Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: phila on April 16, 2008, 07:36:03 am
-
A very practical review, as usual Michael. Thanks. However (as much as I'd like one as well) when you say "...Hey Canon – how about a G10 with one of your 1.6X sensors and a decent optical viewfinder?" this doesn't take into consideration that a lens to suit such a sensor size would needs be much bigger than the existing G9 lens, particularly in diameter. A 35-210 equivalent would no doubt be twice the size of the body, at least! I wonder if this is why the Sigma's lens is "only" a 28mm equivalent?
I'd still like one though. ;-)
-
On a similar line - I have several Olympus XAs which are very small full frame 35mm film cameras with an excellent pro standard, 35mm f2.8 lens. This design must be over 20years old, so it certainly is posible to have a very small and fast full frame prime lens in a tiny camera. So a crop sensor should make the job even easier. You'd think.
-
Well he didn't pull his punches, and that is a good thing. I have not used this camera, so cannot comment one way or the other. But it was an interesting read, and of some use.
I suspect, at least part of the critical slant, is due to the rather high price, and "delay" in launching the camera.
-
Well he didn't pull his punches, and that is a good thing. I have not used this camera, so cannot comment one way or the other. But it was an interesting read, and of some use.
I suspect, at least part of the critical slant, is due to the rather high price, and "delay" in launching the camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or the fact that the camera is simply lacking! Which sadly seems to be the case.
The choice seems to be good ergonomics [GRD or G9] or much better quality.
-
"When Foveon technology was announced back in the 90's there were those that forecast that it was so far superior to Bayer that it would spell the death knell for matrix colour decoding. Time has shown that this has not been the case."
Looks like Sigma has made the classic inventor's mistake of evaluating the competition back in the 1990's and then expecting the world to stand still while they are busy refining their invention, locked up in their basement/garage..
-
I think foveon has something to offer..
However sigma are dead set of making people pay a serious premium for it, and its not so good for high ISO work. But the technology is interesting.
Look at the SD14, IMO clunky camera design, big big price at launch (it was well over £1000) in the UK, now its just sold off in the bargain basement. I dont know what is up with sigma, they did some ok film SLR cameras in the 90's.
Maybe the Dp-1 will have its fan base, and maybe its destined for the same stock clearance sell off as the SD14. Sigma have failed to bring foveon to the market in an impressive way. What's the bet that someone does a bayer APS sensor compact soon???
-
I think foveon has something to offer..
However sigma are dead set of making people pay a serious premium for it, and its not so good for high ISO work. But the technology is interesting.
Look at the SD14, IMO clunky camera design, big big price at launch (it was well over £1000) in the UK, now its just sold off in the bargain basement. I dont know what is up with sigma, they did some ok film SLR cameras in the 90's.
Maybe the Dp-1 will have its fan base, and maybe its destined for the same stock clearance sell off as the SD14. Sigma have failed to bring foveon to the market in an impressive way. What's the bet that someone does a bayer APS sensor compact soon???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wasn't there a sony with a 1.5x sensor?
-
Wasn't there a sony with a 1.5x sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
R1 I think
Mike
-
R1 I think
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, yeah. Nice camera by all accounts but certainly not shirt pocketable.
-
I always wanted one of these, or . . . you could just put this viewfinder on the G10, and maybe just maybe an APS-C sensor.
http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm (http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm)
With maybe an equivilent lens to the Tri-Elmar M.
Probably a thousand technical reasons why it can't work, but I sure would like to see a digital "version" of the CL. Rangefinder and excellent veiwfinder. Even with a 4/3d's sensor, it would be slick.
Bill in WV
-
On a similar line - I have several Olympus XAs which are very small full frame 35mm film cameras with an excellent pro standard, 35mm f2.8 lens. This design must be over 20years old, so it certainly is posible to have a very small and fast full frame prime lens in a tiny camera. So a crop sensor should make the job even easier. You'd think.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
once sensors are as thin as film (with nothing behind them) we will have full frame p&s cameras....with film the cameras was (hence the name) just an empty "room" and all the way int he back, up against the wall was the film...now that room is crammed with technology and of course the sensors take up a lot of space.....the real problem is the distance between the lens and the sensor.....
one of the biggest problems leica had with the m8 design...keeping the body as thin as the older (m6,7) and fitting a sensor in....they managed a 1.3 crop sensor....people demand a full frame sensor in the m9 but it will be really hard....
-
once sensors are as thin as film (with nothing behind them) we will have full frame p&s cameras....with film the cameras was (hence the name) just an empty "room" and all the way int he back, up against the wall was the film...now that room is crammed with technology and of course the sensors take up a lot of space.....the real problem is the distance between the lens and the sensor.....
one of the biggest problems leica had with the m8 design...keeping the body as thin as the older (m6,7) and fitting a sensor in....they managed a 1.3 crop sensor....people demand a full frame sensor in the m9 but it will be really hard....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, the reason that lenses have to be bigger for digital compacts versus their 35mm film counterparts has little to do with the thickness of the sensor. The issue is that chips are much more reflective than film, and the light rays need to be more perpendicular to the surface of the imager than they do for a film camera. That means that lenses need to be more telecentric---which translates to 'big'.
The Sigma DP1 uses a combination of optical manipulations to get to a compact size---a good lens with a smaller aperture (f4), and offset microlenses to help to focus the light that comes in at shallower angles. These issues are tricky to control---the reflection of light off the surface of the sensor can be wavelength dependent---and you can get vignetting (the DP1 has a slight issue with that that has been corrected), or the famed 'Italian Flag' effect of the Kodak 14/n series... That's one reason full frame cameras are difficult...
-
Actually, the reason that lenses have to be bigger for digital compacts versus their 35mm film counterparts has little to do with the thickness of the sensor. The issue is that chips are much more reflective than film
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paint It Black! Problem solved.
Of course this may alter the ISO!
-
Actually, the reason that lenses have to be bigger for digital compacts versus their 35mm film counterparts has little to do with the thickness of the sensor. The issue is that chips are much more reflective than film, and the light rays need to be more perpendicular to the surface of the imager than they do for a film camera. That means that lenses need to be more telecentric---which translates to 'big'.
The Sigma DP1 uses a combination of optical manipulations to get to a compact size---a good lens with a smaller aperture (f4), and offset microlenses to help to focus the light that comes in at shallower angles. These issues are tricky to control---the reflection of light off the surface of the sensor can be wavelength dependent---and you can get vignetting (the DP1 has a slight issue with that that has been corrected), or the famed 'Italian Flag' effect of the Kodak 14/n series... That's one reason full frame cameras are difficult...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
of course there is also the issue of the pixels "wells"....even the most advanced MF backs have to deal with this (the light hitting the sensor at an angle)...with software....
but the big difference between the 15$ FF film camera and digital is the necessary distance between the lens and the sensor...and since film is so much thinner, it is much easier to create enough space between them...unless of course you make the camera thicker which nobody wants....people even complain about the G9 thickness.....
-
I've purchased a DP1 this afternoon. Certainly the design seems a little clunky compared with, say, a G9, but the image quality is excellent. I'm looking forward to using it when the weather improves.
Quentin