EV for MF and mirror removed

[fredjeang]

Hi,

I wonder if EV are going to be developped for the MF gear.
That leads me also to get rid-off the mirror, no more vibes, less noise etc...

The exposure would be done electronically in the back and this function would be automatically disabled when the back is used on tech cameras.

Jack Flesher expressed also a similar idea in another thread. Edit: in fact Jack expressed his wishes regarding the physical shutter as he explains here
correcting me, and I agree with this idea. The mirrorless question is only mine.

What do you think about that?

Is it reasonable to think that the manufacturers will drive that path soon?

[JeffKohn]

Can't do it for the same reason none of these cameras have real live-view: full-frame CCD doesn't support it. The backs will have to move to CMOS first.

[Jack Flesher]

Hi,

I wonder if EV are going to be developped for the MF gear.
That leads me also to get rid-off the mirror, no more vibes, less noise etc...

The exposure would be done electronically in the back and this function would be automatically disabled when the back is used on tech cameras.

Jack Flesher expressed also a similar idea in another thread.

What do you think about that?

Is it reasonable to think that the manufacturers will drive that path soon?

To be clear, all Jack suggested was having the back trigger electronically so as to remove the need for a physical SHUTTER to fire in the camera body or lens.  As for the mirror, it will be still be needed in any SLR design for MF backs using CCD sensors.  As mentioned above, CCDs cannot stay "on" for long enough periods of time to support live view.  CMOS presents a different discussion, when and if they become viable for MF back capture.

[fredjeang]

To be clear, all Jack suggested was having the back trigger electronically so as to remove the need for a physical SHUTTER to fire in the camera body or lens.  As for the mirror, it will be still be needed in any SLR design for MF backs using CCD sensors.  As mentioned above, CCDs cannot stay "on" for long enough periods of time to support live view.  CMOS presents a different discussion, when and if they become viable for MF back capture.

Jack, I was not intending to associate your name with my tech-useless-post  

Sorry, I should have been more precise. In fact I understood perfectly that you where just talking about the shutter.
I went further with the mirror, and just in my name. Precision done in my OP edited.

Yes, CCD heat etc...I knew that, but sorry again for my lack of knowledge when it comes to engineering but my question is, How that is possible then?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/sam-ex1.shtml

This camera also has CCD.

I'm completly confused.

Is it that the MF manufacturers+sensors makers consider that they don't have to modernised their backs, or is it that the issues are indeed important and they have truth limitations today?
Why CCD seems to not have those issues with smaller sized sensors? Question of temperature?

Thanks.

[BernardLanguillier]

Is it that the MF manufacturers+sensors makers consider that they don't have to modernised their backs, or is it that the issues are indeed important and they have truth limitations today?
Why CCD seems to not have those issues with smaller sized sensors? Question of temperature?

Could it be that Samsung hopes to amortize their technology over 1.000.000+ units vs 20.000- units for the backs using a given type of sensor?

We don't have many examples in the high tech world where small series technologies can long outso very large series technologies in a significant way... The audio world is an amazingly good example where the top 1% of performance increases price by a factor of 100 or more (just do a bling comparison of a 500 US$ Pionner AA6 against a 50.000 US$ Mark Levison No53).

Cheers,
Bernard

[bjanes]

To be clear, all Jack suggested was having the back trigger electronically so as to remove the need for a physical SHUTTER to fire in the camera body or lens.  As for the mirror, it will be still be needed in any SLR design for MF backs using CCD sensors.  As mentioned above, CCDs cannot stay "on" for long enough periods of time to support live view.  CMOS presents a different discussion, when and if they become viable for MF back capture.

Interline CCDs that do not require a shutter are already available, but they can not equal the resolution of full frame (refers to the type of CCD, not the size). Such CCDs would also circumvent vibration from the shutter, which is considerable with focal plane shutters.

[Jack Flesher]

but they can not equal the resolution of full frame

And of course in this thread we were discussing MF resolution CCD's for image capture, not a line of specialized application sub-20MP CCD's...

[fredjeang]

But then it would be nice from the knowledgable members on that matter, if there are CCD and CCD, that someone could clarify those points to the less knowledgable techs like me, so we could make the differences and avoid posting apparently stupid and evident questions on the forum.

IMO.