised if Sony, Nikon and Canon kept investing heavily in FF sensors beyond the current generation of 20+ MP sensors.

After that common sense would dictate that they focus on enhancing the DR/noise of smaller photosites corresponding to 20MP APS sensors.

As far as I am concerned, I see value in FF now and in the coming 2 or 3 years thanks to better DR and potentially higher resolutions, etc... but I will probably return to DX around 2012.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 02, 2008, 07:28:01 pm
Quote
My view is that FF will become more and more of a niche with 4/3 and APS becoming even more main stream.

The only people still shooting with FF will be the guys looking for a very specific look associated with limited DoF.

I do personnally see the agitation surrounding the Nikon/Canon FF releases as being mostly esotheric marketing fights with very little actual impact on the overall market.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is also very convincing.

I must say I'm currently using the philosopher Husserl's tactic of "Epoche", which is to not judge right now and keep information coming in and let it build an image.

The arguments for FF seem to concern the sweet spot of resolution: how many megapixels can an APS sized sensor bear.

The other question: how many megapixels do we need?

What we really need, I think, is dynamic range.

Regarding resolution, I don't feel "underresolutioned" at 10 Megapixels.

The four thirds system could be very interesting for photographer's viewfinder cameras: smaller and lighter than a DSLR, but still with very high image quality. There are few viewfinder style cameras worth looking at currently (and they are called "point and shoot", an awful name). After all, Cartier-Bresson used to shoot with a Leica with mostly a 50mm lens, and there are barely any wide angle or tele shots from him.

So, the development will probably function like survival in nature: every animal will shape its tool for survival, every camera and sensor type will either find a niche of maximum photographic use, or simply die out.

I'm also curious what will become of the Foveon sensor. At the moment it may be a sideline of sensor development, but we may be in for a surprise.

Another development will probably be in the printer and paper section, often neglected in all that focusing on bodies and megapixels. I'm only starting out to get into that area (but I have spent plenty of time in smelly, wet darkrooms).
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 02, 2008, 08:17:08 pm
Quote
Another development will probably be in the printer and paper section, often neglected in all that focusing on bodies and megapixels. I'm only starting out to get into that area (but I have spent plenty of time in smelly, wet darkrooms).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am really not too sure about that one.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 03, 2008, 01:12:30 am
Quote
The four thirds system could be very interesting for photographer's viewfinder cameras: smaller and lighter than a DSLR, but still with very high image quality. There are few viewfinder style cameras worth looking at currently (and they are called "point and shoot", an awful name). After all, Cartier-Bresson used to shoot with a Leica with mostly a 50mm lens, and there are barely any wide angle or tele shots from him.

So, the development will probably function like survival in nature: every animal will shape its tool for survival, every camera and sensor type will either find a niche of maximum photographic use, or simply die out.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's been some speculation as to the idea of a 4/3 format small viewfinder camera, but the problem is that such a camera would need completely different lenses than the current digital zuikos, since the lens-to-sensor distance is made to accomodate a mirror box. The lenses themselves are one of the biggest draws for 4/3, with Olympus being sometimes reffered to as the leica of the digital age for the quality seen from their lenses (I wouldn't ignore those f2 zooms, either... the 14-35mm f2 is meant as the 4/3 equivalent to FF 24-70 f2.8 zooms), and of course the other main manufacturer is leica themselves (with panasonic).

Most seem to be fixated on the idea of small+light as related to camera bodies. That's not exactly the idea they had for 4/3, though they've managed to do that anyways. The idea was that the lenses would be much smaller, particularly at the longer focal lengths. At the wider end the gap isn't so large, but a D700 with a 300mm f2 attached (does nikon even make one) would be much larger than the E-3 with the 150mm f2 attached (which several reviews have rated as one of the best lenses they've tested). Similarly, the zuiko 300mm f2.8... are there any 600mm f2.8s out there?

The potential of four thirds is apparent in their glass, but unfortunately they seem a little behind on the bodies. They've done a great job of lessening the gap lately, but they've still got some work to do. Better AF algorithms are the most pressing need; many have bought the E-3 for its ultra-fast AF, and it delivers in reasonable lighting with slower subjects. But it's outperformed in low light by canon and nikon, and for C-AF tracking Nikon does a particularly superior job. As far as megapixels go, that's a problem from a marketing viewpoint, but not so much from a photography viewpoint. It's better to compare actual vertical and horizontal pixel counts than given megapixel ratings, because the vertical resolution of a 12mp APS-C sensor and a 10mp 4/3 sensor are very similar; it's like you just cropped the sides off the APS-C.

Either way, they've been gaining sales and speeding up development lately, and the lenses are starting to gain the reputation they deserve, so I think 4/3 has safely come through the predictions of the naysayers and will survive, and even thrive.

More on topic: has there been any speculation on the idea of a pentax FF camera? They made a prototype long ago, with a 6mp FF sensor, which looked like it had the potential to be very interesting. Now there are rumbles about a samsung full-frame sensor...
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: tetsuo77 on July 03, 2008, 01:54:10 am
Quote
More on topic: has there been any speculation on the idea of a pentax FF camera? They made a prototype long ago, with a 6mp FF sensor, which looked like it had the potential to be very interesting. Now there are rumbles about a samsung full-frame sensor...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Pentax has, up to now, two different pro camera attempts stopped two months [more or less] before public release.

The first, and less known, is the 2000-2001 MZ-D model with a 6 mpx Full Frame Phillips based pro model.  Taking the pro MZ-S 35mm model, the camera was stopped two months before release because of the problems with the Phillips sensor [mainly, color inaccuracies and failures]. That model was good to use the K-mount [KAF, KAF2 power zoom included] lenses, and, via adapters [unique to Pentax], 645 and 67 lenses.

The 2000-2001 MZ-D had working prototypes rolled out [not mock-ups, but models where you could take a picture and take the card with you].

The second attempt, and this admittedly stopped two months before it´s public release by the Pentax board, was the 645d, the second pro body of Pentax. This model had several sensors passing through where the inserts should go. Latest news were the 18mpx Kodak sensor [the same Phase One was using circa 2004] and a later development of 31 mpx. You can find more info about this via Dpreview forums, which have a link to the very sentence regarding what happened to the 645d.

It means that Pentax has still a stillborn digital system completely finished [they say they were ready for the official launch] when Hoya stomped in.

Samsung has stated they are developing as fast as they can a FF sensor. Thing is, if the K20d develops such high results and has quite a good lens system [you can use long lenses from old days, specialty items or use the cross-system capability within Pentax lenses], and the files are HUUUUUUUUUUGE, what is the advantage you get from a FF Pentax? The k20d files are bordering the 20mpx [DNG, uncompressed].
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 03, 2008, 05:42:16 am
Probably whatever people get out of buying a 21mp canon or 24mp nikon or sony. Pentax is not a company that makes their name on sports photography. They typically push their camera's suitability to outdoor pursuits in their advertisements.

If they made a sensor that had the same pixel density and pitch as the current K20d sensor, it would be in the 20-30mp range and a good choice for landscapes. Not fast, not made for snapping a thousand shots, but that's not what pentax customers are typically after. Judging by their strategies in the past, it would probably offer a very sensible (from a photographic standpoint) feature set-- not flashy. It'll probably be ruggedly built, perhaps not bombproof like a 1d or E-3, but at least as durable and sealed as the k20d. And it may come in at a price point lower than its competitors, like the way the k10d offered many mid-tier capabilities at an entry level price.

At least that's what I would hope for. It seems sensible. Lanscape shooters who aren't too invested in a system already would find it very tempting. I'd want one, but not be able to afford it.    Tripods and base ISO are the way myself and many others work.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: tetsuo77 on July 03, 2008, 06:52:21 am
Quote
Probably whatever people get out of buying a 21mp canon or 24mp nikon or sony. Pentax is not a company that makes their name on sports photography. They typically push their camera's suitability to outdoor pursuits in their advertisements.

[...]

At least that's what I would hope for. It seems sensible. Lanscape shooters who aren't too invested in a system already would find it very tempting. I'd want one, but not be able to afford it.    Tripods and base ISO are the way myself and many others work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What [as far as I know and what happened to me] Pentax customers are usually craving after are lenses, lenses and lenses. For the sheer quantity of them. And obviously, the quality of the glass.

Which, for instance, makes people buy at the very same time the FA43 1.9 and the FA50 1.4/1.7.

The ultimate quality of the Pentax bodies has been, so far, their ability to be just a tool, with zillions options [for heaven´s sake, they had variable AND bracketable ISO from the very begining]. The Pentax bodies are kind of servants of their owner. Sort of "just right" theory.

All in all I am very doubtful about what might happen with the über-Pentax. One one hand, it seems that that über-model will be aplicable for a maximum of 3fps style of shoot [fashion photography, studio photo, macro, landscape, architecture]. For that:

If they get to FF, they will have to compete with the marketing resources of Sony. But they have the new player behind [Samsung], eager to set themselves as the Korean Sony.

On the other hand, the do have everything set for a 645 digital. And they are leaving probalby the best ever made lens system orphan [the 645 system, sorry, Hassy shooters]. The 645N and 645NII were pretty ubiquos cameras. It would have been a very sensible upgrade path.

All in all, that´s the problem I see with Pentax. Their Pro series were the MF cameras, not the 35mm on steroids. They have now two paths. Which one will follow?
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 03, 2008, 09:08:47 am
Quote
The second attempt, and this admittedly stopped two months before it´s public release by the Pentax board, was the 645d, the second pro body of Pentax. This model had several sensors passing through where the inserts should go. Latest news were the 18mpx Kodak sensor [the same Phase One was using circa 2004] and a later development of 31 mpx. You can find more info about this via Dpreview forums, which have a link to the very sentence regarding what happened to the 645d.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually the 645D reached a very advanced level of developement. A Japanese maginze had a article about it last month with some actual images shot with the beast.

The quality on A4 was impressive.

They didn't comment though on the final outcome of the project, which makes me think that there is still a small chance that it might be revived.

Regards,
Bernard
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: tetsuo77 on July 03, 2008, 10:32:19 am
Quote
Actually the 645D reached a very advanced level of developement. A Japanese maginze had a article about it last month with some actual images shot with the beast.

The quality on A4 was impressive.

They didn't comment though on the final outcome of the project, which makes me think that there is still a small chance that it might be revived.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello, Bernard
Yep, the 645D reached a very advanced level of development, as the MZ-D did [actually, quite a bit further]. As I said, it was halted two months before the public release.

I truly hope it will be revived, sooner than later. Usually they are the most affordable MF systems with no big compromise, so far.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: alba63 on July 03, 2008, 01:14:48 pm
Quote
As far as I am concerned, I see value in FF now and in the coming 2 or 3 years thanks to better DR and potentially higher resolutions, etc... but I will probably return to DX around 2012.

It is true on one hand that people generally underestimate the power of technological progress. I believe that the noise performance of Dx sensors can be bettered in modest steps in the next years, maybe the same quality as today's d300, just with 14 or 16MP. However I do not believe that with current  technology it will be able to maintain or even improve dynamic range in small sensors. Olympus (4/3s) fights with a too weak latitude in the highlights, and no DSLR except the Fuji S3/5 with their dual pixel approach and maybe partly the D3 NIkon have adressed this frequent complaint.

I have not enough tech. insight to understand why the 33MP and 39MP MF backs with their equally high pixel density manage to keep the DR as high as they do. Maybe it is better AD converters and high quality components, but I'd certainly like to see a DSLR with true 12 stops of DR and subtle deep colours like the MF backs have it....

As long as it has 14MP I will be happy...

Maybe the introduction of new - non- BAyer - types of sensors will do the trick, whatever, but I dount that more pixels on small sensor will improve anything.

regards
bernie
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 03, 2008, 04:33:56 pm
Quote
... I'm currently using the philosopher Husserl's tactic of "Epoche", which is to not judge right now and keep information coming in and let it build an image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Probably the wisest comment in this discussion but while I continue to gather information, I will speculate anyway!

To Bernard, I do see at least one other persistent role for 24x36mm format: for anyone whose needs extreme low light/high shutter speed performance enough to carry and use monster super-telephotos like the ones on the sidelines of sporting events and in some bird-watching hides. Aslo perhaps for extremes of detail (pixel count), though the constraints of resolution/DOF trade-offs in aperture choice will mitigate that advantage over smaller SLR formats if small pixel DR can be improved enough.

As to speculation about a compact range-finder (non-SLR) camera and lens system using 4/3 format sensors, (maybe made by Panasonic, branded Leica):
backward compatibility with existing 4/3 SLR lenses could be provided easily enough through a mount adaptor since the new mount would be closer to the focal plane. (All other SLR lenses could be used with adaptors too). And the new more compact lenses would only be needed at short focal lengths; roughly, for wide-angles.

Maybe future good LiveView and improved contrast detection AF and/or a new type of range-finder AF mechanism could make this work: IR laser range-finders?
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 03, 2008, 05:35:35 pm
I'm no particular fan of FF, but I can see advantages. Photojournalists and those with a yen for wide fast lenses - F1.4 say - will go for FF as there are no equivalents in APS land. And anyone wanting a compact camera with a wide prime lens will go for FF once the size and weight come down. Those with high ISO leanings such as concert photographers might go FF, unless APS can cut the mustard.

Wasn't it MR who wrote somewhere that many pros are losing their faith in Canon FF cameras and going back to MF, but digital this time round, presumably because the 35mm lenses just are not up to the demands of the sensors? Surely a 35mm sensor with MF lenses would do the job, though I suppose the market would be small, and the development costs high.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on July 03, 2008, 09:13:00 pm
Quote
I'm no particular fan of FF, but I can see advantages. Photojournalists and those with a yen for wide fast lenses - F1.4 say - will go for FF as there are no equivalents in APS land. And anyone wanting a compact camera with a wide prime lens will go for FF once the size and weight come down. Those with high ISO leanings such as concert photographers might go FF, unless APS can cut the mustard.

Wasn't it MR who wrote somewhere that many pros are losing their faith in Canon FF cameras and going back to MF, but digital this time round, presumably because the 35mm lenses just are not up to the demands of the sensors? Surely a 35mm sensor with MF lenses would do the job, though I suppose the market would be small, and the development costs high.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205347\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  That's why I'm waiting for the Sony A900.  Sony is in a unique position in that they are developing new lenses for digital with Zeiss on board.  These Zeiss FF lenses are very, very sharp compared to Canon/Nikon.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 03, 2008, 11:03:56 pm
Quote
I believe that the noise performance of Dx sensors can be bettered in modest steps in the next years, maybe the same quality as today's d300, just with 14 or 16MP. However I do not believe that with current  technology it will be able to maintain or even improve dynamic range in small sensors. Olympus (4/3s) fights with a too weak latitude in the highlights, and no DSLR except the Fuji S3/5 with their dual pixel approach and maybe partly the D3 NIkon have adressed this frequent complaint.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205266\")

Again, 4/3 is not a "small-sensor" system any more than DX is a "small-sensor" system. See a size comparison [a href=\"http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Four-Thirds]here.[/url] The difference between 4/3 and APS-C is minute; the difference between APS-C and 35mm is vast. If DX can have performance so close to a sensor so much larger, does it make sense that the slightly smaller 4/3 sensor would be so hobbled against DX?

I really feel that the main issue with 4/3 sensors is Panasonic. So far, their sensors exhibit slightly higher noise and slightly less dynamic range than their competitors, about a generation behind the sensors from canon and sony. I fully believe that canon or sony could, with their technology, create a 10mp 4/3 sensor with performance indistinguishable from their own 12mp APS-C sensors, with approximately the same vertical resolution, and just some pixels clipped off the sides due to the different aspect ratio. Sensor size really isn't the limiting factor here. When panasonic catches up (if they ever do) or another manufacturer enters the system, there won't be a real difference. Of course, APS-C will keep advancing as well, so 4/3 may never reach the exact same performance unless a plateau is reached, but at the least they'll outperform today's best crop-sensor offerings.

Medium format would probably be tempting for a lot of pros using FF if it weren't for the slow, enresponsive bodies and high ISO noise. Sure, a 39mp back on a Hassy H3D can give you much better end image quality than a Canon 1Ds, but you can't measure the quality of an image that doesn't exist due to a lack of responsiveness. That's the main advantage FF currently has over MF, in my eyes.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: tetsuo77 on July 04, 2008, 05:19:28 am
Quote
Actually the 645D reached a very advanced level of developement. A Japanese maginze had a article about it last month with some actual images shot with the beast.

The quality on A4 was impressive.

They didn't comment though on the final outcome of the project, which makes me think that there is still a small chance that it might be revived.

Regards,
Bernard
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205221\")

Hi Bernard.
As you said:

[a href=\"http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-03/07/p645d/index.html]http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/i...645d/index.html[/url]

Cheers
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 04, 2008, 06:09:16 pm
Quote
while I continue to gather information, I will speculate anyway!

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Speculation is the most satisfying application of the mind.

Photography has a lot to do with speculation. Even the best "planned" shot has a surprise moment, and photography truly becomes interesting when you leave the soil of assured experience and explore new ideas.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 04, 2008, 06:33:40 pm
Quote
That's why I'm waiting for the Sony A900.  Sony is in a unique position in that they are developing new lenses for digital with Zeiss on board.  These Zeiss FF lenses are very, very sharp compared to Canon/Nikon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Sony - Nikon relationship.

Sony produces cameras, Nikon produces cameras, but only Sony produces sensors (of these two).

I wonder if Sony wouldn't just delay to give the latest and best to its competitor Nikon.

Regarding the A900, I hope they put an LCD display on top. I hate it, when higher end cameras have no top display, like the A700.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: alba63 on July 04, 2008, 07:07:03 pm
Quote
Again, 4/3 is not a "small-sensor" system any more than DX is a "small-sensor" system. (...) The difference between 4/3 and APS-C is minute; the difference between APS-C and 35mm is vast. If DX can have performance so close to a sensor so much larger, does it make sense that the slightly smaller 4/3 sensor would be so hobbled against DX?

Well, the difference between Dx (Nikon) and 4/3ds is not "minute" - The surface of 4/3 is only 65% of the surface that Dx has - simply do the calculation, it is easy. At a time where 35mm FF starts to become the new standard for high quality, 4/3ds is closed into it's small format forever...

So far all 4/3ds cameras were not up to the quality of the Dx cameras that came out at the same time, let alone larger formats.

And I still believe that it was a mistake of Oly not to buiild upon their 35mm system. 4/3ds will never be more than a niche system, and will never be accepted by the majority of pros.

regards
Bernie
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 05, 2008, 12:15:04 am
Quote
Well, the difference between Dx (Nikon) and 4/3ds is not "minute" - The surface of 4/3 is only 65% of the surface that Dx has - simply do the calculation, it is easy. At a time where 35mm FF starts to become the new standard for high quality, 4/3ds is closed into it's small format forever...

So far all 4/3ds cameras were not up to the quality of the Dx cameras that came out at the same time, let alone larger formats.

And I still believe that it was a mistake of Oly not to buiild upon their 35mm system. 4/3ds will never be more than a niche system, and will never be accepted by the majority of pros.

regards
Bernie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In areas other than pure image quality, several 4/3 cameras have indeed been up to the quality of their DX peers. At the entry level there's really nothing in the right price range to compete with the E-410, and the closest camera in price, the Nikon D40, is a nice camera but really doesn't compare. It may have slightly lower high ISO noise, but the E-410 resolves considerably more detail and provides the user much greater control, as well as being smaller, lighter, and better built. Some working photographers have also switched from the Canon 40D or Nikon D300 to the E-3 (a few have gone the other way, as well). Certainly different cameras are going to have more appeal to different people, but this seems to imply that there was no percieved "inferiority" in comparison to the contemporary DX models.

DX will likely always have an edge in high ISO noise, just as FF will always have an edge over DX. But to say that this has caused all 4/3 cameras to be "not up to the quality" of contemporary DX cameras seems a little off. There's more to a camera than sensor size.

The decision not to work on their 35mm system may have locked Olympus into a niche market that will only appeal to some, but it has allowed them to produce some fantastic optics, and there will be many who will choose them because that's more important to them than 2/3 stop high-ISO noise (the difference demonstrated in RAW files so far).
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 05, 2008, 02:06:50 am
One key issue with a camera, apart from image quality, is how it handles.

How good is the viewfinder?

Smaller size sensor cameras usually have a narrower viewfinder.

Sure, you can build a bigger viewfinder, but this makes the whole camera bigger, and why not put the biggest possible sensor into the camera?

For some lighter lenses may be attractive.

I personally don't care if it weighs a bit more.

I just bought a DX camera and an expensive lens for it. I'm happy with it. But it doesn't mean I have to stay with the format forever.

Currently, the price difference of FF and DX is a big one.

A FF camera costs twice to three times what a DX camera costs. FF is new, the bigger sensors are more expensive.

But the price differences of FF and DX will get smaller. And I don't think a FF lens is much more expensive to build than a DX lens.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on July 07, 2008, 05:22:33 pm
Quote
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Sony - Nikon relationship.

Sony produces cameras, Nikon produces cameras, but only Sony produces sensors (of these two).

I wonder if Sony wouldn't just delay to give the latest and best to its competitor Nikon.

Regarding the A900, I hope they put an LCD display on top. I hate it, when higher end cameras have no top display, like the A700.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205566\")

  There is a top LCD.  Here is a pic of the top of the camera.

[a href=\"http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/2346220871_a9c83a7bdc_o.jpg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/234622...9c83a7bdc_o.jpg[/url]
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Kenneth Sky on July 07, 2008, 10:33:14 pm
Just so you know, the LCD is correct but the digits are fake in the above posting. The lens is the CZ 24-70 f2.8.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on July 08, 2008, 10:49:49 pm
Quote
Just so you know, the LCD is correct but the digits are fake in the above posting. The lens is the CZ 24-70 f2.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206321\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  I thought that at first, too.  However, the other icons may indicate that it's showing the WB at 2000K and the Exposure comp at 1.8??
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 11, 2008, 01:43:42 am
The Nikon D700 has made it a full frame summer.

With all those FF cameras about to be presented: I guess the real battle will take place about the lenses.

If there are enough high resolution lenses (and sharp!) for the high megapixel full frame sensors.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on July 11, 2008, 08:37:15 pm
Quote
The Nikon D700 has made it a full frame summer.

With all those FF cameras about to be presented: I guess the real battle will take place about the lenses.

If there are enough high resolution lenses (and sharp!) for the high megapixel full frame sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  That's what Sony seems to be addressing.  The 70-300G and Zeiss 24-70 they released this year are razors, and there is a Zeiss wide angle zoom and two Zeiss primes coming, along with some new long stuff.  My 24-70 is insane.  I keep checking in disbelief as it outdoes any primes I have in the range, similar to how the Nikon 14-24 behaves.  

Sorry to keep chiming in about Sony.  I guess I'm one of the few Alpha mount users here  
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 11, 2008, 09:30:40 pm
Quote
It is true on one hand that people generally underestimate the power of technological progress. I believe that the noise performance of Dx sensors can be bettered in modest steps in the next years, maybe the same quality as today's d300, just with 14 or 16MP. However I do not believe that with current  technology it will be able to maintain or even improve dynamic range in small sensors. Olympus (4/3s) fights with a too weak latitude in the highlights, and no DSLR except the Fuji S3/5 with their dual pixel approach and maybe partly the D3 NIkon have adressed this frequent complaint.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, it appears to me that a D300 with 12 MP has more DR than a D100 with 6MP...

They are 5 years apart.

My view is that none of us have any practical way to know exactly how much potential for progress sensor manufacturers still have. If I were running such a business, I would be careful to roll out enhancements little by little for the sake of sustainability and maximum integral sales.

So my bet - and we can look back at this thread again in 5 years from now - is that 4/3 will be by then at least at the level of a D3 today. You want more DR still? Then you will start to have issues with flat images requiring tone mapping to get pleasant results. One by one...

So my contention is that 4/3 does have potential, and considering the quality of the Leica lenses available, my view is that better pics will be taken with these cameras by then than with many of the competing systems on top today...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 11, 2008, 10:47:07 pm
Quote
That's what Sony seems to be addressing.  The 70-300G and Zeiss 24-70 they released this year are razors, and there is a Zeiss wide angle zoom and two Zeiss primes coming, along with some new long stuff.  My 24-70 is insane.  I keep checking in disbelief as it outdoes any primes I have in the range, similar to how the Nikon 14-24 behaves. 

Sorry to keep chiming in about Sony.  I guess I'm one of the few Alpha mount users here 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=207460\")

Oh, Sony will give Canon and Nikon a good deal of competition, and this is good so.

The A700 is a very good camera, and the 24-70 definitely a great zoom lens.

Photozone.de noted a disappointment regarding the bokeh at 70mm, and a certain proneness to flair. What do you  think?

[a href=\"http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-alpha-aps-c/380-zeiss_za_2470_28?start=2]http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-al...2470_28?start=2[/url]

The only thing I think is a bit a downer is that they didn't make it a 24-80 or 85, so it would cover portrait range, like, in DX the Canon 17-55/2.8.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 11, 2008, 10:50:38 pm
Quote
Well, it appears to me that a D300 with 12 MP has more DR than a D100 with 6MP...

They are 5 years apart.

My view is that none of us have any practical way to know exactly how much potential for progress sensor manufacturers still have. If I were running such a business, I would be careful to roll out enhancements little by little for the sake of sustainability and maximum integral sales.

So my bet - and we can look back at this thread again in 5 years from now - is that 4/3 will be by then at least at the level of a D3 today. You want more DR still? Then you will start to have issues with flat images requiring tone mapping to get pleasant results. One by one...

So my contention is that 4/3 does have potential, and considering the quality of the Leica lenses available, my view is that better pics will be taken with these cameras by then than with many of the competing systems on top today...

Cheers,
Bernard
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=207468\")

I just wonder where technology will hit a wall. At the beginning of every technology, the steps of development are bigger, compare to cars and computers.

After a certain amount of development the law of diminishing returns comes into play, and maybe we're getting into that zone now.

Dynamic range may be the battle field on the sensor sector...

...and this could be the strength of the FF cameras. (Those have been out a good deal of a shorter period than APS sensors)...

... but I will watch what lenses will come from Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

This thread is interesting regarding lenses, that aren't up to the resolution of the sensors.

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26289]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=26289[/url]

I am still doubtful about the future of the four thirds system.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 12, 2008, 04:12:31 pm
Quote
I do not believe that with current  technology it will be able to maintain or even improve dynamic range in small sensors. Olympus (4/3s) fights with a too weak latitude in the highlights, and no DSLR except ... adressed this frequent complaint.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as I can tell, people who judge by photographic results not lab tests are not complaining much about overall dynamic range, but at most about highlight latitude or the mythical "highlight dynamic range".
Added highlight range for scenes with unusually large Subject Brightness Range from metered mid-tones to highlights is trivial: downward exposure compensation, probably with a modified, low contrast tone curve. The only sensor limitation to this is total DR; the rest is up to choices in exposure and processing.

By the way, Olympus offers a "Shadow Adjustment Technology" mode specifically for such high SBR scenes, which adjusts both exposure (down about 1/2 stop) and tone curve. But for typical scenes, more than about three stops between metered exposure level and the highlight limit is a waste of DR through underexposure ("expose to the right" thinking here). My guess is that most DSLRs meter for about three stops from mid-tones to highlights and so have far more than three stops from mid-tones to shadows at low ISO for this reason, not due to any technical limitation of sensors.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on July 15, 2008, 01:35:12 pm
Quote
Oh, Sony will give Canon and Nikon a good deal of competition, and this is good so.

The A700 is a very good camera, and the 24-70 definitely a great zoom lens.

Photozone.de noted a disappointment regarding the bokeh at 70mm, and a certain proneness to flair. What do you  think?

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-al...2470_28?start=2 (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-alpha-aps-c/380-zeiss_za_2470_28?start=2)

The only thing I think is a bit a downer is that they didn't make it a 24-80 or 85, so it would cover portrait range, like, in DX the Canon 17-55/2.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  I think Sony will give Canon and Nikon a run for their money in IQ with 24MP and these lenses, although it remains to be seen if the line will still remain a distant third.  I'd bet it won't come close to touching Nikon/Canon in sales for years.

  As far as the 24-70, I haven't noticed any flair issues, and, yes, when at 70mm 2.8 the lens sometimes has questionable bokeh when shooting a busy background, but it is easy to work around.  Klaus from photozone, a Sony user,  is a very good tester, but keep in mind that bokeh tests are new for that site, and it remains to be seen how a lot of the older Canon/Nikon lenses test.  Either way, I don't think either the Nikon or Canon hold a candle to the Zeiss 24-70, but I'm probably biased  
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: timescapes on July 15, 2008, 08:19:28 pm
Quote
After a certain amount of development the law of diminishing returns comes into play, and maybe we're getting into that zone now.

Dynamic range may be the battle field on the sensor sector...

I think this is correct.  

It is also true of digital cinema cameras, which are about to engage in a decisive battle with cinema 35mm chemical film, reminiscent of the DSLR vs SLR battle of the last couple of years.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on July 22, 2008, 10:36:43 pm
Quote
I think Sony will give Canon and Nikon a run for their money in IQ with 24MP and these lenses, although it remains to be seen if the line will still remain a distant third.  I'd bet it won't come close to touching Nikon/Canon in sales for years.

  As far as the 24-70, I haven't noticed any flair issues, and, yes, when at 70mm 2.8 the lens sometimes has questionable bokeh when shooting a busy background, but it is easy to work around.  Klaus from photozone, a Sony user,  is a very good tester, but keep in mind that bokeh tests are new for that site, and it remains to be seen how a lot of the older Canon/Nikon lenses test.  Either way, I don't think either the Nikon or Canon hold a candle to the Zeiss 24-70, but I'm probably biased 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208435\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Biased? Admit it! You fell in love with your camera!

PS: I'm glad Sony has entered the market as a competitor, so the old Minolta legacy doesn't go down under without a trace. How much Minolta Sony will retain is another question. I expect it to thin out over the years, as new developments replace the older knowledge.

Competition will keep the big ones on their toes, so they won't fall asleep behind the wheel of their success.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Tony Beach on July 23, 2008, 12:06:52 am
Quote
13-15 is probably the best quality you can get out of a 35mm ff sensor. Yes, you can get bigger images, but probably no better![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, that's your opinion, but I think you are wrong.  By your logic a 12 MP DX sensor should have no resolution advantage over an 8 MP DX sensor.  In fact, I can make out an improvement going from 10 MP to 12 MP on a DX sensor.  Now if you define more detail as not being better, than you are right, but that's an opinion and not a fact; I consider more resolution to be an improvement though, although to get any more resolution from DX format would make the format critically diffraction limited and require tilt shift lenses to realize any advantage since you would not be able to stop down past f/8.

These DX numbers translate to around 25 MP for FX.  The problem though is that since there is a one stop difference in attainable DOF, diffraction limits kick in at about the same number of megapixels for both formats, so a 12 MP FX format sensor is diffraction limited at f/16 and if you want to stop down past that you will gain nothing by adding more megapixels.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 23, 2008, 01:16:58 am
Hi,

Regarding sensor development there seems to be a couple of physical limitations. Even if you could eliminate read noise fully there would be 'photon noise'. I also think that quantum efficiency is quite close to optimum so there is no room for a quantum step in that area. DR is dependent on well capacity and the 'noise floor'. There may be some room to increase well-capacity by making the actual sensor larger within it's matrix cell, that is increasing the fill factor.

Regarding sensor pitch it is probably not a very good idea to go below five microns,as diffraction would be a limiting factor. Five microns would put FX format around 35 MP and DX format around 16 MP. Decreasing sensor pitch farther would not increase resolution but may eliminate the need for the antialiasing filter.

Keep in mind that is much easier to develop lenses for smaller formats. Weather development goes for DX or FX we would need new lenses which are calculated to achieve a decent MTF at five micron spacing at an aperture of f/5.6. I may suggest that todays lenses are not sharp enough for 15 MPixel DX or 25 MPixel FX.

It seems that Canon struggles a bit in the wide angle end of the business. It seems that Nikon did produce a very good 14-24 zoom, demonstrating that it's nothing impossible to do that. Nikon does not for now have a high res FX sensor but testing the Nikon lens adopted to a Canon D1sIII showed that it's a brilliant performer also at 21 MPixels.

It would be a decent  thing if there would be high class lenses built for Canon by other companies like Zeiss or Coastal Optics.

Sony has a cooperation with Zeiss. I don't know if the cooperation is just about label engineering or Zeiss actually designing lenses for Sony. It seems that the Zeiss glass for Sony is quite decent, but it also seems that Sony may have some manufacturing issues as many of the lenses seem to have centering issues. As most testing nowdays seems to be done using lenses mounted on cameras and not 'pure MTF-measurement' we need to wait for Sony to release the 'Alpha 900' and have some to put those lenses to tests before we can say anything about Zeiss-ZA lenses on full frame.

A final thought  may be that we need better MTF-figures, the old 10/30 lp/mm figures given by Canon are not very relevant for tomorrows 5 micron pitch cameras. Olympus gives MTF figures at 60 lp/mm, that is much more relevant. It seems that Oly lenses are in general very well corrected, but it seems that Olympus has a very strong antialiasing filter so the sharpness of their lenses cannot be fully utilized .

Best regards
Erik


Quote
I just wonder where technology will hit a wall. At the beginning of every technology, the steps of development are bigger, compare to cars and computers.

After a certain amount of development the law of diminishing returns comes into play, and maybe we're getting into that zone now.

Dynamic range may be the battle field on the sensor sector...

...and this could be the strength of the FF cameras. (Those have been out a good deal of a shorter period than APS sensors)...

... but I will watch what lenses will come from Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

This thread is interesting regarding lenses, that aren't up to the resolution of the sensors.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=26289 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26289)

I am still doubtful about the future of the four thirds system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 23, 2008, 01:04:36 pm
Quote
DR is dependent on well capacity and the 'noise floor'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The well capacity limit is true with current standard designs, but there are a number of alternative technologies and ideas around that can increase the signal headroom of a sensor.

One is Fuji's SR idea of having a second smaller less sensitive photodiode at each pixel, which gives measurement of highlight pixels that are blown out on the main photodiode.
Another is versions of repeated read-out during exposure. For example, read each photosite once or more often early in the exposure for the highlights to mid-tones, read again later for the darker regions. Some sensors intended for security cameras use this sort of approach already, getting huge DR from photosites far smaller than those in SLRs.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: nmccalip on July 23, 2008, 03:47:27 pm
I haven't read much info about the 25mp Sony to be released.

Does anyone know when it will be released and a possible price-point?

I have no details and would appreciate if someone could link me to some reading.

Thanks All
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Christopher on July 23, 2008, 06:23:17 pm
Quote
I haven't read much info about the 25mp Sony to be released.

Does anyone know when it will be released and a possible price-point?

I have no details and would appreciate if someone could link me to some reading.

Thanks All
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


October and 3000 is my guess ;-)
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on July 23, 2008, 09:04:21 pm
Quote
October and 3000 is my guess ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Should be shown at Photokina, and many are speculating closer to $2500, but we'll see.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Tony Beach on July 24, 2008, 04:49:21 pm
Quote
Should be shown at Photokina, and many are speculating closer to $2500, but we'll see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many speculated that the DSLR that would become the D700 would cost $2000 or so, and that proved to be a grossly optimistic.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: MarkL on July 24, 2008, 07:58:40 pm
I agree with Tony. I really can't see a 25MP camera being brought to market at or below the cost of the D700.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on July 25, 2008, 05:29:37 pm
Quote
I agree with Tony. I really can't see a 25MP camera being brought to market at or below the cost of the D700.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  The A900 camera shouldn't rival the D700 as far as the camera body is concerned.  It won't have the sophisticated AF and some of the other more pro features.  Everyone that I've talked to that has seen the A900 in person says that it more or less looks like an A700, but it's just a bit bulkier...similar to how the D700 compares to the D300.  The price difference between the D700 and the A900 may be similar to the price difference between the D300 and the A700, since adding more megapixels really doesn't add to much too the cost, and this camera isn't expected to be really fast, but we'll see.  I'd say $2500-$3000 is a pretty good estimate for the Sony.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 25, 2008, 10:07:44 pm
Hi,

Pixels don't cost, silicon does. I don't think that there is any significant difference on the manufacturing side. A bit more signal processing may be needed but I don't think that ads to the cost. Development cost are of course very high and need to be amortized, but they are also the same regardless of pixels.

I also expect the A 900 in the 3000 USD range. I'm not really sure I'm going to buy it, however. I'd love 25 MPixels but I don't really feel I need it. Also I think that we are going to need top notch lenses to really utilize those 25 Mpixels, so three new zooms need to be added to the equation. I guess that the Sigma 12-24 may be an alternate for ultra wide but then I would probably need a 24-70/2.8 and perhaps 70-200/2.8.

Erik


Quote
I agree with Tony. I really can't see a 25MP camera being brought to market at or below the cost of the D700.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Christopher on July 26, 2008, 04:23:54 am
Quote
Hi,

Pixels don't cost, silicon does. I don't think that there is any significant difference on the manufacturing side. A bit more signal processing may be needed but I don't think that ads to the cost. Development cost are of course very high and need to be amortized, but they are also the same regardless of pixels.

I also expect the A 900 in the 3000 USD range. I'm not really sure I'm going to buy it, however. I'd love 25 MPixels but I don't really feel I need it. Also I think that we are going to need top notch lenses to really utilize those 25 Mpixels, so three new zooms need to be added to the equation. I guess that the Sigma 12-24 may be an alternate for ultra wide but then I would probably need a 24-70/2.8 and perhaps 70-200/2.8.

Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most sony/zeiss lenses hold probably up better than the canon stuff  
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Ray on July 26, 2008, 10:16:54 am
Quote
Also I think that we are going to need top notch lenses to really utilize those 25 Mpixels, so three new zooms need to be added to the equation. I guess that the Sigma 12-24 may be an alternate for ultra wide but then I would probably need a 24-70/2.8 and perhaps 70-200/2.8.

Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Better lenses produce better results on any camera. However, as the pixel count increases, one needs to use the lens that is attached to the camera at its optimum or sharpest apertures, which usually range between F5.6 and F8, in order to see the benefit of the extra pixels. Stopping down to increase DoF reduces the benefit of the extra pixels whatever the quality of the lens.

It might be doubtful if one would notice any increased detail at F22, after appropriate interpolation and sharpening for a large print, when comparing 12mp with 24mp.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: douglasf13 on July 26, 2008, 01:36:00 pm
Quote
Better lenses produce better results on any camera. However, as the pixel count increases, one needs to use the lens that is attached to the camera at its optimum or sharpest apertures, which usually range between F5.6 and F8, in order to see the benefit of the extra pixels. Stopping down to increase DoF reduces the benefit of the extra pixels whatever the quality of the lens.

It might be doubtful if one would notice any increased detail at F22, after appropriate interpolation and sharpening for a large print, when comparing 12mp with 24mp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210819\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  FWIW,  the CZ 24-70, CZ 85mm and CZ 135mm fullframe lenses for Sony have an optimum aperture of f4, with f5.6 being nearly identical.  I have a feeling that Zeiss will go this route with the upcoming Zeiss ZA lenses, announced at Photokina, as well.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 26, 2008, 04:19:21 pm
Hi,

One issue I have with all tests I have seen is that they are made on 1.5 crop cameras, so they say very little about edge sharpness on full frame. I hope that the Zeiss lenses are sharp across the field but I don't know. We have a journal here in Sweden (Foto) who is testing at the Hasselbald factory using their MTF equipment, they measure MTF up to 60 lp/mm but report only for 20 lp/mm for full frame and 30 lp/mm for APS-C.

They have tested he CZ 85 and the CZ 135. They considered the CZ 135 to be a top class lens, but not the CZ 85. I am quite interested in the 24-75, but Foto has unfortunately not tested it yet.

Another issue is that all full frame tests are now done on either 3D (Nikon) or D5 (Canon) testing a lens on a 12 MPixel body doesn't say much about performance on a 24 MPixel body that I would expect to be quite demanding.

I do have the th CZ 16-80 on my Alpha 700, yes I know it's a different class of lens. It is not sharp in the corners until stopped down two steps, center is quite sharp at all apertures.

Best regards
Erik



Quote
FWIW,  the CZ 24-70, CZ 85mm and CZ 135mm fullframe lenses for Sony have an optimum aperture of f4, with f5.6 being nearly identical.  I have a feeling that Zeiss will go this route with the upcoming Zeiss ZA lenses, announced at Photokina, as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Ray on July 26, 2008, 11:44:04 pm
Quote
One issue I have with all tests I have seen is that they are made on 1.5 crop cameras, so they say very little about edge sharpness on full frame. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210879\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true. If you peruse the old Photodo MTF charts, you'll see that very few lenses have good performance to the edges and corners. Between about 15mm to 21mm from the centre of the image, even very expensive lenses (at the edges)can look like very cheap lenses (near the centre).

This characteristic of 35mm format lenses has always been the strong point of the cropped format. However, we should bear in mind that edge and corner resolution is usually of secondary importance in most images.

If you want an extensive DoF, it's necessary to stop down, which usually improves edge resolution. Generally, the shallower the DoF, the less important are the corners and edges.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Cartman on July 30, 2008, 05:10:51 am
If we are prognosticating for five years from now I am going on record that 4/3 will be dead and abandoned by every major player in the market.  

I remember arguing with a friend about APS-C film.  When it was first announced he would explain his decision to buy a P&S in that format because of the specs on the new films for the formats.  I just couldn't explain to him that 35mm films were going to be similarly improved.

I just don't know of anything on the five year horizon to overcome the physics that limit the size of electron wells on ultra small pixels.  Anything 4/3 can do DX can do better.  IMO of course, and have no problem being proven wrong.

Thus, will 4/3 be that much better than a P&S and if someone feels the need to go beyond a P&S will they be willing to do SLR light with a 4/3 system instead of DX or FF?  I'm betting they won't.  If they're in for a penny they'll be in for a pound.

Why fiddle with an also-ran when you can get the real deal with practically no downside?



Quote
Well, it appears to me that a D300 with 12 MP has more DR than a D100 with 6MP...

They are 5 years apart.

My view is that none of us have any practical way to know exactly how much potential for progress sensor manufacturers still have. If I were running such a business, I would be careful to roll out enhancements little by little for the sake of sustainability and maximum integral sales.

So my bet - and we can look back at this thread again in 5 years from now - is that 4/3 will be by then at least at the level of a D3 today. You want more DR still? Then you will start to have issues with flat images requiring tone mapping to get pleasant results. One by one...

So my contention is that 4/3 does have potential, and considering the quality of the Leica lenses available, my view is that better pics will be taken with these cameras by then than with many of the competing systems on top today...

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Kenneth Sky on July 30, 2008, 08:26:34 am
I agree with the above but think physics is not the primary limitation. Digital photography (including printing) is approaching the limitation of the human eye to appreciate noticeable differences of newer technology. If you don't pixel peep, don't take pictures in a coal bin at night and view prints at 3-6 feet, I doubt the next five years technology (except for software) will change the quality of your images.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 30, 2008, 08:34:13 am
Quote
I agree with the above but think physics is not the primary limitation. Digital photography (including printing) is approaching the limitation of the human eye to appreciate noticeable differences of newer technology. If you don't pixel peep, don't take pictures in a coal bin at night and view prints at 3-6 feet, I doubt the next five years technology (except for software) will change the quality of your images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But where would we be if you could not take a ditch dull picture of your dog, or a wall, using ISO 20,000, and post it on dpreview, to prove that your camera walks over the competition?
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 30, 2008, 08:37:47 am
Quote
If we are prognosticating for five years from now I am going on record that 4/3 will be dead and abandoned by every major player in the market. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That would be my guess too, or at least it will remain a niche.

DX has the advantage of an upgrade path to FX if you want it, and a wide range of legacy lenses that also work on the DX camera. And buy Canon/Nikon, and you get loads of system accessories etc.

Whereas 4/3 is a new format, with a small range of often expensive lenses, no upgrade path, and a limited system. It sounds good to marketing wonks, but I think Joe Public has voted with his/her feet.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: CJL on July 30, 2008, 08:45:20 am
Quote
But where would we be if you could not take a ditch dull picture of your dog, or a wall, using ISO 20,000, and post it on dpreview, to prove that your camera walks over the competition?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You mean cat, don't you?  
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Let Biogons be Biogons on July 30, 2008, 09:49:42 am
Quote
Of course I really want Foveon to do something aggressive.  A higher resolution DB - say 4000x4000 true square format)  I'd even be happy with 3000X3000.  2,652 × 1,768 isn't quite good enough to compete with the new crop of 15-25MP cameras.  3000*3000 in a DB for say, $2,000 - that would be amazing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


THe problem with Foveon is that they need to cram more pixels in.  But the way the Foveon pixels are made, they are really big so it is increasing hard for them to make them smaller.  Foveon talks about these pixels are being simple layers for the RGB, but it more complex than that, they look more like concentric circles (viewed from the top) and produced by successively filling in a large pit with material for each color sensor.  It's main advantage is the reduction of moire without using AA filters.

One way to improve things would be to increase the size of the sensor.  One wonders why they settles on of 1,7x crop (when say going to 1.5X, would give them more pixels to compete more effectively while still being able to use APS-sized lenses).  One assumes that there is some limitation that prevents them from doing so.  Further, a full frame, 36x24mm, Foveon sensor would possibly make an attractive product that could be competitive with 5D/D700/A900 products (to satisfy the rabid Sigma fanboys out there, let's say more competitive).  Yet we do not see this.  Why, particularly noting that most manufacturers are moving to full frame sensors.  And the Foveon is not without it's own issues (particularly with the blue channel and with noise) -- it isn't perfect, in spite of what some may want you to believe.  If Foveon remains mired in 1.7x crop sized chips and the inability to increase pixel counts, this technology isn't going anywhere.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 30, 2008, 12:30:34 pm
Quote
If we are prognosticating for five years from now I am going on record that 4/3 will be dead ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And none of your arguments are any different from those used by many people to make the same prediction five and more years ago; predictions that are now "expired" and proven wrong.

Please note the simple fact that all the undisputed advantages of a larger format over a smaller one involve using not only larger sensors (inherently more expensive, and persistently a major cost component for mainstream DSLRs) but also longer focal lengths to form a larger image on the larger sensor. This leads to disadvantages in size, weight and cost of a working kit: body plus lenses.  Whatever the technological progress, these sort of trade-offs will persist and camera buyers balance such pros and cons of different format sizes, so predictions about sales success which ignore them are automatically invalid.

The somewhat sad fact is that when this balancing is done, over 90% of camera buyers choose cameras with sensors less than 1/4 the area of 4/3 format. I doubt that the desire for SLR advantages like interchangeable lenses suddenly moves the preferred sensor size up by a factor of four or more, so if anything perhaps all SLR formats including 4/3 are too large for maximum sales success!
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 30, 2008, 01:10:54 pm
Quote
And none of your arguments are any different from those used by many people to make the same prediction five and more years ago; predictions that are now "expired" and proven wrong.

Please note the simple fact that all the undisputed advantages of a larger format over a smaller one involve using not only larger sensors (inherently more expensive, and persistently a major cost component for mainstream DSLRs) but also longer focal lengths to form a larger image on the larger sensor. This leads to disadvantages in size, weight and cost of a working kit: body plus lenses.  Whatever the technological progress, these sort of trade-offs will persist and camera buyers balance such pros and cons of different format sizes, so predictions about sales success which ignore them are automatically invalid.

The somewhat sad fact is that when this balancing is done, over 90% of camera buyers choose cameras with sensors less than 1/4 the area of 4/3 format. I doubt that the desire for SLR advantages like interchangeable lenses suddenly moves the preferred sensor size up by a factor of four or more, so if anything perhaps all SLR formats including 4/3 are too large for maximum sales success!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your arguments about 'crop' sensors having advantages due to less need for big heavy telephoto lenses is a good one, and IMO a reason why DX will persist despite the claims of many. But 4/3 has few advantages over DX, and plenty of disadvantages. Or do you see 4/3 market share growing suddenly from its current pathetic cut over the next few years?

The comment about tiny sensors is a red herring. Such P&S cameras offer a good solution for the mass market.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Plekto on July 30, 2008, 03:28:05 pm
Unfortunately, Foveon seems to be dropping the ball on this one.  I'd love to see a full-frame Foveon sensor.  They don't need tighter pixels - they just need to change the ratio and make more of the same. - say, add another 1500-2000 pixels in each dimension and presto - full frame or close to it.  

The current one is 20.7x13.8mm.  Making this 36x24mm would mean an increase from 2652x1768 to ~4630x3075 = very close to the optimal numbers you'd need for a film replacement.  Optimal is about 8-12 million true full color locations, and 14 would be a bit of gravy - not going to hurt anything - it would be close to 3600dpi scanned.  Be a bit of a thick and heavy camera though...    

It's a bit frustrating, because the technology really does look superb.  But it's just not enough detail to satisfy any serious photographer.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 30, 2008, 03:51:59 pm
Quote
But 4/3 has few advantages over DX, and plenty of disadvantages.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How are the advantages few yet the advantages many? (And as an aside, why has "APS-C" become "DX" lately? Did Canon drop EF-S?!)

The idea seems to be that the size difference is big enough to be very significant in performance (it offers about a 1/2 to 2/3 stop difference in theory) yet it is small enough that the size, cost and weight advantages of the smaller format are not significant. This to me seems like trying to have it both ways on the same facts.

On market share: what counts for viability is market share for a system of interchangeable components, not for a particular choice of sensor dimensions. So the main comparisons are Canon vs Nikon vs Olympus+Panasonic vs Sony vs Pentax+Samsung. Of course Canon and Nikon dominate, as they have since every brand used the same "sensors" in the same format (35mm film); no evidence of format being a factor there, since Sony and Pentax share DX format with Nikon. Amongst the remaining "second tier" systems, FourThirds has done about as well as any so far.

If format market share were really a useful measure, we would be predicting doom for 35mm and MF, which continue to sell far fewer units than 4/3 and are vastly outsold in numbers and revenues by DX, EF-S, etc.


I am by the way skeptical that most people choosing an entry level DSLR system will achieve much compatibility with 35mm format (or care about it), since entry level lens choices are dominated by "digital format only" lenses like DX and EF-S, and zooms whose focal length range and quality are a poor fit for use with a 35mm format DSLR.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 30, 2008, 04:01:42 pm
Quote
The comment about tiny sensors is a red herring. Such P&S cameras offer a good solution for the mass market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I overlooked this comment, to which response is obvious:
a FourThirds kit like E-520, 14-42 and 40-150 likewise offers a good solution for the interchangeable lens mass market,
much of which is not the slightest bit interested in upgrading to a kit like D700, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, no matter how much it makes our hearts race. The trade-off of speed for size and weight is a milder version of what makes compacts sell so much better than SLRs, and keeps the interchangeable lens advantage that a compact loses.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 30, 2008, 04:38:09 pm
I can think of one serious advantage to four thirds at this moment: The lenses. Who cares about the bodies? They're just going to be replaced. Most don't have any need for more than 10mp, myself included, and those who do are even more of a "niche market" than the market for 4/3 consumer slrs. The lenses, however, consistently score as best-in-class, and as far as the "small range of often expensive lenses" goes, it covers everything from 14mm to 1200mm equivalent, and there are very well-built, high-performing, and yet inexpensive lenses to cover most of that for those who don't want to pay a lot.

Other makers like Canon and Nikon have more lenses available, but many of them do the exact same thing, such as an updated version of an old lens, or a manual focus version and an AF version, or several lenses covering only marginally different ranges and aperture ranges. I'm sure that after 4/3 has been around for as long as, say, EOS mount, it will have just as many outdated, redundant lenses to choose from alongside its better lenses of the future.

As for people "voting with their feet" against 4/3, it's interesting to note that Olympus has increased sales, and there were quite a few people who switched to Olympus with the E-3 announcement. Of course, there are always people who switch systems for a new camera, but if it was all bad over here, there wouldn't have been nearly as many... hardly suggests the system is fizzling out.

The comparison of 4/3 current position to that of APS film back in the day seems a little erroneous as well; with APS film, you had several different brands trying to sell poorly designed products to be used with a more expensive film format, alongside their more established, superior 35mm products. You didn't get outstanding lenses thrown into the mix, you didn't get less expensive cameras, and you certainly didn't get image quality comparable to even the cheapest current Olympus DLSR. It was a really bad set of circumstances for APS. 4/3 has it quite a bit better, and they're doing quite well for it.

Always a niche? Possibly. Dead? I don't think so.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Cartman on July 30, 2008, 04:59:01 pm
Quote
The idea seems to be that the size difference is big enough to be very significant in performance (it offers about a 1/2 to 2/3 stop difference in theory) yet it is small enough that the size, cost and weight advantages of the smaller format are not significant. This to me seems like trying to have it both ways on the same facts.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Olympus E-3 based on the 4/3 sensor:
Width 5.6 in. (142.5 mm)
Height 4.58 in. (142.5 mm)
Depth 2.9 in. (74.5 mm)
Weight 28.64 oz./810 g

Nikon D80 with DX sensor:
Width 5.2 in. (132mm)
Height 4.1 in. (103mm)
Depth 3.0 in. (77mm)
20.48 oz. (585g)

Um, so I might want the 4/3 system because it is smaller and lighter?  Uh, I guess I just don't get it.

Regarding the quality of the lenses, it is my position that the proportion of 4/3 buyers that are concerned with the quality of the lenses is so infinitesimal as to be insignificant to the market.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Tony Beach on July 30, 2008, 05:24:02 pm
Quote
Optimal is about 8-12 million true full color locations, and 14 would be a bit of gravy - not going to hurt anything - it would be close to 3600dpi scanned.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bogus.  My D300 matches film resolution for most 135 format films, and has more accurate colors.  The DR of the "lowly" D300 using ETTR and a CC40M filter is excellent and exceeds slide film.

(http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//_3A17996_sample.jpg)

100% Crop with some capture sharpening
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 30, 2008, 06:29:22 pm
Quote
I overlooked this comment, to which response is obvious:
a FourThirds kit like E-520, 14-42 and 40-150 likewise offers a good solution for the interchangeable lens mass market,
much of which is not the slightest bit interested in upgrading to a kit like D700, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, no matter how much it makes our hearts race. The trade-off of speed for size and weight is a milder version of what makes compacts sell so much better than SLRs, and keeps the interchangeable lens advantage that a compact loses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So if it's so good, why hasn't it taken off?
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 30, 2008, 06:40:58 pm
Quote
I can think of one serious advantage to four thirds at this moment: The lenses. Who cares about the bodies? They're just going to be replaced. Most don't have any need for more than 10mp, myself included, and those who do are even more of a "niche market" than the market for 4/3 consumer slrs. The lenses, however, consistently score as best-in-class, and as far as the "small range of often expensive lenses" goes, it covers everything from 14mm to 1200mm equivalent, and there are very well-built, high-performing, and yet inexpensive lenses to cover most of that for those who don't want to pay a lot.

Other makers like Canon and Nikon have more lenses available, but many of them do the exact same thing, such as an updated version of an old lens, or a manual focus version and an AF version, or several lenses covering only marginally different ranges and aperture ranges. I'm sure that after 4/3 has been around for as long as, say, EOS mount, it will have just as many outdated, redundant lenses to choose from alongside its better lenses of the future.

As for people "voting with their feet" against 4/3, it's interesting to note that Olympus has increased sales, and there were quite a few people who switched to Olympus with the E-3 announcement. Of course, there are always people who switch systems for a new camera, but if it was all bad over here, there wouldn't have been nearly as many... hardly suggests the system is fizzling out.

The comparison of 4/3 current position to that of APS film back in the day seems a little erroneous as well; with APS film, you had several different brands trying to sell poorly designed products to be used with a more expensive film format, alongside their more established, superior 35mm products. You didn't get outstanding lenses thrown into the mix, you didn't get less expensive cameras, and you certainly didn't get image quality comparable to even the cheapest current Olympus DLSR. It was a really bad set of circumstances for APS. 4/3 has it quite a bit better, and they're doing quite well for it.

Always a niche? Possibly. Dead? I don't think so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would disagree about the lenses. Where are the high quality macro/micro lenses corresponding to Nikon's 60mm, 105mm and 200mm lenses? I don't count Sigma et al. Or the affordable quality equivalents to the 300mm F4 and 400mm F5.6 lenses for birding? Or the equivalent of tilt shift lenses? Sure, a lot of people won't want/need these, but why buy into a system with a limited number of lenses, and a limited number of stockists. Oh, and I think that many third party manufacturers do not make 4/3 versions of their lenses. I checked Warehouse Express and saw a very limited range, from Oly and Sigma.

"I'm sure that after 4/3 has been around for as long as, say, EOS mount, it will have just as many outdated, redundant lenses to choose from alongside its better lenses of the future."

But it doesn't. That's the point. I only know the Nikon system, and the older lenses are not outdated or redundant. In fact many are first rate performers, and cheap. My 200mm micro is an old design, but with superb optics. Many older lenses outperform newer ones. I have many old lenses bought cheap and with excellent optics.

As to whether or not 4/3 will dies, I think it is a question of whether or not it remains commercially viable, and I cannot answer that one. But I would rather not buy into a niche system. I suspect an awful lot of people buy a camera by reading magazines and online reviews, and choosing on the basis of features and cost. I think most of the time reviewers do not favour 4/3.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 30, 2008, 08:01:46 pm
Quote
Olympus E-3 based on the 4/3 sensor:
Width 5.6 in. (142.5 mm)
Height 4.58 in. (142.5 mm)
Depth 2.9 in. (74.5 mm)
Weight 28.64 oz./810 g

Nikon D80 with DX sensor:
Width 5.2 in. (132mm)
Height 4.1 in. (103mm)
Depth 3.0 in. (77mm)
20.48 oz. (585g)

Um, so I might want the 4/3 system because it is smaller and lighter?  Uh, I guess I just don't get it.

Regarding the quality of the lenses, it is my position that the proportion of 4/3 buyers that are concerned with the quality of the lenses is so infinitesimal as to be insignificant to the market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're contrasting the E-3 to the D80 in size and weight, despite the fact that they're completely different classes of camera? Considering the exceptional build quality of the E-3, that's remarkably close. Still, the D300 is a much better comparison in this case, whereas a camera better to compare to the D80 would be the E-510 or E-520.

But as much as bodies are easy to compare, again, it's about the lenses. Generally smaller than similarly-speced DX lenses? Check. Smaller than similarly speced full-frame lenses? Double check.

Slough: There's the 50mm macro currently, corresponding to the nikon 60mm, and there's a ~100mm macro coming out shortly (the only lens on the roadmap that hasn't been unveiled yet). Both are f2 and of the highest optical and build quality.

400mm f5.6? Well, there's always the 70-300 f4-5.6, which is equivalent to 140-600 on ff, and the same at the long end as that 400mm on DX. It works quite well for me, and it even does macro. At $300, it's pretty darn affordable.

atm, sigma's the only third-party lens supplier, but there's some talk of tamron joining in. Either way, I don't see the point in "not counting" sigma. They're lenses, with often very good performance, which fit on a 4/3 body. Thus, they're 4/3 lenses.

T/S will hopefully come at some point, but the extra dof with 4/3 makes that slightly less urgent.

Oh, and it has taken off: The E-510 saw unprecedented sales for Olympus and has done quite well, especially the 2-lens kit. Now that Olympus has actually started marketing and getting their gear into stores (definite weak points that don't detract from the cameras themselves) they're doing even better.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Cartman on July 30, 2008, 08:12:21 pm
With the E-510 or 20 I would probably be inclined to compare them to the D40x, which is still smaller.  But the D300 is still about the same as the E-3.



Quote
You're contrasting the E-3 to the D80 in size and weight, despite the fact that they're completely different classes of camera? Considering the exceptional build quality of the E-3, that's remarkably close. Still, the D300 is a much better comparison in this case, whereas a camera better to compare to the D80 would be the E-510 or E-520.

But as much as bodies are easy to compare, again, it's about the lenses. Generally smaller than similarly-speced DX lenses? Check. Smaller than similarly speced full-frame lenses? Double check.

Slough: There's the 50mm macro currently, corresponding to the nikon 60mm, and there's a ~100mm macro coming out shortly (the only lens on the roadmap that hasn't been unveiled yet). Both are f2 and of the highest optical and build quality.

400mm f5.6? Well, there's always the 70-300 f4-5.6, which is equivalent to 140-600 on ff, and the same at the long end as that 400mm on DX. It works quite well for me, and it even does macro. At $300, it's pretty darn affordable.

atm, sigma's the only third-party lens supplier, but there's some talk of tamron joining in. Either way, I don't see the point in "not counting" sigma. They're lenses, with often very good performance, which fit on a 4/3 body. Thus, they're 4/3 lenses.

T/S will hopefully come at some point, but the extra dof with 4/3 makes that slightly less urgent.

Oh, and it has taken off: The E-510 saw unprecedented sales for Olympus and has done quite well, especially the 2-lens kit. Now that Olympus has actually started marketing and getting their gear into stores (definite weak points that don't detract from the cameras themselves) they're doing even better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 30, 2008, 10:28:09 pm
Quote
With the E-510 or 20 I would probably be inclined to compare them to the D40x, which is still smaller.  But the D300 is still about the same as the E-3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem with that is that the features of the E-510 and E-520 don't line up with the D40x; there's more control and responsiveness, similar to the D80. The D40x is more similar to the E-410 and E-420, which have similarly dumbed-down user interfaces.

D40/D40x/D60>D80>D300

roughly corresponds to

E-410/420>E-510/520>E-3

As far as feature set is concerned.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 31, 2008, 05:44:04 am
Quote
But I would rather not buy into a niche system. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It should be a mandatory duty for all photographers to buy a 4/3 camera every 2 years.

That would give these manufacturers the means to push the enveloppe and show the real potential of the format based on evolving sensor technology.

The key to understand the value of this approach is that 4/3 is one natural step in the evolution towards smaller capturing device. The same evolution that started with 8x10 and ended up stabilizing with 35 mm film.

35 mm film was the right format for the typical applications of most people in terms of output media considering the limitations of film. 4/3 is already close to 35 mm film, and will probably overtake it easily with the next generation cameras/sensors.

Shoot a Olympus E-420 with a 25 mm lens... that package weights 475 gr...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Rob C on July 31, 2008, 06:56:40 am
I suppose that we on this forum are probably the last people who should be debating the value of the Oly format - we are too interested in quality at the higher print sizes: I feel slightly behind the game on an A3+ printer but will the general Oly buyer be interested in such a size?

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but I´d suggest that the Oly appeal (in digital) will lie in the arms of the amateur who is NOT willing to spend big bucks, hence, the exotic glass they also produce might well be little more than a status flag for the company, a device to fly whenever questions might arise about other parts of the format rationale. If you can sell many units with cheaper optics, why bother if the top range of lenses isn´t moving fast? You simply hold to the just-in-time idea of production.

Rob C
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 31, 2008, 08:35:09 am
Quote
I suppose that we on this forum are probably the last people who should be debating the value of the Oly format - we are too interested in quality at the higher print sizes: I feel slightly behind the game on an A3+ printer but will the general Oly buyer be interested in such a size?

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but I´d suggest that the Oly appeal (in digital) will lie in the arms of the amateur who is NOT willing to spend big bucks, hence, the exotic glass they also produce might well be little more than a status flag for the company, a device to fly whenever questions might arise about other parts of the format rationale. If you can sell many units with cheaper optics, why bother if the top range of lenses isn´t moving fast? You simply hold to the just-in-time idea of production.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the people I talk to on my favorite Oly forum have a habit of printing posters on occasion, and many of them use and love the high-end glass... Zuiko glass is kind of like an addiction. Sure, you start out as the amateur who's not willing to spend money for the top-end glass, but then you get to thinking, and plunk! There goes some cash, but look at those beautiful images!  And I mean, the 50mm macro is one of their best pieces of glass, and it's only about $500, not rediculously expensive, and then there's the 11-22 for not much more, which people who own consider to be one of the best lenses they've ever used... it's not like there's a jump in expenses, it's a step system that sucks you in... If you eventually reach that 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2 it's hard not to be satisfied, though.

Perhaps they're not representative of the majority of 4/3 users, but neither are 1Ds owners who print A3+ all the time and own L glass representative of the majority of Canon owners.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on July 31, 2008, 11:51:52 am
A few replies to the idea that 4/3 format will disappear entirely from the SLR market.

1. The great majority of SLR sales are in the mainstream of prices (US) under $1000 for a complete kit of body and or two lenses. The main 4/3 options to consider are thus the E-420 and E-520 with lenses like the 14-42 and 40-150.

2. I have already mentioned that the smaller format size advantage has a lot to do with lens size, not so much body size (sensors are a tiny fraction of the total size and weigh of a DSLR body), so the comparisons that matter are of total kit size and weight.

Thus I see no point in responding further to comparisons based on the E-3, or based on body weight only, ignoring lens size and weight.


3. Predictably, Canon and Nikon continue to dominate the SLR market as they have for decades, now with EF-S and DX bodies and lenses. Given that the FourThirds system is doing about as well or better than the Pentax/Samsung and Konica-Minolta/Sony systems , the only way to declare FourThirds a failure in DSLR's is to declare everyone except Canon and Nikon to be failures. The alleged failures would include all of digital MF, since the entire DMF sector is outgrossed by FourThirds, through unit sales about 100 times greater.

But instead there has always been room for some successful (i.e. fairly consistently profitable) lower sales volume alternatives to the big two SLR systems, and it seems that the most successful alternatives are the ones that distinguish themselves most from the top-selling systems, for example by offering a larger or smaller format and kit, to fit customers seeking different size/price/performance trade-offs.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Plekto on July 31, 2008, 04:37:06 pm
Quote
Bogus.  My D300 matches film resolution for most 135 format films, and has more accurate colors.  The DR of the "lowly" D300 using ETTR and a CC40M filter is excellent and exceeds slide film.

That's a 12MP camera, which as I *said*, was about what you needed to replace 35mm film, given that it's a Bayer type design.

Besides, my argument wasn't about DR at all - it was that Foveon doesn't need an entire new technology or sensor - they just need to make their current one stretched to full-frame physically.  Or better yet, make it 8MP full-frame with huge DB sized "pixels".    That's all you would actually need - 14MP would be approaching 645 quality.(5290x3290 @2400dpi or 17.4MP)

*I know a LOT of people lurk here, so I added the numbers.  This is full color "real" pixels, though - no pattern at all.  Adding a pattern type sensor to this easily doubles the MP needed.  More MP means more AA, filtering, and tweaking as well in software to get an actual print, plus of course, the huge file sizes aren't any fun to deal with, either.

But 4.6 as it is now(Bad Foveon!  No biscuit!) is more like 110 pocket camera film vs 35mm - same quality for small prints, just it has about *this* much ability to be enlarged before it starts to look like crap.  IME, the Sigma/Foveon cameras don't even do 7*5 prints very well - they look quite a bit grainier than even normal 35mm film. At a D-Lab, no less.(let alone anything decent)
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 31, 2008, 06:49:38 pm
Quote
3. Predictably, Canon and Nikon continue to dominate the SLR market as they have for decades, now with EF-S and DX bodies and lenses. Given that the FourThirds system is doing about as well or better than the Pentax/Samsung and Konica-Minolta/Sony systems , the only way to declare FourThirds a failure in DSLR's is to declare everyone except Canon and Nikon to be failures. The alleged failures would include all of digital MF, since the entire DMF sector is outgrossed by FourThirds, through unit sales about 100 times greater.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would consider Pentax a disappointment, if not a failure, given how respected they were 20 years ago. Sony is also somewhat of a disappointment, compared to Minolta 20 years ago.

Digital MF cannot be compared, as it targets a different market, with different margins, and unit sales.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 31, 2008, 06:55:35 pm
Er1kksen: Yes you can find some lenses, but the range is limited, so the choice is not there. For example a ~70-300mm zoom usually does not match a prime telephoto, and I could not find details of the 100mm macro lens. I doubt it will have the tripod collar (which is important to me). Still, I do think the lack of success of 4/3 is more of a marketing/review/perception issue than performance, for the average consumer.

You seem to be predicting a sales spurt for Olympus et al. I still think it will remain niche. Let's wait and see if you are right.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on July 31, 2008, 06:57:44 pm
Quote
Thus I see no point in responding further to comparisons based on the E-3, or based on body weight only, ignoring lens size and weight.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't argue with that, but I'm not sure Joe Public when in the camera shop realises that advantage, which is real.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on July 31, 2008, 07:48:40 pm
I'm predicting a growth in sales with Olympus' newer, better advertising and publicity, but I'm not so optimistic as to think it'll overtake Canon or Nikon. Olympus and other 4/3 partners will probably always be one of the smaller companies (don't know if I would quite call that a niche). I don't disagree with that. I'm disagreeing with the people spouting doom and gloom for an excellent system that's not only getting better but posting better sales numbers.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Tony Beach on July 31, 2008, 09:54:25 pm
Quote
That's a 12MP camera, which as I *said*, was about what you needed to replace 35mm film, given that it's a Bayer type design.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I read your "8-12 million true full color locations" in the context of Foveon sensors as meaning 12 MP BFA is less than film.  My confusion comes from your mixing two different mediums in a format discussion, so my apologies for that.  As I see it, 12 MP resolution is 12 MP resolution regardless of the format as long as they are the same medium (Foveon and BFA are of course different mediums), but DR for larger photosites is obviously greater (all other things being equal) than it is for smaller photosites.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 01, 2008, 01:12:00 am
Hi,

I got the impression that Olympus has very good lenses, mostly based on Photozone tests. It also seems that they have quit strong antialiasing filter, which essentially means that their lenses resolve higher then their sensors. So Oly would need to improve their sensors to match their lenses.

I guess the four thirds equation doesn't hold with current trends which seem mainly to be focused on noise and high ISO. It would be much more valid for low ISOs.

Historically there has always been an advantage for larger sensors whether analogue or digital. If  other factors are taken into account there can be an optimum, like maximum quality and minimum cost.

The advantage of small formates is that they work well with large apertures:

1) It is less hard to develop high aperture lenses for small formats.
2) Small formats need large apertures because of diffraction limits.
3) Small formats give more depth of field at the same FOV (Field Of View) so larger aperture can be used.

Erik


Quote
I can think of one serious advantage to four thirds at this moment: The lenses. Who cares about the bodies? They're just going to be replaced. Most don't have any need for more than 10mp, myself included, and those who do are even more of a "niche market" than the market for 4/3 consumer slrs. The lenses, however, consistently score as best-in-class, and as far as the "small range of often expensive lenses" goes, it covers everything from 14mm to 1200mm equivalent, and there are very well-built, high-performing, and yet inexpensive lenses to cover most of that for those who don't want to pay a lot.

Other makers like Canon and Nikon have more lenses available, but many of them do the exact same thing, such as an updated version of an old lens, or a manual focus version and an AF version, or several lenses covering only marginally different ranges and aperture ranges. I'm sure that after 4/3 has been around for as long as, say, EOS mount, it will have just as many outdated, redundant lenses to choose from alongside its better lenses of the future.

As for people "voting with their feet" against 4/3, it's interesting to note that Olympus has increased sales, and there were quite a few people who switched to Olympus with the E-3 announcement. Of course, there are always people who switch systems for a new camera, but if it was all bad over here, there wouldn't have been nearly as many... hardly suggests the system is fizzling out.

The comparison of 4/3 current position to that of APS film back in the day seems a little erroneous as well; with APS film, you had several different brands trying to sell poorly designed products to be used with a more expensive film format, alongside their more established, superior 35mm products. You didn't get outstanding lenses thrown into the mix, you didn't get less expensive cameras, and you certainly didn't get image quality comparable to even the cheapest current Olympus DLSR. It was a really bad set of circumstances for APS. 4/3 has it quite a bit better, and they're doing quite well for it.

Always a niche? Possibly. Dead? I don't think so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Cartman on August 01, 2008, 04:31:08 am
Just to be clear, I don't wish failure on 4/3.  Quite the contrary, I not only love options for consumers, but am the sort of person who likes to go my own way and buck the norm.  Moreover, I don't wish that anyone be left high and dry.  I just wanted to throw my prediction out there based on a five year time line.  I, for one, just don't see consumers finding enough that 4/3 offers that DX size offerings can't do better.  Though it is tough to find direct matches for comparisons, I think lens size too is just too close to make a difference to consumers.  Frankly, I hope I'm wrong and have to eat metaphorical crow five years from now when someone digs up this thread.  Of course I'll say I told you so if I turn out to be correct.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: NikosR on August 01, 2008, 04:43:37 am
Quote
The advantage of small formates is that they work well with large apertures:

1) It is less hard to develop high aperture lenses for small formats.
2) Small formats need large apertures because of diffraction limits.
3) Small formats give more depth of field at the same FOV (Field Of View) so larger aperture can be used.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I cannot comment on 1) but it might well be true. Still it has zero effect for the end user unless the reduced cost results in reduced price

2) This is making a virtue out of necessity. I fail to see how this fact is an advantage

3). Of course this can always be turned on its head and in combination with 2) be nullified as an advantage.

The same arguments have been used for DX vs FX and IMO all these arguments prove nothing.

In the current implementations the only real advantage I can see is in size and weight of the very long lenses. But it is there that the real competitive advantage has been minimized by Oly pricing and camera offerings as related to the target market.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on August 01, 2008, 03:16:35 pm
Quote
I, for one, just don't see consumers finding enough that 4/3 offers that DX size offerings can't do better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why specifically do you expect the next five years to be so different from the last five years: Canon EF-S and Nikon DX selling best, followed well back by the FourThirds mount (Olympus+Panasonic), K-mount (Pentax+Samsung), and Alpha-mount (Sony) systems at roughly comparable market share?

A valid prediction of a major change from what has been observed so far surely requires some evidence of other changes that will cause it.

Instead, the main trend I see is technological improvements allowing the mainstream of camera users to meet their performance goals with ever smaller and lighter gear, often through a shift to smaller formats. That trend has been going on ever since the enlarger was invented, allowing negatives to be smaller than the desired prints!
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on August 01, 2008, 03:28:43 pm
Quote
In the current implementations the only real advantage I can see is in size and weight of the very long lenses. But it is there that the real competitive advantage has been minimized by Oly pricing and camera offerings as related to the target market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Never mind the "very long lenses" or any of the high priced, low volume stuff. Look at the mainstream long lenses like the 40-150/4-5.6, 50-200/2.8-3.5 and 70-300/4-5.6, compared to the proportionately longer lenses needed with the larger photosites of larger format sensors. Then ask if the size advantage of such mainstream lenses and bodies can help to sustain to a viable market share.  (Put aside talk of achieving market leadership; I leave that to some Sony enthusiasts!)
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Plekto on August 01, 2008, 03:51:34 pm
Quote
I read your "8-12 million true full color locations" in the context of Foveon sensors as meaning 12 MP BFA is less than film.  My confusion comes from your mixing two different mediums in a format discussion, so my apologies for that.  As I see it, 12 MP resolution is 12 MP resolution regardless of the format as long as they are the same medium (Foveon and BFA are of course different mediums), but DR for larger photosites is obviously greater (all other things being equal) than it is for smaller photosites.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No problem

It's hard to get it all straight most of the time, since there are so many overlapping definitions and terms that are used multiple ways.  That said, my personal term for pixels in most cameras is "sub-pixels", since a true pixel is a full-color location.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: tetsuo77 on August 01, 2008, 04:46:50 pm
Some points I want to talk about, and mainly, have to agree with Bernard

-What is DX? I remember it from the film, it was the ability of the camera to decode the ISO value of the roll.

-I have to fully agree with Bernard again, and shout: ARE WE MENTAL ABOUT THE SIZE? If it is about impressing the client, then I could agree somehow about the size factor as a WOW factor. But we still have to remember that almost any of the point and shoot currently available with decent performance will put to shame high end machines marketed five-six years ago. Pushed enough, any system will be able to produce good enough images. If you have to hike and travel as light as possible, the smaller the equipment the better.

-That being said, I think that Olympus, Pentax and Sony are trying to play a different approach to the war Nikon and Canon are having. Which is fine, and smart at the same time [coming back to this later on].

-The lens issue. A nominal 300mm lens is a 600 lens in full format, and a 400 in APS-C sensors. That means that the lens is way smaller than what a APS-C owner or a Full Frame owner has to carry around. Because, to be honest, if you were to use those long lenses, you would either hike for birding-landscape photography, or do sports photography. Two activities where size does matter, and the bigger the lens, the more of a hindrance it becomes.

-The lens approach of each brand is quite different. And personally, I find Canikon lens catalogue to be too big and too messy. You will find the very same specs for the very same focal with different qualities and separated by some hundred of euros/dollars. Still, if you go for the expensive one, you will find that you only gain half a stop of exposure, but the quality of the lens is not as good as the cheaper version. That happens quite a bit with Nikon, specially if one is trying to build up a system composed of a FF body and a APS-C back-up. You will find that the lens which performs brilliantly on the FF body does not a good job with the APS-C body, and the other way around. That is most definitely not a good way to get a good system, and if fidgeting up close, will make you buy a double system. Not good.

-Regardless the size of the companies [where only Sony is comparable to Canikon], and as stated by other people before, the sales are driven by shelf space AND something called market inertia. If you do not get enough shelf space in big stores where most of the market share is decided [FNAC, WallMart, BestBuy, and so on], then forget about making it big. Pentax and Olympus lost that war precisely when those big box retailers started to gain momentum. Therefore, they are starting to differentiate themselves with size and price. Specializing in small bodies [Olympus] and small lenses [Pentax].

All in all, I [for the third time] will have to agree with Bernard and not only make compulsory to buy a 4/3 body periodically, but buy a pancake lens or the smalles t lens available for the needed focal length.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Tony Beach on August 01, 2008, 04:49:21 pm
Quote
...my personal term for pixels in most cameras is "sub-pixels", since a true pixel is a full-color location.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I think that would be a photosite from which the pixels are derived.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Plekto on August 04, 2008, 01:47:01 pm
Yeah I know - I just have an issue I guess with their definitions, so I like mine as it makes it a bit clearer that they are pulling their typical marketing tricks.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Rob C on August 04, 2008, 02:16:38 pm
There have been points made in defence of Oly that insinuate that having smaller lenses of the same focal length gives the advantage of double the reach for the same buck when compared with the same focal length on the full-frame (35mm olde worlde) camera systems.

Why should that be an advantage? You have not gained an iota of real image real estate; you have just created the need to magnify the Oly capture much more than you would the 35mm capture to get to the same point on paper - the print.

Guess digital photography is sometimes more about maths and the constant juggling of figures than about images.

Rob C

EDIT: just to admit that digital keyboard dyslexia (DKD) has struck again!
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: BJL on August 04, 2008, 05:47:52 pm
Quote
There have been points made in defence of Oly that insinuate that having smaller lenses of the same focal length gives the advantage of double the reach for the same buck when compared with the same focal length on the full-frame (35mm olde worlde) camera systems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The issue is not smaller lenses of the same focal length: it is being able to use a shorter focal length to get an equally detailed image of the same subject from the same distance. Here, sensor resolution is a key.

Strictly speaking, these focal length needs are determined by sensor resolution in l/mm (along with lenses having adequate resolution), which is closely related to photosite spacing. But the strong and persistent general trend is for smaller formats to offer a higher density of photosites and a higher sensor resolution in l/mm, leading to the shorter focal lengths needed (or more reach with equal focal length, as with a 70-300 used with various systems.) Will EF-S and DX someday offer 40% to 60% more photosites than 4/3 (equal photosite density) just to allow improved telephoto reach in a "4/3 crop mode"? My guess is no; if anything photosite counts in mainstream SLR systems will soon level out.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Ray on August 04, 2008, 10:44:04 pm
Quote
The issue is not smaller lenses of the same focal length: it is being able to use a shorter focal length to get an equally detailed image of the same subject from the same distance. Here, sensor resolution is a key.

Strictly speaking, these focal length needs are determined by sensor resolution in l/mm (along with lenses having adequate resolution), which is closely related to photosite spacing. But the strong and persistent general trend is for smaller formats to offer a higher density of photosites and a higher sensor resolution in l/mm, leading to the shorter focal lengths needed (or more reach with equal focal length, as with a 70-300 used with various systems.) Will EF-S and DX someday offer 40% to 60% more photosites than 4/3 (equal photosite density) just to allow improved telephoto reach in a "4/3 crop mode"? My guess is no; if anything photosite counts in mainstream SLR systems will soon level out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


BJL,
If we had an internationally recognised standard for dynamic range, detailed and real MTF charts for every lens sold, then we could work out precisely before buying a camera system, what the resulting potential image quality would be.

This would save a lot of useless debate as to which lens is better and provide consumers with a solid reference upon which to base their buying decisions.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Cartman on August 06, 2008, 12:55:03 pm
I think the latest JD Power customer survey is interesting.  It seems to me that average consumers are not so impressed with the image quality of 4/3.

http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings...ra-ratings/dslr (http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings/digital-camera-ratings/dslr)
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Slough on August 06, 2008, 01:08:10 pm
Quote
BJL,
If we had an internationally recognised standard for dynamic range, detailed and real MTF charts for every lens sold, then we could work out precisely before buying a camera system, what the resulting potential image quality would be.

This would save a lot of useless debate as to which lens is better and provide consumers with a solid reference upon which to base their buying decisions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Except that MTF plots only have limited value. I know from experience how worthless they can be.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: timescapes on August 06, 2008, 04:08:28 pm
Quote
I think the latest JD Power customer survey is interesting.  It seems to me that average consumers are not so impressed with the image quality of 4/3.

http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings...ra-ratings/dslr (http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings/digital-camera-ratings/dslr)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Canon got a lower score for "appearance"?  
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2008, 08:25:29 pm
Quote
Except that MTF plots only have limited value. I know from experience how worthless they can be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213443\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you might be referring to theoretical MTF plots based on how a particular design should perform.

I'm referring to real MTF tests of the actual lens sold. MTF charts don't tell you  everything, such as degree of distortion, for example, and such factors as chromatic aberration may also not be specified, but I would think that any serious CA would show as reduced MTF at a particular frequency.

I believe even quality of bokeh can be revealed in MTF charts. When the sagital and meridional lines diverge considerably, the lens is likely to have poor bokeh.

I know of no other set of specifications that can describe the optical quality of a lens more thoroughly and usefully.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2008, 08:55:39 pm
Quote
Canon got a lower score for "appearance"?   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good! It's the appearance of the picture taken that counts.  

Most reviews and personal accounts of the Oly 4/3rds system that I've come across seem to dwell on ergonomic and 'feel-good-in the-hands' issues.

I suspect this is because no-one expects a smaller format to produce image quality that is quite as good as that from a larger format, although it might be very close, depending on choice of lens.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2008, 10:19:26 pm
Quote
The lens issue. A nominal 300mm lens is a 600 lens in full format, and a 400 in APS-C sensors. That means that the lens is way smaller than what a APS-C owner or a Full Frame owner has to carry around. Because, to be honest, if you were to use those long lenses, you would either hike for birding-landscape photography, or do sports photography. Two activities where size does matter, and the bigger the lens, the more of a hindrance it becomes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The lens issue is difficult because we never see direct shoot-outs between comparable set-ups. There's no doubt that the Oly 4/3rds sytem in general is lighter and less expensive than FF 35mm, but no-one expects a 4/3rds sytem to provide images of equal quality to the Canon 1Ds2 and 1Ds3, or the Nikon D3, or even the 5D with similar quality lens of equivalent focal length.

Cano or Nikon owners who want the longest telephoto reach with their current lens will opt for the cropped format, such as the D300 or 450D, and it's here the comparisons become nebulous.

A very light and inexpensive 4/3rds package would be the E-420 with Zuiko 70-300 F4-5.6, for example. What is the nearest Canon equivalent? The 450D with 70-300 IS F4-5.6, perhaps? Or the 450D with 100-400 IS F4.5-5.6.

The former package is of similar cost and weight, but the Zuiko lens has a longer reach. The latter Canon combination is heavier and more expensive but has a slightly longer reach (640 as opposed to 600, 35mm equivalent).

Has anyone seen any competent comparisons of such combinations? I would expect the E-420 to have the edge at 300mm compared with the 450D at 300mm, but at equal equivalent focal lengths (for equal FoV shots) the 450D might have the edge. It also makes a difference which edge is used for equal FoV, that is, which aspect ratio is preferred.

If the composition requires a 4:3 aspect ratio, then that Zuiko lens at 300mm is equivalent to only 554mm FF 35mm and the 100-400 at an equivalent of 640mm would have to be better in the sense of providing a more detailed image, and lower noise too.

(I got that the wrong way round initially  . If the 450D image is cropped to a 4:3 aspect ratio, then its sensor is effectively 19.7mmx14.8mm, not much bigger than the E-420 17.3mmx13mm).
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Er1kksen on August 06, 2008, 10:23:17 pm
Quote
I think the latest JD Power customer survey is interesting.  It seems to me that average consumers are not so impressed with the image quality of 4/3.

http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings...ra-ratings/dslr (http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings/digital-camera-ratings/dslr)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Erm... someone enlighten me, but I'm not quite sure how these JD power surveys work... do people have to actually prove that they are customers who own the things they're rating? Do they rate these cameras side-by-side, or just rate the ones they own? Or is this all anonymous and unsubstantiated? Can they vote more than once?

For anyone who's been over at DPReview and looked into the forums, you'll find people who claim that they bought a certain product and then go on that forum just to trash it, and many are found out as having never touched the product and being fanboys for a competing brand. Fortunately, such trolls seem to be largely absent here.

I, for one, find it fishy for a study to show the two leading, big brands recieving a 5 star rating in overall and the other three recieving a 2 star rating in overall.

Personally, as an honest customer, I find nothing dissapointing about the output of my Olympus E-330 at up to 12x16 at base ISO, and the newer models have considerably improved on even that, making higher ISOs and larger prints usable. I guess these "average consumers" unhappy with Olympus DSLR image quality must be printing 40x30 at ISO 1600 and up.

Also, it's noted that sony and pentax also recieved the same low rating for "picture quality," so apparently it's not a format-related problem. Based on the fact that sensors in many previous nikon, sony, and pentax branded cameras have been shared, I'd venture to say that it's more of a market share-related issue we're seeing here. And we all know how important that is to image quality.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on August 09, 2008, 01:16:23 am
Quote
I think the latest JD Power customer survey is interesting.  It seems to me that average consumers are not so impressed with the image quality of 4/3.

http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings...ra-ratings/dslr (http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/ratings/digital-camera-ratings/dslr)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And Canons beat every other brand in image quality.

Pentax, Olympus, Sony trailing behind Canon and Nikon.

Nikon scoring in handling, it seems.

Do you know how these studies are put together?
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on August 09, 2008, 01:19:02 am
Quote
Canon got a lower score for "appearance"?   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Appearance of the camera? Show-off coefficient?
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on August 09, 2008, 01:23:56 am
Quote
Erm... someone enlighten me, but I'm not quite sure how these JD power surveys work... do people have to actually prove that they are customers who own the things they're rating? Do they rate these cameras side-by-side, or just rate the ones they own? Or is this all anonymous and unsubstantiated? Can they vote more than once?

For anyone who's been over at DPReview and looked into the forums, you'll find people who claim that they bought a certain product and then go on that forum just to trash it, and many are found out as having never touched the product and being fanboys for a competing brand. Fortunately, such trolls seem to be largely absent here.

I, for one, find it fishy for a study to show the two leading, big brands recieving a 5 star rating in overall and the other three recieving a 2 star rating in overall.

Personally, as an honest customer, I find nothing dissapointing about the output of my Olympus E-330 at up to 12x16 at base ISO, and the newer models have considerably improved on even that, making higher ISOs and larger prints usable. I guess these "average consumers" unhappy with Olympus DSLR image quality must be printing 40x30 at ISO 1600 and up.

Also, it's noted that sony and pentax also recieved the same low rating for "picture quality," so apparently it's not a format-related problem. Based on the fact that sensors in many previous nikon, sony, and pentax branded cameras have been shared, I'd venture to say that it's more of a market share-related issue we're seeing here. And we all know how important that is to image quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's good to look critically at any review. Wasn't it the Standard & Poor that had not seen the housing bubble and the credit crisis coming, and burned many people with their judgements?

So, all fine, plus a grain of salt.

I guess it's up to every photographer to decide which tools he works best with.

I can imagine photographers feeling so comfortable the way Olympus builds cameras, that they don't care about certain loss of quality.

Those same people may also own a Leaf or a Phase One, depending on the job.

Many are enamored with reviews, as they think they can get the perfect camera the first time.

Not possible. And if all cameras had the absolute same image quality, you'd still feel better with one brand than the other just because of handling.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Cartman on August 09, 2008, 03:00:00 pm
Quote
And Canons beat every other brand in image quality.

Pentax, Olympus, Sony trailing behind Canon and Nikon.

Nikon scoring in handling, it seems.

Do you know how these studies are put together?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've not read a detailed breakdown, but from what I've picked up, and experienced first hand, they only survey people who have bought high-ticket items (companies pay them to use the survey as a reference) and who actually registered ownership of the product.  People only get one vote and they are people who actually bought the product.  The survey is tied to your address.

I think they don't report on the bottom performers so as to not embarrass companies they may collect money from in the future.

I've not liked their surveys with cars (it may be similar with cameras) because they seem to survey people within a couple of months of buying the car.  So you don't get to many bad things happening when it is that new, nor may you really know what you can and cannot get out of your camera.  With cars they call that an initial quality survey.  I think they do another one after three years called the dependability survey.

So no, from what I know random people cannot vote, you get only one vote, and it is legit.  On the other hand, you are getting votes from the masses and they may not know squat other than if they think it looks cool.  It could simply reflect that many people vote what marketing departments and/or their friends have convinced them the quality is, rather than what they themselves can objectively observe.  Moreover, it doesn't compare models or brands to others.

Still, it shows some people are satisfied and jazzed with their purchase, and some are not.  And the people who are happy may be stupid and clueless, and so may the people are not.  Make of it what you will.  

I don't know the details of how the camera surveys are run and the above is only my opinion from what I "think" I know.  The reality may be different.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: The View on August 10, 2008, 03:14:04 am
Quote
they only survey people
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While I think the major outcome of the study is pretty accurate...

... I usually don't trust studies and majorities.

I'd rather go with a decidedly individualistic judgement, where you can see where the author is coming from. (This is why I am very wary of pixel peeping reviews a la dpreview).
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Geoff Wittig on August 10, 2008, 10:44:10 am
Quote
And Canons beat every other brand in image quality.

Pentax, Olympus, Sony trailing behind Canon and Nikon.

Nikon scoring in handling, it seems.

Do you know how these studies are put together?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ignore J.D. Power surveys. It's not like Consumer Reports, where anonymous buyers go out and purchase products for review without any cooperation or role for the manufacturer. The resulting Consumer Reports reviews are therefore at least candid, and  they also make an attempt to test and evaluate products. By contrast, manufacturers actually pay J.D. Power to review their products. The methodology of J.D. Power reviews is also invalid; they simply circulate questionaires to consumers, with a review demographic that I suspect skews heavily toward older retirees. How else to explain their auto reviews that consistently place Buick (Buick! for God's sake!) at the top of the heap.

Regular consumer product reviews tend to do a really poor job on specialized products like digital cameras or printers. They lack the depth of experience to understand what they're reviewing. Which is why sites like this one are so useful.
Title: Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras
Post by: Cartman on August 10, 2008, 01:33:09 pm
Quote

Regular consumer product reviews tend to do a really poor job on specialized products like digital cameras or printers. They lack the depth of experience to understand what they're reviewing. Which is why sites like this one are so useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since JD Powers doesn't review anything, nor do their employees, for the surveys, maybe the results mean that people who buy Nikon and Oly don't understand what they are reviewing, but Canon users do?  Or do you think Canon users didn't understand and Nikon and Oly users did?