Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on June 27, 2016, 06:28:11 pm
-
http://www.dpreview.com/interviews/7746435225/mirrorless-is-probably-the-future-an-interview-with-hasselblad-product-manager-ove-bengtson
-
http://www.dpreview.com/interviews/7746435225/mirrorless-is-probably-the-future-an-interview-with-hasselblad-product-manager-ove-bengtson
Erik - thx for posting. It *is* interesting.
Edmund
-
It's always interesting when Ove talks, as he's not the marketing type of guy. He talks like an engineer, so you get to know what tradeoffs they've done, what they would have liked to have but couldn't have etc.
There are a few things we already sort of knew but it's interesting to hear directly, for example that the sensor is extremely central to what cameras they can make, and as a small company they have only limited control over what they can get. All those fantasies of strange sensor formats floating around in the forums are just that, fantasies. If you want the best sensors, which is Sony these days, the format and features are decided by the collective need of many manufacturers. So phase detect will not happen until Sony produces a medium format sensor that has phase detect, and that will probably not happen until more than one manufacturer needs it. I'm pretty sure the next sensor generation in 44x33 will have it, less likely that the next 54x41mm sensor will.
The current mirrorless format is locked to 44x33, a tradeoff to keep the size compact, and it's a wise tradeoff. Full-frame mirrorless will happen sooner or later, but probably not until it feels so mature that it can replace the SLRs also for the conservative studio shooters.
-
The current mirrorless format is locked to 44x33, a tradeoff to keep the size compact, and it's a wise tradeoff.
Makes total sense to me.
I don't believe that 41x54mm mirrorless makes much sense, reasonnably bright lenses would just be too big.
This is the old dream of the silver bullet speaking, 50mp is more than enough for 99.9% of all applications, and 200 % of the applications for which you want to use a camera like the X1D.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
50mp is more than enough for 99.9% of all applications, and 200 % of the applications for which you want to use a camera like the X1D.
I agree. In the longer term the standard will be that the sensor always outresolves the optical system, so megapixels becomes irrelevant. Today we still care about things like filesize and getting actual use for the expensive pixel counts so we get worried when lenses don't cope, but in the future I think we will take for granted that the sensor resolution is not the limit, and that it shouldn't be.
-
Torger,
We know sensors are at the center of the design. However:
- Leica have managed in the past to get a custom size made just for them (Leica S2 and maybe M), and they now have a perfectly usable range of cameras made with a sensor that is not Sony.
- The Phase One sensors that Sensor +are another such custom design, in fact more custom in a way because the cells are different, not just the size.
So while THIS camera design is built around the sensor, another company could have a camera design AND THEN a sensor, if MF went a bit more mainstream, or if the company makes so much money from a camera's custom features that they can afford a custom sensor - which in fact is exactly what was the case with Phase One, and exactly is happening with RED - and maybe ARRI?
What is implicit in this interview is that the current generation of Sony sensors do not really support tech lenses anymore. Or else the lenses for the X1D could have been much more compact. Which is why I believe we will see some competition pop up with some different sensor, and I think Sony will in the end adopt a different architecture because a wish for compact lenses is shared across its camera sensor customer base now that mirrors are disappearing.
I think it is nice to see european manufacturers cooperating with the japanese industry - eg. Phase One, Leica, Zeiss, giving the customer the best combination of functional tech, product design, and user ergonomics ... and quality-controlled production.
Last not least, I wish Hassy had kept Zeiss as a lens manufacturer because the old Hassy lenses had a really nice look to them. Image look is as important as camera body look.
Edmund
It's always interesting when Ove talks, as he's not the marketing type of guy. He talks like an engineer, so you get to know what tradeoffs they've done, what they would have liked to have but couldn't have etc.
There are a few things we already sort of knew but it's interesting to hear directly, for example that the sensor is extremely central to what cameras they can make, and as a small company they have only limited control over what they can get. All those fantasies of strange sensor formats floating around in the forums are just that, fantasies. If you want the best sensors, which is Sony these days, the format and features are decided by the collective need of many manufacturers. So phase detect will not happen until Sony produces a medium format sensor that has phase detect, and that will probably not happen until more than one manufacturer needs it. I'm pretty sure the next sensor generation in 44x33 will have it, less likely that the next 54x41mm sensor will.
The current mirrorless format is locked to 44x33, a tradeoff to keep the size compact, and it's a wise tradeoff. Full-frame mirrorless will happen sooner or later, but probably not until it feels so mature that it can replace the SLRs also for the conservative studio shooters.
-
Good points, there are indeed examples of custom sensors being made.
I think though that Hasselblad has been too financially weak to have custom sensor stuff made for them, and I also guess that Sony is a little bit tougher to get custom deals from than Dalsa/CMOSIS etc where providing custom solutions is more central to their business model. I also guess (not sure) that CMOS is tougher to get customized that CCDs due to the higher complexity on chip.
It's an interesting observation the crosstalk thing which is mentioned in the interview. Indeed we could get very compact lenses if the sensor had better angular response. However as far as I understand you also need to reduce maximum aperture and allow for very high vignetting in order to get down the optics size (which is done in traditional large format designs, as in that genre you can live with both), and I don't think those trade-offs suits the typical X1D use cases.
Unfortunately I think the family of trade-offs made in the tech camera camp is gone and will not return, unless I become a billionaire and start my own (unprofitable) camera brand just for fun.
-
I don't understand the saying in the interview that current HC/HCD lenses shall not be designed for contrast detection AF systems and thus need software upgrades. I thought that the AF system of current H5D/H6D is based on contrast detection as well ?
Can someone?
-
I don't understand the saying in the interview that current HC/HCD lenses shall not be designed for contrast detection AF systems and thus need software upgrades. I thought that the AF system of current H5D/H6D is based on contrast detection as well ?
Can someone?
It's designed for phase detection with a dedicated auto-focus sensor active when you look through the viewfinder. The advantage of phase detect is that the auto-focus system doesn't need to search for the focus, it directly knows where it should move the lens. With contrast detection you need to search backwards and forwards with interval-halving algorithm or similar, which stresses the focus motor more and you need to bombard the lens with many more focusing commands than you need with phase detect, which I guess is the reason for the software upgrade required.
(Dedicated auto-focus sensors can directly find focus in larger out-of-focus situations than phase detect on a sensor too, which means that SLRs may live for a longer time than we would think, at least for super-telephoto photography in the 135 format.)
-
Torger,
The X1D is a quick design thrown together around a sensor by a company that already had a UI etc. We might see another actor eg. Sinar go for a custom sensor in order to preserve their own "goodwill" which is an existing range of lenses and mechanical devices. There is a large market out there for various types of museum and in-situ repro photography for which I'd say retrofocus lens designs are really not a good fit as shift is essential - at some point I believe someone will cook up a sensor which allows these people to work with their existing repertoire of optics and shift mechanics.
Edmund
Good points, there are indeed examples of custom sensors being made.
I think though that Hasselblad has been too financially weak to have custom sensor stuff made for them, and I also guess that Sony is a little bit tougher to get custom deals from than Dalsa/CMOSIS etc where providing custom solutions is more central to their business model. I also guess (not sure) that CMOS is tougher to get customized that CCDs due to the higher complexity on chip.
It's an interesting observation the crosstalk thing which is mentioned in the interview. Indeed we could get very compact lenses if the sensor had better angular response. However as far as I understand you also need to reduce maximum aperture and allow for very high vignetting in order to get down the optics size (which is done in traditional large format designs, as in that genre you can live with both), and I don't think those trade-offs suits the typical X1D use cases.
Unfortunately I think the family of trade-offs made in the tech camera camp is gone and will not return, unless I become a billionaire and start my own (unprofitable) camera brand just for fun.
-
Makes total sense to me.
I don't believe that 41x54mm mirrorless makes much sense, reasonnably bright lenses would just be too big.
This is the old dream of the silver bullet speaking, 50mp is more than enough for 99.9% of all applications, and 200 % of the applications for which you want to use a camera like the X1D.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree, the smaller medium format digital format is perfect for a mirrorless camera. 50mp is certainly more than enough for most commercial and even fine art applications. Over the years my commercial work has seen quite a significant increase in the volume of images made and delivered.
I would prefer that in the next X1D Hasselblad puts a much better EVF on it (they can do that today so im sure the X2D is already in development), make some faster lenses available (f2 or f2.8) and improve the sensor including adding on chip phase AF (out their hands since they depend on Sony for it).
I still see the Medium Format SLR's still being available for quite a few more years. The Phase One XF is an amazing camera and the H6D is excellent as well. At some point they will be replaced by mirrorless but current tech still needs to advance a bit further. Maybe in 10 years. Still, it will be sad to see OVFs go.
-
I would prefer that in the next X1D Hasselblad puts a much better EVF on it (they can do that today so im sure the X2D is already in development), make some faster lenses available (f2 or f2.8) and improve the sensor including adding on chip phase AF (out their hands since they depend on Sony for it).
Yes, that sounds like a perfect description of what the X2D should be!
If they could add also a global shutter capability, this would make this camera a great platform to use various MF lenses. This point is a bit less obvious though because Hasselblad may consider it a risk for the sales of their native lenses. It would IMHO be a pity because customer always end up buying native lenses if they are good, which seems to be the case.
But that's in 2 years at the earliest, I believe that X1D is already a solid offering that will deliver good value for the photographers who will invest in the platform.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
OVF will stay around as long as there are enough customers paying for it.
I am pretty sure we will see higher resolution sensors in the 44x33 sensor format.
Best regards
Erik
I still see the Medium Format SLR's still being available for quite a few more years. The Phase One XF is an amazing camera and the H6D is excellent as well. At some point they will be replaced by mirrorless but current tech still needs to advance a bit further. Maybe in 10 years. Still, it will be sad to see OVFs go.
-
Another quote from Ove :
Not all H lenses have firmware that can be upgraded as early H lenses in 2002 were fixed, but all more recent lenses will be able to be used.'
How can you find out when your HC / HCD lens was produced? Is there a list with serial numbers?
-
I don't understand the saying in the interview that current HC/HCD lenses shall not be designed for contrast detection AF systems and thus need software upgrades. I thought that the AF system of current H5D/H6D is based on contrast detection as well ?
Can someone?
It's not. And my the way he say so in an interview. Maybe even this one.
Best regards,
-
I agree, the smaller medium format digital format is perfect for a mirrorless camera. 50mp is certainly more than enough for most commercial and even fine art applications.
If that is the case, the next generation of 135 style mirrorless cameras with a 50 MP Sony back side illuminated CMOS sensor could compete with crop frame medium format cameras. Lenses could be smaller and this is significant, since the lens often dwarfs the mirrorless camera. On chip phase detect focusing is already available in 135 format. With a smaller chip, in camera image stabilization would be easier to implement, and is already available with the Pentax k1 along with pixel shift technology.
Bill
-
Scaling the a7R Mk II sensor gets you 72mp on a 44x33 format with very competent on-sensor Phase Detect. Getting the data off of that sensor is a bit lethargic though even at 42mp so an upgrade in that circuitry would help although you should still be able to do the same 2 FPS as the X1D even without an upgrade on that circuitry. Seems like a logical upgrade path...
-
It's always interesting when Ove talks, as he's not the marketing type of guy. He talks like an engineer, so you get to know what tradeoffs they've done, what they would have liked to have but couldn't have etc.
There are a few things we already sort of knew but it's interesting to hear directly, for example that the sensor is extremely central to what cameras they can make, and as a small company they have only limited control over what they can get. All those fantasies of strange sensor formats floating around in the forums are just that, fantasies. If you want the best sensors, which is Sony these days, the format and features are decided by the collective need of many manufacturers. So phase detect will not happen until Sony produces a medium format sensor that has phase detect, and that will probably not happen until more than one manufacturer needs it. I'm pretty sure the next sensor generation in 44x33 will have it, less likely that the next 54x41mm sensor will.
The current mirrorless format is locked to 44x33, a tradeoff to keep the size compact, and it's a wise tradeoff. Full-frame mirrorless will happen sooner or later, but probably not until it feels so mature that it can replace the SLRs also for the conservative studio shooters.
Yes. i just talked to Ove extensively today. He is a no BS guy.
While many of us might see that the lack of FPS is a big miss, I think it is sensible for Hasselblad. Not only having the FPS will make the camera much heavier and bigger, most importantly, Hasselblad will need a lot more time to develop a camera with a shutter (i.e. many movable parts) inside. The result will be a much more expensive product with much later delivery time. Everything is a compromise.
-
For me the lack of a focal plane shutter is a plus! Lots less movement in the whole system at time of exposure without one.
-
Hasselblad will need a lot more time to develop a camera with a shutter (i.e. many movable parts) inside.
shutter is a drop in part procured from 3rd party...
-
shutter is a drop in part procured from 3rd party...
I fear it is that simple. Now X1d has no moving part. With a shutter, the whole body design will be a lot more complicated (damping, vibration all need to be taken into consideration).
Actually i don't know if there is any existing shutter specific for 44x33 sensors as well. Full frame 645 sensor's shutter will clearly be too big (unless one makes a bigger camera).
-
Hi,
I don't think there are a lot of MFD FP shutters around. Both the Pentax shutters and the Mamiya shutter used in Phase One and the Alpa FPS have been demonstrated to have issues with vibrations.
That is not to say that FPS cannot be made, just that it may not be a piece of cake to integrate a third party FP shutter in a small body. But, yes, I do feel a FPS would make the camera more flexible.
Best regards
Erik
I fear it is that simple. Now X1d has no moving part. With a shutter, the whole body design will be a lot more complicated (damping, vibration all need to be taken into consideration).
Actually i don't know if there is any existing shutter specific for 44x33 sensors as well. Full frame 645 sensor's shutter will clearly be too big (unless one makes a bigger camera).
-
A FPS was clearly totally incompatible with the design philosophy of the X1D.
It would be like asking Apple to add a bakelite handle to an iPhone 6.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Both the Pentax shutters and the Mamiya shutter used in Phase One and the Alpa FPS have been demonstrated to have issues with vibrations.
all FPS have issues with (shutter shock) vibrations, even m43 cameras ( as tests with analog oscillograph @ dpreview forum showed ) ... however H is no smaller or less capable company than Alpa, so drop in shutter from a 3rd party is not a big deal by itself... the lack of EFCS is totally different matter.
-
A FPS was clearly totally incompatible with the design philosophy of the X1D.
true... just like CMOS sensor for MF cameras, till they get a proper one
-
Hi,
When that A7r arrived I didn't buy into it. Lack of EFCS and phase detection were the main causes. The A7 had those features but was clearly not high end and just 24 MP. So, i waited until the A7rII arrived. I am quite happy with that one. No, it is not perfect, but it does the stuff I want it to do…
Best regards
Erik
all FPS have issues with (shutter shock) vibrations, even m43 cameras ( as tests with analog oscillograph @ dpreview forum showed ) ... however H is no smaller or less capable company than Alpa, so drop in shutter from a 3rd party is not a big deal by itself... the lack of EFCS is totally different matter.
-
Hi,
I don't think there are a lot of MFD FP shutters around. Both the Pentax shutters and the Mamiya shutter used in Phase One and the Alpa FPS have been demonstrated to have issues with vibrations.
That is not to say that FPS cannot be made, just that it may not be a piece of cake to integrate a third party FP shutter in a small body. But, yes, I do feel a FPS would make the camera more flexible.
Best regards
Erik
Yes yes. There was a big typo in my original message. I meant "I fear it is NOT that simple (to just drop in a third party shutter)"
Thanks a lot for further elaborating on it :)
-
Perhaps Sony has already told their sensor customers (under nda) that sensors with global shutters will show up rather sooner than later.
A FPS was clearly totally incompatible with the design philosophy of the X1D.
It would be like asking Apple to add a bakelite handle to an iPhone 6.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perhaps Sony has already told their sensor customers (under nda) that sensors with global shutters will show up rather sooner than later.
Yes, perhaps. There is little doubt that it is only a matter of months/years until those are readily available.
But my guess is that Hassy wanted a body without any moving part to simplify design and manufacturing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perhaps Sony has already told their sensor customers (under nda) that sensors with global shutters will show up rather sooner than later.
My thoughts exactly.
Hasselblad might "know" that in the next revision of this camera, global shutter (and PDAF?) will be available from Sony, so get the long term system design right, get an early model in the market, start generating sales and get a lead on competitors.
How much easier is it to design a camera like this (not talking about lenses), than a traditional such camera with more moving parts and possibly CCD? Is it possible for a really small group (say competent but with little camera experience) to pick a (expensive) Sony sensor, some standard embedded/consumer SOC/touchscreen with standard OS/SW, do some nice industrial design and have a viable product?
-h
-
If I am not mistaken, I read somewhere that this camera does have EFCS. Just no FPS to complete the exposure, only the leaf shutter.
-
Thanks for that posting…
Best regards
Erik
If I am not mistaken, I read somewhere that this camera does have EFCS. Just no FPS to complete the exposure, only the leaf shutter.
-
If I am not mistaken, I read somewhere that this camera does have EFCS. Just no FPS to complete the exposure, only the leaf shutter.
this is how EFCS works emulating a mechanical first FP shutter blade moving across the sensor (row by row, following by the actual second FP shutter blade)
The shutter stays open at the beginning of the exposure. Instead of having a mechanical front curtain, the image is cleared from the sensor, pixel row by pixel row, in the same direction and with the same speed as with a mechanical shutter. Exposure of each row of photo sites starts immediately after it is cleared. This is possible, because you are not interested in the image that was stored in the photo sites before clearing them, only in the image that is created afterwards.
After some delay, which again is the exposure time, the (mechanical) rear curtain starts to close, trailing the clearing of pixel rows with the same direction and speed. Pixel rows covered by the rear curtain then receive no more light.
When the rear curtain has closed, the camera can read out the entire image from the sensor and process it.
Then the mechanical shutter can open again.
now how do you suggest this EFCS procedure works with leaf shutter blades movements (and they cover sensor in a totally different manner) and row by row operation of EFCS procedure ? can you clarify ... sensor might as well be capable of EFCS operation - but w/o FPS it makes no sense
-
I am certainly not an expert and I cannot find the article at the moment, but I believe it will emulate the movement of an FPS. the leaf shutter completes the exposure, thereby giving us the benefits of flash sync at any speed etc.
I might be completely mistaken about this, though.
-
My thoughts exactly.
Hasselblad might "know" that in the next revision of this camera, global shutter (and PDAF?) will be available from Sony, so get the long term system design right, get an early model in the market, start generating sales and get a lead on competitors.
How much easier is it to design a camera like this (not talking about lenses), than a traditional such camera with more moving parts and possibly CCD? Is it possible for a really small group (say competent but with little camera experience) to pick a (expensive) Sony sensor, some standard embedded/consumer SOC/touchscreen with standard OS/SW, do some nice industrial design and have a viable produc
-h
The electronic issue I see is reading the data off the sensor and then writing it into flash, preferably after applying fpn removal (for commercial reasons). One needs to manage the reading, buffering writing etc at the same time as the camera stays available for a new capture.
My feeling is thqt the electronic design to achieve high throughput needs to be carefully managed; I don't know whether Sony license a downstream reference "camera in a box" complete with Jpeg generator for this sensor although I expect they do it for low-end devices.
Edmund
-
Both the Pentax shutters and the Mamiya shutter used in Phase One and the Alpa FPS have been demonstrated to have issues with vibrations.
Erik,
I'm pretty sure that the Mamiya shutter used in the Alpa FPS has NOT been subject to issues ... In fact, based on tests even here on Lula by Marc Dubovoy it's quite the opposite compared to Phase One / Pentax dslr platforms.
-
Hi Graham,
I have seen two-three reports to the opposite from long time FPS users.
Just a small point, there is a law of physics called conservation of momentum.Accelarating a mass, like a focal plane shutter blade, will cause a movement in the opposite direction in the surrounding mass. That movement can be absorbed by dampers but not eliminated entirely.
A good example of that was the original A7r. It measurably lost resolution at medium shutter times, but the induced camera shake didn't cause obvious camera motion artefacts. So the camera shake was not obvious, but quite enough to reduce resolution from say 36 MP to around 24 MP. This was very obvious in measurements but not very obvious in test shots.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I'm pretty sure that the Mamiya shutter used in the Alpa FPS has NOT been subject to issues ... In fact, based on tests even here on Lula by Marc Dubovoy it's quite the opposite compared to Phase One / Pentax dslr platforms.
-
Hi Graham,
I have seen two-three reports to the opposite from long time FPS users.
Just a small point, there is a law of physics called conservation of momentum.Accelarating a mass, like a focal plane shutter blade, will cause a movement in the opposite direction in the surrounding mass. That movement can be absorbed by dampers but not eliminated entirely.
A good example of that was the original A7r. It measurably lost resolution at medium shutter times, but the induced camera shake didn't cause obvious camera motion artefacts. So the camera shake was not obvious, but quite enough to reduce resolution from say 36 MP to around 24 MP. This was very obvious in measurements but not very obvious in test shots.
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
From when I was a kid: to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton.html
Rob
-
Erik,
I'm pretty sure that the Mamiya shutter used in the Alpa FPS has NOT been subject to issues ... In fact, based on tests even here on Lula by Marc Dubovoy it's quite the opposite compared to Phase One / Pentax dslr platforms.
That has not been my experience, which is why I don't own and would never own this camera, and I have images to support this up. I go back about 3 years since I briefly had an Alpa FPS but it clearly had shutter shock just like ALL fps's do. Even if they (Alpa) have damped and damped they cannot completely eliminate this issue.
Victor
-
Alpa FPS - I'm not saying that the laws of physics are different with Alpa and their FPS but since I do own and shoot with the FPS I can only say that this hasn't been an issue for me in the two years I've had it. That said, my A7r didn't ring like a bell either so maybe it's different strokes for different folks.
Victor - I'd be interested in knowing at what exposures you hit issues.
-
Hi Graham..... my issues were with my 150mm Digitar at shutter speeds between 1/15 to around 1/90 (don't hold me absolutely to this). I made direct comparisons to my attached STC vs. the FPS and it was very noticeable. I don't have all of the image stuff in front of me right now but it was so impacting that I immediately sent the camera back. Alpa has put out a lot of propaganda since and I don't blame them since they want to mitigate an issue that, to me, can't be completely mitigated. I have never looked back and, again, would never own that camera.
Victor
-
Btw, there's a credit hold on my camera gear piggy bank for an X1D, 30, 45, 90 combo ;)
-
I believe that global electronic shutter is hard to do without some serious compromises. I believe that Eric Fossum have said something to that effect, and the mere lack of such products despite the obvious benefits seems to indicate that it is "hard".
If Sony (or someone else) were to make the break-through that allowed global shutter with minimal compromise, would they not introduce it in high-volume 1" (or cell-phone) sensors first? I am suggesting that we would see global shutters in the RX100Mx, then the A7-series, then (possibly) the MF sensors.
The electronic issue I see is reading the data off the sensor and then writing it into flash, preferably after applying fpn removal (for commercial reasons). One needs to manage the reading, buffering writing etc at the same time as the camera stays available for a new capture.
My feeling is thqt the electronic design to achieve high throughput needs to be carefully managed; I don't know whether Sony license a downstream reference "camera in a box" complete with Jpeg generator for this sensor although I expect they do it for low-end devices.
Edmund
If this sensor is just a "small sensor made bigger", then perhaps the same supporting IP/electronics can be (re-)used (although at greater cost and/or lower speed)?
If Sony supplies everything from sensor to flash storage, does this not mean that manufacturing digital cameras become more like designing film cameras? A small team can design a camera that enables great images, they compete on ergonomy, size/weight, price, eco-system?
Intuitively, I'd assume that a CMOS sensor (complete with integrated A/D converters) could be connected to any standard System-On-a-Chip (ARM/MIPS/...) with sufficient i/o bandwidth connected to a decent memory buffer and flash storage running Android/[realtime embedded OS]. Sonys contribution might then consist of a purely software (platform-agnostic) generic library of image processing functions and sensor driver. If the EVF is a part of the package, it might make things slightly more complex, but not too much.
Turning a "working" development board (say, 80% solution) into a highly polished product (say, 99% solution) is a lot more than "19% work" :-). You want a user interface/experience that is intuitive, feels "snappy", does not look (too much) like a rip-off of your competitors. You want to utilize hardware efficiently so as to maximize still-image throughput, buffer utilization, EVF latency and image quality. Auto-focus. You want to maximize battery life. Any piece of external/3rd party stuff that you need to interface with (lenses, memory cards, flash, Wifi, Bluetooth, NFC) has the potential for infinite amounts of testing matrixes and improved functionality.
-h
-
If you're in Paris, I'm ready to invest $1K in doing a Sony sensor exercise - I agree that they probably have ranges, and assume that within a range one uses the same interface, with a possibility of having various data path widths.
I believe that global electronic shutter is hard to do without some serious compromises. I believe that Eric Fossum have said something to that effect, and the mere lack of such products despite the obvious benefits seems to indicate that it is "hard".
If Sony (or someone else) were to make the break-through that allowed global shutter with minimal compromise, would they not introduce it in high-volume 1" (or cell-phone) sensors first? I am suggesting that we would see global shutters in the RX100Mx, then the A7-series, then (possibly) the MF sensors.If this sensor is just a "small sensor made bigger", then perhaps the same supporting IP/electronics can be (re-)used (although at greater cost and/or lower speed)?
If Sony supplies everything from sensor to flash storage, does this not mean that manufacturing digital cameras become more like designing film cameras? A small team can design a camera that enables great images, they compete on ergonomy, size/weight, price, eco-system?
Intuitively, I'd assume that a CMOS sensor (complete with integrated A/D converters) could be connected to any standard System-On-a-Chip (ARM/MIPS/...) with sufficient i/o bandwidth connected to a decent memory buffer and flash storage running Android/[realtime embedded OS]. Sonys contribution might then consist of a purely software (platform-agnostic) generic library of image processing functions and sensor driver. If the EVF is a part of the package, it might make things slightly more complex, but not too much.
Turning a "working" development board (say, 80% solution) into a highly polished product (say, 99% solution) is a lot more than "19% work" :-). You want a user interface/experience that is intuitive, feels "snappy", does not look (too much) like a rip-off of your competitors. You want to utilize hardware efficiently so as to maximize still-image throughput, buffer utilization, EVF latency and image quality. Auto-focus. You want to maximize battery life. Any piece of external/3rd party stuff that you need to interface with (lenses, memory cards, flash, Wifi, Bluetooth, NFC) has the potential for infinite amounts of testing matrixes and improved functionality.
-h
-
If that is the case, the next generation of 135 style mirrorless cameras with a 50 MP Sony back side illuminated CMOS sensor could compete with crop frame medium format cameras. Lenses could be smaller and this is significant, since the lens often dwarfs the mirrorless camera.
On the question of how large a format is needed for "50MP worth" of resolution, meaning about 8000x6000, so 6000 l/ph [lines per picture height] in more traditional measures: I expect lens resolution and diffraction limits on usable f-stops to be the limit. After all, current 1 micron phone-sized pixels would fit about 50MP into a 2/3" format sensor, but the promised resolution would only be achieved at f-stops under about f/2, or f/1 by the most pessimistic analysis, and it might be very hard to control aberrations at those low aperture ratios. (The dynamic range of such small photo-sites is another issue of course, but at least I see hope for techniques like incremental read-out of photo-sites overcoming that.)
Some numbers and speculation:
In 24x16 format ("APS-C", Nikon "DX", Sony "E"), the diffraction limit on resolving that 6000 l/ph is about f/2.8-f/5.6, where maybe aberration control in good modern less designs can handle it.
In 36x24 format, the diffraction limit on resolving that 6000 l/ph is about f/4-f/8, probably within the comfort zone of aberration control in good modern lens designs, including better zoom lenses.
In 44x33 format, it is about f/5.6 - f/11, where it is relatively easy to control aberrations. In fact even 100MP only needs about f/4-f/8, where adequate aberration control is also probably quite attainable.
In the long run, I can see the case for formats bigger than about 44x33 diminishing greatly, if DR at a given pixel size improves as much as I think it can. If so, then Hasselblad is positioning itself well with this new EVF camera system.
P. S. About format names for the larger, more "serious" sensor formats: why not just use dimensions in mm, akin to the use of cm with MF film formats and inches with LF film? It seems that there will be just a few "larger than mainstream" digital ILC formats:
36x24, 44x33 and 54x40 (and at Leica, 45x30).
P.P.S. Do we discuss the X1D in the "Compact System Cameras" forum?!