Ed Greene's epiphany: death of the DSLR

edgreene · June 6, 2006

Andrew Robertson: Without getting into a point by point rebuttal of your point by point rebuttal of my point by point rebuttal, I will just say that I don't think your camera is going to happen.No one ``predicted`` the astounding DMC-FZ20. It happened.We already have the DSLR. It seems good enough for what it does,We also have the hassle of changing lenses and those small sensors.it's getting cheaper all the time, and it's flexible.Nah! I've nearly stopped using my SLRs for my FZ20. I donﾒt want or need the hassle of a backpack full of gear to do my own simple, walkabout imaging. And ``flexible`` is one lens, like a TV broadcast camera. They (TV cameras) zoom way to hell and gone yet do close ups, which would also be the forte` of the new camera. Your dream camera seems to be a neat idea, but I don't think any fixed lens camera will ever replace interchangeable lens cameras.Not for medium or large format imaging. But ``Ummm``: You didn't know (hadnﾒt factored in your thinking processes) the damning, empirical fact that tens of MILLIONS of SLRs (all types) have already been prematurely `retired`` by hyperzoom cameras, including the Panasonic FZ20 & FZ30?Or that tens of millions of DSLRs are not being (will never) be sold because of those same hyperzooms? And don`t tell me, tell those former SLR owners, digital and film, who have already laid down their bulky machines for 18-22 ounce digital hyperzooms.It's been tried before. It'll be tried again.Waiting like panting hounds before the quarry is turned loose, are millions of FZ20 and FZ30 owners (and owners of other hyperzooms) for the highly anticipated FZ40. Leica lens, 10+ Mp, 24/28 to 420mm, ISO 3200 and all the other previous FZ shortcomings fixed. When it is released, the sound you`ll be hearing is the ``clunking`` of SLRs/DSLRs being thrown down as their owners reach for the FZ40.Canon's Rebel line, no matter how cheap they get, will not stop this headlong charge to hyperzooms. Itﾒs going to be ``Joe Sixpack`` calling the shots and he, like most ``Joes``, wants very good, lightweight hyperzooms and imaging power in a simple package: hyperzooms, like Panasonic`s Lx1 (a truly marvelous pocketable hyperzoom with image stabilization) for now, and ``Wundercamera`` when its time comes.

neild · June 6, 2006

"Don`t the Pentax ``Limited`` lenses do exactly that?"

Quite possibly: I'm not familiar with them. If they do, then great!

edgreene · June 6, 2006

Kevin Connery: I have no idea why someone would think you can stick a 645 size sensor in a FZ body that weighs 1.5 kilos! (js bc)Of course the production weight is/was an approximation. but why not? My FZ20 only weighs 22 ounces with the adapter and lens hood attached.You don't mean that the 6-72mm lens designed to cover a 5.75mm x 4.3mm sensor wouldn't work on a 60mm x 45mm sensor?Who are you arguing with? Yourself? Putting up specious (phantom) figures, positing numbers I never used, all the while trying to reach an even more misleading conclusion?That it might have to be a little bit larger?Already acknowledged the sensor would be larger. Whatﾒs your point?<

A 6-72mm lens f/2.8, as on the Panasonic FZ7 (Ed's choice)Lies. Where in hoot did you read the FZ7 is ``my choice``? I own and shoot the FZ20 and its 6-72mm, f/2.8 (throughout the zoom range (36-432mm) lens.needs a maximum physical aperture diameter ("entrance pupil") of around 25mm--roughly 1 inch.``Hmmm, I notice by your absurd guesses you`ve never even seen an FZ20-``humm``? No ``entrance pupil`` on it for starters. Like many, I don`t think you`ve ever seen or held an FZ20-huh? You`re partly corret in that the front object, that (f/2.8 constant throughout the zoom range) Leica lens is huge in comparison to the lenses in most P&S cameras, the body itself approximately the same size as a Pentax ME SLR. *Unless by ``entrance pupil`` you meant the front objective (lens) and that too is huge (1.78" across:) (which is why the metal bodied chassis is so large).The same angle of view coverage on a 645 sized sensor (very roughly 60-690mm) with f/2.8 aperture would require an entrance pupil of around 245mm--nearly 10 inches.Who does your math?Even assuming that ten inches were the actual maximum diameter of the lens (not correct--it'd have to be larger), it'd clearly be, as the original post notes, a "huge lens system". How that's going to be created at under 1.5 kg is a puzzle to me, as long as we're using "optical lenses"You have ``TITB`` disease. You`ll get over it soon enough. And even I know your ersatz math computations are suspicious.But why let physics get in the way of dreams?Next you (or someone) will say the Leica f/2.8 6-72 (36-432mm) lens isn`t ``really`` 6-72 (or a Leica), but a ``fudge`` of some kind and that the f/2.8 isn`t really a ``true`` f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. We FZ20 owners are accustomed to such derision.Brooklyn Bridge shot for the doubters of the capabilities of the FZ20 or its resolving power. A glance at all those cables, separated by the Leica lens, is sufficient. Shot from the entrance to Brooklyn Bridge Park, even with the Brooklyn Tower.<div></div>

edgreene · June 6, 2006

Vandit Kalia: One point no one mentioned - P&S digicams, the hallowed Panasonic FZ included, dont match up to DSLRs in that little matter of image quality.Check out the Brooklyn Bridge shot.I own 2 DSLRs and 3 7-8MP digicams, including the Panasonic LX1 (which I love, btw), and while the digicams perform admirably within their limitations, the DSLR is still a more powerful tool and also yields better, more detailed prints....More detailed, ``better`` than the perfect 8 x 10 products of FZ20s? That your or any DLSR/SLR can make better 8 x 10s would be truly astonishing.theoretical claptrap notwithstanding.TITB thinking is deadly to progress, espcially from those who gratuitously denigrate TOTB.And another thought, this one triggered by the prediction of electronic displays: just b/c something is possible doesnt mean it WILL happen. Ebooks havent caused bookstores to close, and I doubt if the ability to display an image electronically is going to replace the wall print.

VanditPhoto: Meeting a truck in the Flint Hills of Kansas on the Kansas Turnpike, closing speed approximately 150mph<div></div>

Ed_Ingold · June 6, 2006

Ed Greene said, "Who does your math?" in reference to "The same angle of view coverage on a 645 sized sensor (very roughly 60-690mm) with f/2.8 aperture would require an entrance pupil of around 245mm--nearly 10 inches."

Let me try.

The FZ20 has a 1/2.5" sensor, which is an antiquated notation for kinescope tubes, and is roughly 4.5x6 mm. The FZ20 lens is 36-432mm EQUIVALENT (field of view to 35mm film), which means the true focal length is 6.75 - 81mm. A 4.5x6cm sensor would be 10 times the size (100x the area) of the sensor in the FZ20. To achieve an equivalent field of view, the new lens would be 10 times as large, or 67.5-810mm.

An 810mm lens with a relative aperture of f/2.8 would have an entrance pupil 810/2.8 = 289mm = 11.38 inches. Basically, the narrowest part of the optical path would have to be this diameter, plus the structure to contain it.

I can't find the actual dimensions of the sensor (1/2.5" means nothing), so these figures might be off by 10% or so.

Since you don't know what an "entrance pupil" is, your camera doesn't have one. Right! Unfortunately, your profound ignorance of anything optical, mechanical or photographic permeates this "epiphany". As Ellis said, a complete "waste of bandwidth".

phule · June 6, 2006

Sensor sizes:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm

1/2.5" is 4.29mm by 5.76mm

Ed's post here is nothing new. He's been astroturfing the Panasonic line for months.

b_hall1 · June 6, 2006

Completely modular but without interchangable lenses is an odd logic...

Check out the Sinar M camera for something modular...

Now the Nikon F mount is out of patent protection and Zeiss is making lenses for the F mount. So now any speciality equipment manufacturer interested in niche professional supply can make a camera with an F mount. It doesn't matter if Nikon changes to a new mount because there are thousands of F mount lenses in existance and Zeiss is a new supplier of F mount lenses...

Professional supply is fundamental while consumer supply is trend or fad...

kevinconnery · June 6, 2006

<ul>I have no idea why someone would think you can stick a 645 size sensor in a FZ body that weighs 1.5 kilos! (js bc)

Of course the production weight is/was an approximation. but why not? My FZ20 only weighs 22 ounces with the adapter and lens hood attached. (EG)</ul>

The FZ20 has a sensor that's 5.76 x 4.29 mm. That's a major factor permitting the size to be what it is. That lens can have a much lower focal length (as demonstrated: 6-72mm) with a much smaller image circle.

<ul>You don't mean that the 6-72mm lens designed to cover a 5.75mm x 4.3mm sensor wouldn't work on a 60mm x 45mm sensor? (KC)

Putting up specious (phantom) figures, positing numbers I never used, all the while trying to reach an even more misleading conclusion? (EG)</ul>

Ed, those numbers are from the manufacturer; if you don't like them, tell Panasonic and/or Leica. The focal length of the lens is listed on the lens itself--6-72mm; the the sensor is for the FZ20 is 5.75mm x 4.3mm.

<ul>Already acknowledged the sensor would be larger. What?s your point (EG]</ul>

The point is that the sensor you're fantasizing about is ten times as large linearly, and 100 times as large in area. The lens would need to be larger as well. If we go with your f/2.8 example, and maintain your oft-stated focal-length range (the angle of view a 35mm camera would give with a 36mm to 432mm lens), your larger sensor would require a lens of approximately the size I stated: 60-690mm. That gives a huge chunk of glass--10 inches or more in diameter.

<ul>``Hmmm, I notice by your absurd guesses you`ve never even seen an FZ20-``humm``? (EG)</ul>

Actually, I've shot with one. It's a nice little camera.

That doesn't contradict anythng I've said, nor does it support any of your claims for your wundercam. Nor is it pertinent, but since you asked so politely, I figured I'd humor you this time.

<ul>No ``entrance pupil`` on it for starters. (EG) </ul>

Do you know anything about optics other than as a user of lenses? All physical lenses have an "entrance pupil".David Johnson has a <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial">nice introduction to camera optics</a> here on photo.net. You might find it useful to avoid making nonsensical predictions.

<ul>The same angle of view coverage on a 645 sized sensor (very roughly 60-690mm) with f/2.8 aperture would require an entrance pupil of around 245mm--nearly 10 inches. (KC)

Who does your math? (EG)

And even I know your ersatz math computations are suspicious. (EG)</ul>

Mock it if you will; the physics don't care what you believe.

<ul>Next you (or someone) will say the Leica f/2.8 6-72 (36-432mm) lens isn`t ``really`` 6-72 (or a Leica), but a ``fudge`` of some kind and that the f/2.8 isn`t really a ``true`` f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. We FZ20 owners are accustomed to such derision. (EG)</ul>

Specious strawman argument and ad hominem attack, Ed. The physical characteristics of the lens are what they are: 6-72mm (which even you admit now, after dozens of posts where you claimed it to be something else). Nobody has questioned the manufacturer.

<ul>Check out the Brooklyn Bridge shot. (EG)</ul>

If you expect someone to be able to discern anything about lens quality from a 360x480 pixel sample, it helps explain your stance.

While Edward Ingold used a different baseline for 'normal', his example is essentially identical to mine: the lens required for your 645 wundercam will be HUGE. How much would a 10-11 inch diameter lens weigh, even if it were physically possible to make it as short as the one in your beloved floozy?

ED: Before you mock "theory", you might find it useful to learn something--anything about lens design and/or sensor design and/or image processing. Postulating improvements is fine; trying to defend wild guesses on the basis of bad physics and bad electronics is...silly. You can call it "thinking outside the box" if you want, but predicting without any understanding of physics, optics, or electronics isn't something I'd call "thinking".

niels_de_boissezon1 · June 7, 2006

What future will bring is of course hard to predict.

But the laws of optics/physics cannot be bent... (that is until new laws prevail - not likely)

A 645-sized sensor will need roughly a 500mm lens to yield a 300mm FOV (in 35mm terms)... here is one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=75049&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Of course this one is only f4.5 - you wan't it to be f2 then prepare to make 5 times heavier with a front diameter that's 2,5 times larger - and price? 50000$ is probably not enough i'm afraid... and it doesn't zoom. :-P

Try fitting that into your FZ-XX.

andrew robertson · June 7, 2006

I see what this is about now. Ed wants desperately to prove to everybody that his FZ-20 is

just as good as any DSLR because it has a certain zoom range at f/2.8. And then he goes

on to posit a camera that never will be, which is basically a huge FZ20, by pulling random

numbers straight out of his ass. Then, when anybody disagrees with his sagely wisdom,

he goes on the attack, attempting to use the fairly standard tricks of a sophist to prop up

his ever more quickly sinking vessel.

Ed, as many people above have said, it ain't gonna happen. People don't get a DSLR and

then see changing lenses as a hassle. It's a benefit. And as pointed out, a zoom lens like

one on your precious FZ20 scaled up for medium format coverage would be gigantic. I'm

thinking something the size of a 5 gallon drum.

This is really a great troll, though, and you have been keeping it going in a commendable

fashion. Are you applying for membership in the GNAA?

edgreene · June 9, 2006

Andrew Robertson: I see what this is about now. Ed wants desperately to prove to everybody that his FZ-20 is just as good as any DSLR because it has a certain zoom range at f/2.8.My FZ20 is nowhere mentioned in my prognostication. Nor are there any lens specs on which you can hang your specious claims while trying to disprove what doesn�t exist (The ``Wundercaera``? It doesn`t exist). That is, it is you and the others who are caught out in the rhetorical cold, arguing your own fallacious points and none of mine.And then he goes on to posit a camera that never is or it isn�t will be, which is basically a huge FZ20, by pulling random numbers straight out of his ass.I have not doubted your parentage, but I might if you continue to be uncivil. But I`ll have to remember you resorted to vulgarities for your own amusement. Again, nowhere does the FZ20 appear in my thoughts on a future camera. And I also know you didn`t read the whole thread, else you would have seen my (obvious to everyone but me for a time) mistake on the definiton of the proposed sensor, which should have been 645 instead of 6 x 5. And your: And then he goes on to posit a camera that never is or it isn�t will be means you, above all people, know the future four to six years out. With that superior foreknowledge, you ought to make a fortune in the stock market. But you won�t because your assertions as just as speculative as my own, the difference being I thought of something that might be while you and your thoughts slug along-like a slug in today`s passe` technology.Then, when anybody disagrees with his sagely(?) wisdom, he goes on the attack, attempting to use the fairly standard tricks of a sophist to prop up his ever more quickly sinking vessel.Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but then, I was busy loading up on words to enhance my verbal sophistry, words like ``sagely``. As for �Attack�: defending one�s proposals is the norm in academic exercises, as you certainly must know this is/was?Ed, as many people above have said, it ain't gonna happen.You do not, not with a 100% certainty that is, know the camera or something like it will not �happen� in that you have no foreknowledge (I said that already) of what may or may not happen in four or six years, especially products springing out of the minds of those who are being taught to ``think outside the box``, even as we breathe.People don't get a DSLR and then see changing lenses as a hassle. It's a benefit.And you`re referring to those who did see the benefit? What about those who cannot, do not see the ``benefit``? Those billions of people who don�t/didn`t buy SLRs in the past because they`re ``too complicated``? Show those billions the ``benefit``; make them understand.And as pointed out, a zoom lens like one on your precious FZ20 scaled up for medium format coverage would be gigantic. I'm thinking something the size of a 5 gallon drum.An exaggeration you should know better than make.This is really a great troll, though, and you have been keeping it going in a commendable fashion. Are you applying for membership in the GNAA?``Cryptics``? You should know better than that with me. I am defending what to some is an outrageous proposal, one you would not have dared make, in that you don�t have the major cajones to defend it. You lack the gonads to go out on a limb, here or anywhere. You stay safely ensconced in a DSLR cocoon, while the most obvious thing in the creation is staring you and the others in the face: the demise of SLR imaging? Surely you have had a tiny inkling of what is about to happen? As digicam sensors get bigger and SLR ``boxes`` stay relatively the same size (excluding MF SLRs), soon enough, the same sized and same resolution sensors will be in digicams, SLRs be damned. Yes they will gorw, but so will their functionalty. And you can`t see (didn't know) 10 Mp digicams are in the wings and 12+Mp digicam sensors are coming off the drawing boards, while you and others think you have an advantage with interchangeable lenses? As they say in the movies when a guy hits another with a blow that should have knoced him out and his opponent shakes it off and asks: �That all you got; Lenses``?Who do you think will be buying DSLRs in six years when they can buy 12-16+Mp digicams and the 10Mp digicam is just around the corner? DSLR aficionados? How many are here today and how many in 4-6 years? In 2012, how many DSLRs will be sold in a market glutted with 16Mp hyperzooming digicams? What kind of DSLR will you have in six years, when the Mp race is finally decided by slide-in, slide-out sensors, replaced just as easily in a digicam as slipping a memory card in our P&Ss, while pitifuly, hardwired DSLRs, by their very build, could not do, not without a trip to the OEM rebuild factory. Granted, some upper end models might approach Canon XL broadcast cameras in size but even they (XL cameras) aren�t near the ``monster`` proportions you and others ludicrously propose as the dimensions for my ``Wundermcamera``*.

*Because you think inside the box, as do a lot of the others.

kevinconnery · June 9, 2006

Ed, your 'epiphany' is flawed. Seriously flawed. Defective. Busted. Impractical using modern technology--and I'm not even talking about electronics, but just the optic part. (The other aspects are also flawed, but I'll deal with just this issue to keep it simple.)

<ul>Nor are there any lens specs on which you can hang your specious claims while trying to disprove what doesn?t exist (The ``Wundercaera``? It doesn`t exist). (EG)</ul>

A camera with a sensor the size you want--645--will need a lens that is huge, compared to the teeny floozy 6-72mm lens. The 500mm f/4.5 example cited by Niels de Boissezon demonstrates that. That lens--not a zoom, and more than a stop slower than your stated 'wundercam' weighs 12 pounds--no zoom, slower lens, no electronics at all: the lens alone is 12 pounds.

Unless you're postulating a lens that doesn't use any known technology--not an extention or outgrowth of the existing tech, but some entirely new technology--your wundercam not only doesn't exist, it cannot exist.

That's why you've been getting flak: you do not seem to understand physics or optics.

The lens on your beloved floozy works within the confines of known technology; there was nothing "new" about it from a technological perspective. The lens you want does not.

<ul>As for ?Attack?: defending one?s proposals is the norm in academic exercises, as you certainly must know this is/was? (EG)</ul>

There's a few key differences.

<ul><li>Academic exercises are based on known art and trends; you're ignoring both. <li>Academic exercises use relevant examples: you're not.<li>Academic exercises for hypotheticals use relevent analogues: what you're doing is akin to defending a Porsche as a transportation media using rubber-soled shoes.</ul>

As noted, you've failed to do any of the critical aspects of an 'academic defense'.

<ul>And as pointed out, a zoom lens like one on your precious FZ20 scaled up for medium format coverage would be gigantic. I'm thinking something the size of a 5 gallon drum. (AR)

An exaggeration you should know better than make. (EG)</ul>

A 5 gallon drum would NOT be large enough. That's not an exaggeration, it's an understatement. But it comes from thinking about glass, optical plastics, manufacturing, optics, and the bloody definition of f/stop--something you've not shown any willingness to do.

<ul>Granted, some upper end models might approach Canon XL broadcast cameras in size but even they (XL cameras) aren?t near the ``monster`` proportions you and others ludicrously propose as the dimensions for my ``Wundermcamera``*.

*Because you think inside the box, as do a lot of the others. (EG)</ul>

No, Ed. It's because they're THINKING, something you don't seem to want to do.

Instead of droning on about "thinking outside the box", you might want to consider the technology inside the box--XL, XL2, XL-H1, FL20--and think. You might be disillusioned, but you'll at least stop lying to yourself and others.

The reason those cameras and lenses can be that size is because their sensors are very small. Read that sentence again. Slowly. The reason the cameras can be that small is because their sensors are tiny. The XL-H1 has a sensor that's 1/3 inch on the diagonal and a resolution of around a 1.2 megapixels; the standard lens is 5.4mm-72mm--the same maximum as your floozy has.

Once again, in case you missed it: the lens can be small IF the sensor is small. A large sensor requires a larger lens for the same angle of view.

You've repeatedly claimed a 645 sensor. That's over 100 times in area as the sensors in the cameras you're comparing--as useful as comparing the size of a scale model RC airplane with a 747 and getting upset when people tell you the RC plane isn't big enough to transport full-sized people.

Until you recognize that fact--Not opinion, not 'thinking inside the box': fact--any further discussion about it on your part is ridiculous--"worthy of ridicule".

kevinconnery · June 9, 2006

<ul>I am defending what to some is an outrageous proposal, one you would not have dared make, in that you don?t have the major cajones to defend it.</ul>

I agree; I wouldn't have made such an "outrageous proposal". Not because I "don?t have the major cajones to defend it", but because I know that trying to defend something as outrageous as 1+1=3.14159^2 is kind of silly.

I guess ignorance IS bliss.

vandit · June 9, 2006

Ed, if the Panasonic FZ-20 makes "perfect" images for you, then more power to you. You are a lucky man.

Happy photography to you.

Vandit

Sign In

Ed Greene's epiphany: death of the DSLR

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in