Lenses - Digital Vs Standard 35mm

[james_frater]

I was very interested in talk about camera makers coming out with digital only

lenses which are great for the smaller sensors, but cannot be used on a full

frame 35mm sensor.

 

KM, now (Sony) is a prime example, many digital only lenses for smaller than

35mm sensors.

 

But I just had a quick wander around the Canon site and took a look at most of

their current lenses, with a good number being only for digital models, 30D

and 350D camera. And not the EOS 5D and higher camera's.

 

At this stage I really do not think it is a huge issue if Sony do not bring

out a full frame sensor camera. Because all things being relative. I think

sensor technology will only improve and bring a point where those smaller

sensors used now on the A100, etc will give greater results, as most already

do now.

[maarten_venter1]

Small sensors are fashionable now but later as no more improvements are likely on the small sensors, size will expand and it is not inconceivable that 35mm format will become very popular once again. This will leave a lot of people stranded with lenses not usable in the "new" format.

[robert_paul1]

Maarten, I agree with you. However, the reason the smaller sensor are popular is due to the fact that at the beginning of digital photograhy, it was expensive to develop a full-frame sensor, so the companies came out with smaller sensors. Now as prices fall, the price of a full-frame sensor is becoming more and more affordable. Just as Canon's Digital Rebel brought the DSLR into an affordable price range for the masses, I'll bet in a few years, someone will come out with a full-frame DSLR for under $1000. It may not have all the bells and whistles of a top of the line DSLR, but it will be available.

[chris_harley1]

It becomes more of a factor if you want to take an undistorted wide-angle shot for instance for landscape.

[weatherman]

I agree, 35mm is bound to be back with all the legacy lenses all over the world, there is a good reason. And it is in human nature to want more right!

E.

[andrew robertson]

People have had really good luck 'defishing' shots taken with fish eye lenses using software

utilities.

 

Maybe you should consider a Minolta Fisheye and learning to use this software.

[robert_paul1]

Andrew, the SONY 16mm Fisheye lists for $999. When used on an APS-C DSLR it becomes a 24mm lens (35mm equivalent). When you apply the software (cost is ???) to remove the barrel distortion, the angle of view will make the picture have the angle of view of an even longer lens. This defeats the purpose of a wide-angle lens. And Chris is looking for a ultra-wide angle lens that would be like either the 20mm f/2.8 or even a 14mm rectilinear lens (which is available from independent lens makers).

 

I think what you meant to suggest is using a photo stitcher software to put together a panorama. This way you get the look of a wide angle shot. I've done this and they are fun to do. But it is time consuming.

[kin_lau]

To understand Fisheye vs Rectilinear FOV, and how it applies to APS-C sensors, and what happens when it's "de-fished" please read http://www.photo.net/learn/fov .

 

As for "a good number" of lenses from Sony & Canon being "only for digital", I'm having a hard time understanding what a "good number" is. Most of the lenses from both Sony & Canon are 35mm full-frame, only a handful from each being digital only. Canon only has the 18-55, 10-22, 60mm macro, 17-50/2.8 IS and 17-85 IS... that's _5_ only. I believe Sony has even less. I only count 4 dedicated aps-c sized lenses on http://www.learningcenter.sony.us/assets/di/cameras/dslr/a100_more_possibilities.html

 

5 from Canon and 4 from Sony is hardly "many".

[dennis_fallon1]

>> This will leave a lot of people stranded with lenses not usable in the "new" format.

 

I think this is a lot of FUD.

 

6MP is all the general public needs; now 10MP is "affordable" and we'll discover that the higher noise of 10MP APS is also perfectly acceptable to the general public. 1/2.5" sensors satisfy most camera buyers; APS certainly gets the job done. So no matter how relatively affordable FF becomes (under $1000 would be a dream to many 'advanced' photographers), APS will always be cheaper and will always outsell FF by a wide margin.

 

Improvements simply aren't necessary. A 6MP APS sensor can record considerably more detail than cheap lenses (like the kit lens) can deliver (I know - I compared it to a fixed lens at f/8 and it was no contest, even at f/8). A 6PM APS sensor can even show a slight difference between the 28-75/2.8 and the 28-70G. In short, the improvements you suggest APS can't achieve are only going to be useful to those who can afford good lenses and who practice sound photographic technique. Everyone else is more than satisfied by APS.

 

And besides, if you look at those reduced coverage lenses, in *most* cases (I know there are a few exceptions), they lenses take advantage of reduced coverage to provide the WAs needed by APS ... in short, these are lenses that FF users either don't need (ultrawides) or don't want (because they're not sharp enough to do the high res sensor justice). In some cases, the lens is actually usable on FF, either cropping the image (at wide settings) or getting a full image (longer settings).

 

Other thoughts: if you want to move from APS to FF, you can always sell your lenses with no worry about being 'stranded' (assuming you buy my argument that APS is here to stay), and ... in my case ... if I were to every buy a FF DSLR, I'd still shoot an APS DSLR for casual handheld stuff. A FF DSLR would take the place of a medium format camera, seeing use only for certain things, but not for the family snapshots, etc.

 

- Dennis

[cmphoto1]

I think you are right. APS-c is here to stay. Partially because an APS sensor will always be cheaper than a FF sensor, resulting in a less expansive camera. This is particularly important in the segment where the main battle lines are drawn over price, not performance.

 

There are also consumer benefits. I, as a consumer, can take my $129 telephoto zoom lens and take that picture of a far off bird, or plane. Not sure which, because it is so soft you really can't tell. But I have the picture of it without having to drop 4 figures on a specialized lens. And my friends who don't know any better will say "wow".

 

I do not NEED FF. I would LIKE FF, but it will not end my photographic career if I do not have it, or can't afford it. (and I would challenge most of the people here on their definition of "need" if they said that they "absolutely needed FF") Still, all of my lenses are for the 35mm format. I get better performance, and usually better build quality. If my photography would benefit from taking that next step up in sensor size, I do not have to lay out the cash to get a lens to mount on that camera.

 

If you look at the Canon 5D forgetting about sensor size and pixel count,, it is very similar in specs and build quality to the 7D, just with a $2200 price premium. I understand that the 7D is heavily discounted now, but introduction price of the 5D was still twice that of the 7D. I think that is something to keep in mind when waiting for the next FF camera

 

I think and hope we will see more FF offerings. They will be at a price that is not for everybody, and I am sure that this will bring about the end of the world. Thanksfully, I also think that the APS-c sensor will be around at a generally lower price.

 

chad

[robert_paul1]

Dennis, your statement that 6MP is all the general public needs is somewhat like statements about computers in the early days. Fifteen years ago, people were saying "all you need is a computer with 500MB of memory, what are you going to do with more?" This was when computer programs were measured in KBs.

 

Today, we have computers that have a terabyte of memory. Somehow we have all found ways to use the extra memory. The same thing applies to a sensor with more pixels. With more megapixels, someone can 'crop' a small section of the shot and still come out with a sharp picture.

[cmphoto1]

Try to serf the internet with at 7 year old computer lately? I do every day at work. My computer runs Excel 97 fine (just as well as it did 7 years ago), but has trouble loading Yahoo Mail now. If it were not for the outside influences (like the internet and Javascript), my work computer would work fine.

 

My 6mp camera will produce just as good an image 10 years from now as it does today, and if I were taking pictures of my kids both now and 10 years from now so I can put the images in an 8x10 frame or use them as my computer wallpaper, the same 6mp APS-c camera will work just as well.

 

Most people's needs will not change.

 

chad

[roger_smith4]

"Most people's needs will not change. "

 

No, but their wants will change, thanks to marketers. They'll want 14 bit RAW instead of measly 12 bit. They'll want clean ISO 1600. They'll want the new dust-elimination feature. They'll want improved color accuracy with a new technology.

 

I'm sure there's been a lot of progress of late. However my cameras are over 20 years old, and working fine, so I don't feel compelled to switch as of yet.

[cmphoto1]

That is the very difference between a "want" and a percieved "meed."

 

chad

[chris_harley1]

Sorry I'm inclined to agree with Robert on this one. None of us 'need' a flat screen HD TV but they're the fastest selling consumer product in the UK at the moment.Our old TV's were capable of producing a perfectly good picture but our wants have changed.

 

I DO NOT NEED a camera at all, my life would not be over without one.I do however WANT one.

 

I DO NEED a full-frame to take undistorted wide-angle landscape shots.

 

Chad have you tried playing a new release game on your old computer ? You may want to surf the net and use Excel 97 only but others want to play the new half-life at god only knows frames per second.

[cmphoto1]

Chris,

 

Right, the new release game is the outside influence I was talking about, which is why my home computer is 6 months old. I do not need the power I have at home to run Excel 97 at work.

 

Unlike computers, most people (not necessarily you and me) buy cameras and take them out at holidays to take family photos, never knowing they need 10 and not 6mp and 5 not 3fps without a camera company telling them.

 

chad

[james_frater]

With the future, the defaults will be higher and higher anyway. Give it a few years and a 16mp camera will cost about $1800 Aussie dollars. Because 16mp will be the base starting for a semi pro user.

 

In 10 years I would think that medium format size sensors will be the norm and getting up around 50-60mp.

 

Lets face it, sky is the limit with the future.

 

But for right now and next year, 6mp digital SLR (7D) is perfectly fine. I get perfect A4 printed images on my 7D.

 

My images with my 7D and my 28-75 2.8 lens are mind blowing compared to all my other digital camera's.

[robert_paul1]

Jimmy, I'm not sure why you think a medium format camera would become the norm. In film cameras, medium format was not widely used. To me the main factor is how a camera fits in the hands. Camera size is more like the case of the Three Bears. A medium format camera is too big, an APS-C sized DSLR is too small, and a Full-Frame sensor is just right.

[craig_gillette]

There are a couple of factors at work that seem to have been missed. Resolution impacts the size of the potential print. At typical viewing distances, and not including interpolation, etc., the common print resolutions are between 200 and 300 pixels per inch. A 4 meg camera can easily produce an 8x12 print and the typical 6 meg dslr does substantially better. Unless you are making really large prints, all those extra pixels won't do much on paper. And as in the camera, adding pixels slows things, depending on the process, can't be seen, or uses more ink with little or no visible benefit.

 

So, 50-60 meg cameras aren't going to have a lot of practical application at the consumer level. And all those extra pixels still would have to be pushed around, processed, etc. So there is a place for them, but the pros aren't likely to reap much benefit from mass market mass production of sensors of that resolution.

 

Likewise, while there may be some improvements, there remain limitations on how closely you can pack the sensors before the noise becomes an issue. Compare current small high density chips for digicams with the better performance as chip sizes go up. (I think he current performance of the D200 and a100 may show that crunching on the pixels isn't always a great idea.)

 

Part of that can be solved by increasing the size of the sensor. But - that means you will need to increase the size of the mount and the lenses. That's not going to be particularly cheap and a major change to a "new" mount is never going to be undertaken unless there is a clear reason to do so. And even now, cameras are getting to where they stress the lesser lenses.

 

I'm pretty sure that for the time being, the ff 16 meg Canon could well be the top that they will work down from in price for the average Joe Consumer camera.

[james_frater]

Just like computers years ago used to fill up a room, that can now fit in the palm of your hands and millions of times faster.

 

In the future, it will not be a matter of how much is enough for a consumers, the fact is the technology and power will be getting higher and better.

 

MP are only going to get more ad more, and a consumer digital camera in the next few years will be 16mp, and most likely full sensor.

 

Nothing will be kept small, bigger is better, technology will not be stopped. One only has to look at the evolution of digital cameras in the past 3 years. Let alone 5 or even the next 10 years.

[cmphoto1]

The point about diminishing returns on pixel count is a good one. 10mp at 300dpi makes an 8x12 or A4(?) image. Go to 12mp, and you will either have to crop, burn more ink with no benefit, or downsize, which can affect image quality.

 

Might be interesting to see if more companies do something along the line of Fuji. Maybe using 2 (or 3?) photo sensors to make each pixel and get better dynamic range and low light sensitivity will be a way to go,

 

There might be more opportunities with a higher photo sensor count than a higher pixel count.

 

chad

[andrew robertson]

"Go to 12mp, and you will either have to crop, burn more ink with no benefit, or downsize,

which can affect image quality."

 

Don't tell me you actually believe this. One giant black pixel will use as much ink to print as

a million small black pixels, if they cover the same area.

[cmphoto1]

"Don't tell me you actually believe this."

 

Nice. I could be wrong, but I do not think I have the reputation on this board of wild and unsubstantiated claims outside of admitted speculation and obvious irony.

 

The same sized image printed at 360dpi takes marginally more ink than when printed at 240. A lot more? No. More? Yes.

 

chad

[craig_gillette]

I recall reading as inkjet producers involved themselves in their own numbers races, that while they might be able to print at higher dpi settings, that the results on paper weren't necessarily, visually discernible as better for most viewers. Negatives typically mentioned was going to higher print resolutions increased file sizes - somewhat less an issue these days but also that while the "resolution" of the higher 720, 1440 type settings might look better to some, it tended to require more ink, minimum dots still required ink and twice as many or four times as many still used the ink faster.

 

So, it may be that you can actually squeeze all 12 megs into a 4x6 and "print" each one of them, you won't likely see it and you may well pay for it.

[andrew robertson]

"The same sized image printed at 360dpi takes marginally more ink than when printed at

240. A lot more? No. More? Yes."

 

Ink is delivered in certain doses, measured in a few picoliters. To create a certain density on

the page, no matter what the input resolution the same amount of ink must be laid down. If

you think about it, you are implying that you can somehow achieve a certain tone on the

paper with a smaller volume of ink by printing at a smaller DPI, which is not possible.