Do we need more specialization with digital cameras?

Eric - "You wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel- you could take a stock D50 and reorient it to shoot only B&W images. I'm reasonably certain even Nikon could accomplish such a modification for well under $350 per body".

 

First, I have no idea what you mean by "reorient". You don't just drop in a new sensor, you need new firmware to support it (dead pixel mapping, for example, is a lot different in a monochrome camera, as is the bias mapping). The preview system, obviously, would be different, as would the color curves, the ICC profiles (Current firmware uses color profiles, like Adobe RGB or SRGB. The monochrome camera needs to understand monochrome profiles, like "gray LAB", "gamma 1.8", or "dot gain 20"). That's the RISC firmware. The CISC firmware (OK, I know a bit about Nikon architecture) needs to chage, too, because the color matrix algorithms need to be aware of the filters that people are going to want to use on a monochrome camera. All this new firmware needs to be amortized across a much smaller quantity of cameras than the mainstream D50 firmware does.

 

And you need to process raw files, so Nikon capture (an amazingly complex piece of software) needs to be upgraded to monochrome compatible. Another large effort amortized over a small number of cameras.

 

Don't forget, new manuals for the camera and the new Nikon capture. The cost of writing and publishing a manual is trivial when you're talking millions (or even hundreds of thousands) of cameras. But what happens if you're selling a few thousand cameras? Suddenly, you're adding $20 per camera just to have the manual written (don't forget, it needs to be in 12 languages).

 

Of course, there are hardware changes, the monochrome camera will either have a weaker AA filter than the color camera, or skip it alltogether. In either case, you're looking at new parts to stock (different filter, or glass the same thickness as the filter, so as not to disturb the D50 optic path design).

 

And, most important, you really are talking about a NEW sensor. In the IC fabrication process, you have to change the part where the color filters are screaned onto the chip (can't just leave them off, that changes the optical path length, too. Wide angle lenses won't focus if you change the path length). This happens before the chips are diced (cut apart from the round wafer). You need new test procedures (existing testing is done with RGB data, new documentation, and the runs for the new sensor are smaller, adding to the cost.

 

You might need to register a new trademark. There will be new sales literature. Again, more costs, to be spread over small quantities.

 

And, even if the parts cost were as low, quantity still affects price. Epson/Cosina use the same low cost sensor Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta do. But, because of the RD-1 quantities, it costs more. Kodak charged more for their monochrome DSLR, back when they had it. Canon charges more for the "20Da", the 'a' means it's the "astrophotography" version of the 20D. The only part that changes in 20Da is the filter that's placed in front of the sensor. But even if there were no changes at all, even if you could get a drop in monochrome sensor that cost exactly the same as the sensor in that Nikon D50 you mentioned, the camera would still end up costing a lot more. Why? Again, because of the quantity. Nikon chips D50 by the millions. Major distributors order boatloads of them (literally, hundreds of crates, thousands of camera at a time). Then those go out, in crates to major retailers like B&H.

 

Specialty cameras are more expensive to distribute, because the quantities are lower. There might not be one in your local camera store's inventory. Nor one in the local distributor's warehouse. They may have to send out of the country for it. There's no support in your area. The local support people don't have a canned answer for a problem with a camera they've never seen before. It needs a new support network.

Dennis - "Well Nikon is offering a D2 model optimized for astrophotography"

 

Canon, actually. The 20Da, where the 'a' stands for astrophotography.

 

"By simply leaving off a filter layer on the sensor chip"

 

Oh, I like that word: "simply". First, they didn't do anything with the chip, that would be too expensive. They altered the filter pack (a complax 4 layer thing, IR cut filter, blue photometric filter, vertical AA filter, horizontal AA filter) that goes in front of the chip. They changed the characteristics of the IR cut filter and the blue photometric filter to make the camera 2-3 stops more more sensitive to deep red, especially the H-Alpha wavelength at 656.3nm. The filter still blocks IR beyond 730nm or so. They didn't want to sell a camera that would find more demand among perverts than astrophotographers because it could see through clothes in addition to getting good pictures of nebulae. Remember the Sony "x-ray camera" scandles a few years ago?

 

So, they "simply" created a new, more expensive filter pack.

 

Then they "simply" added a live preview mode to a DSLR for astro focusing.

 

They "simply" changed the metering firmware because the altered photometric filter increased the camera's base sensitivity, then "simply" rewrote the manual. "Simply" modified their raw processing software to cope with the altered photometric filter curve, and "simply" provided updated service manuals and parts to their service centers.

 

"Making a monochrome optimized model would seem at first blush a matter simply leaving off the Bayer color filter layer on the sensor chip and laying on a filter layer for monochrome, or merely putting a filter in front of the chip"

 

As I explained in another post in this thread, that's "simply" a change made at chip fabrication level, and "simply" requires new artwork, new dyes in the filter screening process. It needs new test procedures, because you're altering sensor sensitivity, but those can be created and validated "simply".

 

"Likely this is not an expensive change"

 

Likely it is horrendously expensive.

 

"but more likely they don't see enough market to warrant even the labor cost of having an engineer write up the specs for the chip foundry..."

 

Or the camera, firmware, users manual, service manual, new sales literature, etc.

Vivek - "If there is a DSLR with increased UV sensitivity, I will buy one. The realted lenses are quite specialized, anyway."

 

How much is it worth to you? Foveon sensors have no organic Bayer matrix filters, and no LiNb03 AA filters. So there's nothing between you and your lens but the front glass window on the chip. I can get my hands on Foveon sensors that have quartz front windows. With a little surface mount soldering, they will drop into a stock Sigma SD10 body.

 

The IR cut filter on that camera is at the front of the mirror chamber, and can easily be removed totally, or replaced with a quartz window. I'd probably just leave it off. That will cause a change in the optical path length. But the change would be in front of everything, AF sensor, imaging sensor, and SLR mirror, so it would affect all paths equally. AF and MF would still track the sensor plane of focus.

 

A modified version of DCRAW will read just the blue channel without doing any color math. You'd have a nice IR camera that would probably be good down to 180nm (I think that's where oxygen becomes a problem).

Hi Joe, Interesting to hear about the Foveon chip with a quarz window.

I have only heard about the Kodak camera you mentioned and a Sony video cam equipped with special Sony chips. A friend, Wojciech, tried some experiments with a normal (machine vision) Sony CCD video camera. It still has enough sensitivity to some 300nm as I recall.

 

Can't really answer the question, "how much it is worth to me".

 

Some of the lenses I use will transmit up to 200 nm although as you pointed out, it is really useless. Anything with excellent sensitivity in the 300 to 400nm range is practical, most useful and most interesting to me.

You are making a stand against progress in seeking a more specialised form of cameras with video cameras increasingly being capable of shooting qiality stills, not to mention cellphones.

 

It is easy enough to convert a still camera to take B&W by removing the Bayer filter, a Canadian fine art photog did this awhile back to insert an IR filter of his choice .. Nikon Canada did it for him on one of his D70's [from memory].

 

The Panasonic FZ30 has provision to shoot in 4:3 3:2 and 16:9.

 

Just as the Technicolor camera used three 'cameras' so it would be possible to use beam splitting/mirror techniques with mutiple digital cameras if you need the same split second of exposure in panaoramas. But my examples are very much fringe areas and with ecconomies of production [ even Hasselbrad probably has to consider this ] we go to mass production ... unless we are Government funded like NASA, and even there they are not building new but adapting old as I understand it.

you want all of these options and output digital? shoot film and scan for crying out loud......

Vivek - you're welcome, glad you enjoyed. Yes, the Kodak is a bit obscure, and teh quartz window Foveon even more so.

 

JC - "It is easy enough to convert a still camera to take B&W by removing the Bayer filter, a Canadian fine art photog did this awhile back to insert an IR filter of his choice .. Nikon Canada did it for him on one of his D70's [from memory]."

 

Actually, they removed the IR blocking filter, which is outside the chip. An hour's work for a good camera technician. Although that doesn't address issues like metering and focusing. The Bayer filter is inside the chip, screened right on the surface of the silicon. It takes a good lab considerable time to open a chip and displve the Bayer filter. This process also disolves the microlenses, reducing sensitivity substantially. To get a decent B&W camera, you have to fabricate a new chip, different filters screened on, then microlenses screened over the filters. And new firmware in the camera, and a new raw processor to go with it.

Ken - "you want all of these options and output digital? shoot film and scan for crying out loud"

 

I'm very impressed. You managed to cram so much rudeness and vitrol into such a short post, and you did it without contributing anything useful to the conversation at all. Are you proud?

 

The "all of these options" discussed by the origional poster included shooting infrared. It's apparent you've never done that on film. Infrared is invisible, the exposure and focus involve guesswork, the development and printing are trickier than conventional films. Digital is a godsend to infrared photographers.

 

Does "all of these options" just include what the origional poster wanted, or thigns that other people in this thread mentioned? Two other posters expressed an interest in UV. That's even trickier than IR, because of the special lenses involved, and the fact that the same film's sensitivity to UV varies from batch to batch. Again, an area where instant feedback is incredibly useful...

.

 

Earlier in this thread: "...for crying out loud..."

 

To which someone responded: "...I'm very impressed. You managed to cram so much rudeness and vitriol [spelling corrected] into such a short post, and you did it without contributing anything useful to the conversation at all. Are you proud?..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Ahh, well, we each react in our own way to the noises in our own heads regardless of the reality "out there", and I found nothing objectionable in the comment, for crying out loud.

 

The entire quote earlier in this thread is: "...you want all of these options and output digital? shoot film and scan for crying out loud ..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Agreed. This was already mentioned, but buried. Sometimes people forget what is in front of them when they try to look too far afield, especially into the future, with a wish list. I'm re-reading a variety of ancient or antique photography reference and resource books -- 50 years or older -- and I'm impressed at what some of those artists accomplished that I have yet to ascend to even today, and me with all my modern computerized what-not -- for crying out loud! ;-)

 

Earlier in this thread, responding to the suggestion to scan film if digital capture offerings to not match film offerings: "...Infrared is invisible, the exposure and focus involve guesswork, the development and printing are trickier than conventional films. Digital is a godsend to infrared photographers ... other posters expressed an interest in UV. That's even trickier than IR, because of the special lenses involved and the fact that the same film's sensitivity to UV varies from batch to batch. Again, an area where instant feedback [presumably digital capture] is incredibly useful..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Ahh, yes, let me close my ancient, antique photography reference and resource books now and pretend that there has NEVER been any excellent and successful magic to the practice of the art and science of photography and NOTHING can ever be done unless a computer is involved. NOT! And scanning addresses many of your concerns regarding control of output, for crying out loud!

 

Hey, I've been a computer support consultant since 1969 -- 36 years now -- and I know the power of computers ... and I hate them -- I just hate them PROFESSIONALLY, for crying out loud! ;-)

 

Yes, we can always ask others to automate solutions to our own challenges, and I for one LOVE such automation especially when the challenge is one that I do not find artistically or scientifically rewarding for me to address myself. Hey, I even subcontracted my photography 101 homework to a local photo lab, for crying out loud!

 

I highly recommend http://www.blackwhitelab.com/ Black & White Custom Photo & Digital Lab, 1916 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 201, Arlington, Virginia, US, 703-525-1922 info@blackwhitelab.com -- for crying out loud!

 

However, what do we do in the meantime, for crying out loud?

 

Oh, I know what I'll do next -- I'll open my ancient, antique photography reference and resource books now and see just what our fearless predecessors did when they had no one to solve their problems for them, for crying out loud! =8^o

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - As I re-read the original inquiry at the top of this page, one way for me to understand it is to hear the speaker "crying out loud", that is, whining that "the industry is not taking care of my wishes and whims" -- instead of hunkering down ourselves and having an excited blast of a time with all the incredible resources out there, for crying out loud! ;-)

 

I do not in any way see identifying my experience of the initial inquiry as if I my assessment were rude, vitriolic (check the spelling!) or useless, for crying out loud!

.

 

 

Peter Blaise wrote: "...Yes, UV lenses are available -- search for older Nikon and other new and used sources for specialty UV lenses -- many fit or adapt to DSLRs. Some DSLRs may need their filter removed from in front of the sensor for UV and IR capture, and maybe even a compensating "lens" added to replace the filter for TTL EVF cameras with one lens already fixed on..."

 

Someone responded: "...Speaking from your experience, Peter?..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Yes, I have the experience of doing just such searches on the Internet as I suggest above that others might do to find the photographic references and resources for which they are so desperately looking. Googling for [nikon uv lens] and [remove ir filter digital camera] are a good start. More?

 

My point is that there are loads of resources that we can take advantage of today without sitting on our hands and waiting for the big, nervous, competitive manufacturers to mass produce an all-purpose solution, for crying out loud!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

Notwithstanding the decades of knowledge that many excellent contributors to the pho.net seem possess, I have to ask- What is the current reality from a practical point of view if someone wants to shoot in IR or UV.

These "specialized" digital cameras make about as much sense as having film cameras "specialized" for shooting just B/W film or color film.

 

All the flexibility you need is in the digital file and in imaging softwares like Photoshop.

 

If you want to pay for multiple different cameras with specific "specialities", I think you're going to be in the minority, and the advantages (if any) would be minimal.

.

 

Earlier in this thread: "...Notwithstanding the decades of knowledge that many excellent contributors to the pho.net seem possess, I have to ask- What is the current reality from a practical point of view if someone wants to shoot in IR or UV?..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Notwithstanding? # adverb: despite anything to the contrary (usually following a concession) ... I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway...

 

How to shoot UV and IR today? Rather than summarize, I suggest a careful re-read of this thread to see all the wonderful UV and IR options to which we all referred -- and of course, Google searches for UV and IR photo resources.

 

Sadly, the makers of film are reducing their UV and IR offering, so aside from hoarding film in our freezers, or waiting for "boutique" film makers to arrive someday, digital capture, and often "customized" digital capture, may be the preferred way to go.

 

However, considering the relatively limited market for such gear, do not expect it to be inexpensive or readily available on demand -- expect to pay much, and have to hunt it down, or to create it, or cause it to be created, ourselves.

 

Cool.

 

That's just what I'm seeing in my ancient and antique photography references and resources! Photography has always been this way, for crying out loud! ;-)

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

I would rather never deal with black and white media, and the buttload of filters, ever again.

A color DSLR has a built in infinitely variable set of color filters. Also, I think you are

confusing color data with luminance data. A color sensor will resolve just about everything

a B&W one would, while removing any need for filters.

Yes, except detail.

>>I would rather never deal with black and white media, and the buttload of filters, ever again<<

 

Ditto! Not to mention that many here are forgetting that in-camera JPGs are NOT the best way to "develop" pictures in the digital domain. RAW is the way to go, period. And, there is NO such a thing as B&W RAW data so...

 

Learn how to use PS and do your B&W conversions the way YOU like it (create your own special set of actions, use commercial plugins, whatever suits you).

.

 

Earlier on this thread: "...there is NO such a thing as B&W RAW data..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Ooops -- RAW is ONLY black and white data!

 

... plus a map of the RGGB red/green/green/blue mosiac overlay and other camera settings, but that's internal, as our software shows us RAW images as the black and white data already interpreted as color. A trivial detail? I dunno -- I figure understanding what really goes on inside the machine can be helpful. if it matters.

 

Well, that's for CCD and CMOS. Now Foveon ...

 

Is ANYONE getting the idea yet -- that we already have TONS of choices here, and more, more, more on the horizon, for crying out loud? ;-)

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

This thread seems to have become a sales pitch for current digital technology

which is not what I intended when I opened the question.

 

There are many, many areas where specialized cameras, either film or digital

already exist. Consider medical photography. Peter Blaise, when was the last

time you photographed someone's retina with your consumer digital SLR?

Ophthalmic photography, enodscopic photography, bio- microscopy all

require specialized adaptations both in terms of hardware and software to

accomplish their specialized needs. Forensic photography also requires

similar specialized applications. What about engineering or scientific

photography? Can a typical consumer digital camera and Photoshop find

stress fractures or metal fatigue in an airplane wing or on a girder on a

suspension bridge? What is the fastest shutter speed on your camera? I bet

there are plenty of scientific or engineering areas requiring shutter speeds

orders of magnitude greater than the typical consumer camera.

 

Specialized digital cameras already exist in these non-consumer areas. I

think it very interesting that there is such resistance to this in the consumer

world. As long as such a bias exists, there is little opportunity for

specialization to occur with consumer cameras even if such specialization did

a better job than the one size fits all approach. This bias limits the overall

potential of digital photography. Peter Blaise, what golf club do you use

when playing golf? I would prefer to have a putter and at least one other club

myself.

.

 

Ooops, it seems you've misunderstood the purpose of photo.net, John.

 

Did you accidentally cross post to medic.net and golf.net?

 

Re-read your initial post and tell us again how we could have guessed that what you rally wanted us to "get" was for digital camera consumers (and the manufacturers who serve them) to break into the specialized markets of medicine (and golf?)? Before digital, there have always been expensive specialized cameras that were not part of consumer photography, so why cry now about the same bifurcation in the digital domain?

 

Not only do I NOT play golf, analogy wise, but, photography-wise, I have more than just the two "clubs" you mention that you prefer when you play golf, er, do photography.

 

As mentioned, I have not only hundreds of choices "out there" and more every day, but I actually own more tha one digital capture device AND more than one digital scanning device. I plan on having at least one more of each type of device additionally each and every 1 1/2 to 3 years or so until I die. I'm ~50 years old now, so that means I'll acquire at least 30 additional digital capture/scan devices over my lifetime, and they better be different than the ones I already own! This market is immense and unsaturatable. I see no end to it!

 

Thank you for answering your own questions, though -- we couldn't ask more of anyone who posts a question here. You wonder about diversification and specialization in the digital capture universe, and finally, you answer that there is immense and unsaturatable specialization and diversification in the digital capture universe.

 

I have no idea why you seem to lament that "consumers" aren't demanding enough, but then you list exactly the types of consumers who do demand, and apparently do receive, just such specialized and diverse digital photographic gear -- those consumers in medicine and science and so on. More power to them. Heck, my dentist has digital x-ray and digital intra-oral cameras. I'm not buying them for myself, though I'm paying for them, I suppose.

 

I imagine the popularity of consumer digital cameras drives the price down for the exact same technology that supports the specialized and diverse digital photographic gear you apparently so long for. That's a good thing, right? We're doing our part, right? My next 30 digital capture and scan devices will help build and expand the specialized and diverse digital universe beyond my mere demands, right?

 

What more can I do -- especially if I do not WANT anything more than what I have today? Is it all right with you if I grow intellectually and spiritually and artistically and do not keep changing and growing the sophistication of the gear I use? Will you still love me if I revert back to a large format camera with wet plates and do my own print-out and selenium toning?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS: I'm sorry, but did you write "...club myself..."? =8^o

.

 

PS - My digital camera shutter speed is ~1/16.000 seconds -- and I USE it! ;-)

Peter Blaise, thank you for your comments. I guess you and I see the world a

bit differently. Its the forest or the trees, the lumper or the splitter, the glass

half full or half empty. I feel that most of the digital products out there are more

similar than you do with most of the differences amounting to marketing

gimmicks or cosmetic differences- size, weight, color etc. with the function of

most products being similar. And, I do think there is a strong bias to get one

camera and then do everything with photoshop. Again, I think that bias is very

limited in its point of view.

.

 

Earlier in this thread: "...I do think there is a strong bias to get one camera and then do everything with photoshop..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: ...versus one all-purpose FILM camera and doing everything in the darkroom?

 

...Or now using either film OR digital, scanning film or not, spending all the time you want to in the darkroom, or in PhotoShop, and so on -- dancing back and forth between 'em on demand. MY horizons have broadened w-a-y beyond my wildest dreams!

 

You may be right -- I see choices, you do not. Okay.

 

I'm takin' and makin' pictures. What are you doin'? Complainin'?

 

What is it that you want that you do not have?

 

What is it that you have that you do not want?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

Peter Blaise, let me phrase the question another way. With all of the digital

devices that you have purchased, which specialized features seem to make

the most difference to you? And, with all of the choices coming down the road

that you are going to purchase, what new innovations or special features do

you think will be most helpful? What specialized features would you like to

see developed?

 

For myself, some of the biggest current limitations in digital photograph, at

least at the level that most of us can afford, include tonal range and noise.

Specialized cameras might be one way to tackle this problem. I can imagine,

for example, a black and white camera that divides its sensors according to

tonal range rather than color, having perhaps one third of the sensors

optimized for shadows, one-third for mid tones and one-third for highlights.

This way, one might get a black and white photograph with an extended tonal

range without the noise and posterization we get when manipulating color

pictures in photoshop; and with no loss in sharpness. As for filters, why not

create a black and white camera that allows us to adjust the spectral

sensitivity range of the photo sensors in the camera?

 

Another idea goes back to limitations we have always had with film cameras.

Film has to be flat. This influences lens design with the biggest problems

existing in wide-angle lenses. We have generally tried to deal with this with

view cameras that tilt the lens or the back, but tilting has never completely

gotten to the source of the problem. With digital, there is no requirement for a

flat sensor. Imagine, for example, a specialized wide-angle camera with a

spherical or parabolic sensor and a corresponding wide-angle lens that

would minimize or eliminate barrel or pincushion distortion or perspective

problems that have always existed with wide-angle lenses projecting an

image on a flat surface.

 

I could go on and on, but what I wanted to know is what other think? What

innovations would you like to see developed, Peter Blaise?