Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon Strategy  (Read 14128 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Nikon Strategy
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2003, 01:50:50 pm »

Ray,

   perhaps we can end this discussion (or move it to a new thread on "The shape of things to come"), with at least one agreement: the shape of those "European (and Australian) paper sizes", A4, A3, A2, etc. (non super versions) is close enough to being the same as the 5 by 7 shape that I also like for many purposes, so perhaps we really want a "Euro format" camera option too, which would sometimes avoid all waste of pixels and paper, even when a sheet is used for two smaller prints of that same shape.

By the way, movie screen shapes "just are" different, I have no deep reasons to back up that comment.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon Strategy
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2002, 07:06:06 pm »

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']It is not possible to have good MTF up to the Nyquest frequency and low MTF beyond. This approach implies some degree of over sampling.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Bjanes,
The above quote implies that oversampling is not possible. Seems to me oversampling is already taking place with small sensor 3 & 4MP point-and-shoot cameras. These cameras do not require AA filters. The lens is the filter.

Of course, the consequences of this oversampling is low dynamic range and high noise, which presumably is one major reason why cameras like the 1Ds do not have 24MP (yet). However, it seems reasonable to assume that, as technology advances, it will eventually be possible to cram 24MP onto a 36x24mm chip without losing any of the quality currently possessed by the 1Ds. It's really all a trade-off. What is it that professional photographers appreciate most? What type of camera will sell best, one with a higher pixel count and higher resolution, but moderate dynamic range and noise, or one with a lower pixel count but better DR and noise. Hopefully we'll have a choice to accommodate different tastes and purposes, and the beginnings of a choice are already appearing with the 1Ds and 14n, both quite different cameras. Unfortunately, it's not a very useful choice for people who are locked into one or the other system. But as far as I can predict, the Kodak 14n will definitely beat the 1Ds in the resolution stakes, for two reasons; higher pixel count and no AA filter. How much of a hassle removing the inevitable aliasing artefacts becomes remains to be seen. But, as Paul Caldwell mentioned, it can be done in software without degrading the resolution nearly as much as an AA filter does.[/font]
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Nikon Strategy
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2003, 11:39:16 am »

The 35mm film format certainly does have some historical baggage that the digital transition might be a great opportunity to discard, and lens size reduction in particular will be a strong attraction even for moderately serious photographers: note for example, Michael R's decision against the 600mm lens partly due to its bulk.

On the other hand, drastically smaller sensor sizes run into some real "scaling problems", which is why I expect that nothing smaller than APS or maybe 4/3" format will catch on for the sort of photographers who want good manual image controls and a reasonable amount of quality, like nice sharp prints at up to 8"x10", or up US letter or A4 size in this inkjet era. Roughly, I am talking about the "consumer SLR and above" market.

My estimate now is that shrinkage by a linear factor of 1.5 is workable (e.g. Nikon DSLR's) but that a shrinkage factor of 1.9 (4/3" format) is at or beyond the limit. Maybe the size reduction will not be enough to be worth it and 4/3" will succeed only in high end "fixed lens" cameras like the Olympus E and Minolta 7 series, but I look forward to seeing experiments like those of Nikon, Kodak, Olympus and Fuji decide this in the market place.


The historical baggage includes the 35mm frame SHAPE: before digital, most serious photographers disparaged the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm, preferring squarer shapes like 5:4 or the 4:3 of 645 medium format (and of most digital cameras). Ironically, that same group is now the main one hanging onto 3:2, probably for the sake of backward compatability.

Film frame size also hit a lower limit due to resolution needs for standard enlargement sizes and the inertia of the well established 35mm lens market. Though emulsions are may now be good enough for many purposes at APS size, those emulsions and APS clearly arrived too late, relative to digital, to change mainstream film cameras designs.


A number of items do set a lower size for a "serious camera", though.

1. Camera size:

On one hand, I disagree with the claim that "real photographers WANT big, heavy, 35mm pro size cameras": many ACCEPT the size as the price of fast motor drives etc., while high end rangefinder camera users often mention their smaller size as an advantage.

On the other hand, down-sizing will reach a point where the extensive controls and usably large LCD's do not fit well, and so set a lower limit on serious camera sizes far bigger that a typical P&S digital. Looking at the high end fixed-lens digitals like the Olympus E and Minolta 7 series, they can still get distinctly smaller than 35mm though.


2. Selective depth of field (i.e. deliberately blurred backgrounds and foregrounds):

Smaller formats needs larger aperture ratios to achieve a given depth of field for the same angular field of view (they need the same aperture diameter at smaller focal length). Smaller formats do seem to make it easier to design lenses with larger maximum aperture ratios, but going to 4/3" format or below seems to require portrait lenses with f/1 or beyond, which sounds inherently difficult for lens design. Format shrinkage by factors of 1.5 (current Nikon DSLR's) should be able to handle DOF control though: for example a fast 50mm lens would probably do in place of an 80mm portrait lens. (Do any Nikon DSLR users care to comment?)


3. Pixel quantity and quality:

matching the quality of decent 8"x10" prints needs about 2000 pixels (or more) on the short edge of the frame, and reportedly at least 5 or 6 micron pixel size for adequate exposure latitude and noise levels, so there is a lower size limit, but it is distinctly smaller than 35mm: somewhere around 4/3" format in fact (13.5mm by 18mm). Even Canon D1s resolution of 2700 pixels on the short edge with 6 micron pixels would fit a "1.5 cropping factor" format.


4. Diffraction vs aberration trade offs; but the guidelines I have read suggest that the limits do not clash until one gets more than a factor of 2 smaller than 35mm format.
Logged

Tom Martin

  • Guest
Nikon Strategy
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2003, 10:14:34 am »

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael -- I understand the logic that full frame, higher res, lower noise sensors will be available at (eventually) lower prices and therefore you'd like to see Nikon continue to focus on this genre of equipment.   Fair enough.  As a Canon user, perhaps you should extend your point to cover the need for Nikon to do this to maintain some technical and price competition for Canon.

What you don't mention is an alternative market, that I find quite important: the digital Leica (without the baggage of the past). What I'm really talking about here is the need for a high quality digital system of reasonable size/weight.  I see the need for this in landscape work b/c 35mm stuff is heavy!  And, there is life beyond landscape.  In the people/documentary world, 35mm stuff is scary (try pointing a Canon 70-200 zoom at someone!).[/font]
Logged

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Nikon Strategy
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2003, 07:19:59 pm »

Ray,

The bottom line is NOT the quality of the print.  Or we all would be using 8x10 view cameras, or even 16x20.

When even a top pro like Michael decides the 600mm lens doesn't make sense for him, even when shooting close to his vehicle, it is obvious that these lenses are just too big, too unweildy and (for 95%+ of photographers) too expensive.

The right tool for the job will prevail.  Remember, 35mm was once the "inferior" upstart, but it managed to completely displace MF and LF in news, sports, and wildlife photography virtually totally.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Nikon Strategy
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2003, 11:05:01 pm »

Oops!! I didn't realise those A4, A3 and A2 sizes were 'non-American' standards. Just goes to show how ignorant I am. So you Americans are being influenced by the Europeans, eh?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up