[falconeye]

Actually, you are spot off. R cells aren't pixels.

If you want to pull sentences for Wikipedia:

But an axon is, right?

Please, enlighten me. I'm no biologist.

[Blue]

But an axon is, right?

Please, enlighten me. I'm no biologist.

An axon is part of the nerve. the axon more analogous to the wiring of a sensor. The ommatidia would be more like a supra-pixel rather than an individual pixel. The exact response could vary from species to species, family to family and order to order. Each one of those ommatidia make up part of a mosaic kind of like parts of a jig-saw puzzle. If one of them is destroyed or blocked out, a piece of the puzzle is missing. Say you are an insect looking at a map of the U.S.A. and your central ommatidium gets destroyed, Kansas or a substantial part of it will be missing. If it were a pixel, only maybe the City of Abilene would be missing.

[monochrome]

Really? My impression was that there will be no EVIL for Photokina.
Some in the know are hinting a mystery model between K-x and K-7; and another above K-7.... nothing about EVIL.

I think there is very little chance of this happening. Those patents don't mean much.

There's a brand new Citigroup research report going around stating explicitly that Hoya/Pentax will release a "unique" EVIL camera in coming weeks.

[mattdm]

They are not but you miss the point. Location and momentum are complementary. And momentum includes direction. And because an image is nothing but luminosity as a function of direction, you want to know direction as precisely as possible for tack-sharp images. Which means that you have to give up on location as much as possible. This is the reason why you need a wide aperture lens. Because a wide aperture maximizes the uncertainty about where the photon entered the lens. It's really this simple.

I see what you're saying. I'll have to put this to my expert panel mid next week.

That's unrelated to the rest of the discussion but wrong again

Most of the computation for the imaging part is done on the retina, i.e. outside the visual cortex. The visual cortex' task is pattern recognition.

Here, you just miss my point. The brain is free to do all of that cool stuff because it doesn't have to devote as much processing power to constructing an image. The "post-processing" parts of vision already take up a significant portion of the brain, and it'd be expensive to also have to deal computationally with what the eye does physically. But with the processing power of computers in two decades, that won't be a limit.

[falconeye]

An axon is part of the nerve. the axon more analogous to the wiring of a sensor. The ommatidia would be more like a supra-pixel rather than an individual pixel.

Hmmmh, I must say, I'm still confused. I thought that an ommatidia has a single axon (or seven) even when constructed from multiple cells. And therefore, can only encode a single type of signal, i.e., a pixel (or 7 pixels). Wikipedia may be wrong but seems to think the same. A pixel may be complex but would still remain a pixel. This is why you leave me confused. I must be missing something.

Here, you just miss my point. The brain is free to do all of that cool stuff because it doesn't have to devote as much processing power to constructing an image.

That's true. To a point. If that contruction effort would only be 10% of post-processing, the difference wouldn't matter much. That was what I intended to say. But you're right, of course.

[Blue]

Hmmmh, I must say, I'm still confused. I thought that an ommatidia has a single axon (or seven) even when constructed from multiple cells. And therefore, can only encode a single type of signal, i.e., a pixel (or 7 pixels). Wikipedia may be wrong but seems to think the same. A pixel may be complex but would still remain a pixel. This is why you leave me confused. I must be missing something.
. . .

Wikepedia isn't exactly peer reviewed and some of the stuff is over simplified while some is very good. Each ommatidium is an elongate group of cells capped externally by a hexagonal corneal lens. Beneath that lens is usually a crystalline cone made of four Semper cells surrounded by 2 pigmented corneagenous cells. Beneath this crystalline cone is a group of 8 cells (usually) which are surrounded by a sheath of epidermal pigment cells. Striated portions of the sensory cells form a central rhabdom in the ommatidium. Therefore, I am saying the pixel analogy is way too simplified. The range in wavelength that insects eyes are sensitive is about 2540 to 6000 Å compared to 4500 to 7000 in humans.

Edit: BTW, this sounds like an ommatidium in a superposition compound eye.

That's exactly the point of failure in your thinking. A "microtube" detecting direction and location is infeasible. Due to diffraction, each microtube would look a bit "around the corner" and you end up with a fuzzy image. Therefore, each microtube would have to remain rather large compared to the wavelength of a photon. Rendering the approach incompetitive except for low resolution imaging.

The other type would be the apposition compound eye. There are also some that work like appositional eyes in the daytime and superpostional ones at night. This is accomplished by moving pigment to block light coming in from neighboring ommatidia. No one model works for all insect species.

[falconeye]

No one model works for all insect species.

That's great stuff. I'm still confused because the fact that something is complex doesn't necessarily contradict it being a pixel. But I understand I've to read up about that or move that discussion to PM. Thanks for making me think

[Thijssie]

It's almost as if though sensor-size is the one selling point that rules out the rest of any reasons to choose a camera brand. I use Pentax mainly because I like the handling of most bodies and the great quality and style of the optics. Why should I care about getting a bigger sensor while my K10D sensor delivers all the IQ I need? I've got 60x90cm canvas prints and 30x45cm paper prints on my walls which have been made possible by the gear I own - gear that did fabulously at that too. Even the old *ist DS did well enough; handling was the main reason for me to buy the K10D.

I honoustly think that sensor quality in general has been so good lately that completely different issues make people choose their cameras. How do it's characteristics fit you? How well does AF function? Is the available optics line-up any good for your wishes? The shallower DOF makes for some difference but that alone is just not going to justify a change to another sensor size.

I wouldn't choose a different body just because of a bigger sensor anyway. APS-C suits me fine; 24x36mm would just mean needing to replace my current DA lenses (16-45 and 50-135) while sticking with APS-C does let me use my old glass and FA-ltds without limitations (the latter does sound rather odd btw... ). I might replace my K10D in the next year or two though and I'm visiting the Photokina to see about the new bodies. K-5 may well be just what I want. But that's just me. I just can't really see why FF is such a big issue. The advantages are simply outweighed by the disadvantages in my opinion.

[Jonson PL]

One thing being overlooked here (well, by the FF crowd): the "good enough" factor. PnS cameras are "good enough" for the vast majority of people. APS-sensor DSLRs are "good enough" for even more. Once you get into FF, you are talking advantages that few people even know exist (try explaining DoF or DR to a casual Best Buy customer)... and FF is "good enough" for even more; the remainders going with MF or maybe film.

Superior technology does not automatically win, especially when it carries negatives like size, weight, cost, and the size/weight of the lenses (or the loss of much range with identical lenses.) The sensor is superior, but is the entire package superior? Very debatable.

Anyway - the "good enough". Remember Beta vs VHS? Beta had a clearly better picture - but VHS was longer, and "good enough." About about laserdiscs vs VCRs? Laserdiscs were far superior - but that technology never got cheap enough to mount a serious challenge. MiniDV camcorder sales were cut into by hard drive/DVD camcorders which had worse picture quality. Most people are not replacing their DVDs with Blurays despite Blurays having far better picture quality - DVDs are "good enough." People happily disconnect their landline phones in exchange for cell phones which have much worse call quality. Many people are enjoying streaming video from Netflix, Hulu, etc - even with worse image quality. Here's my favorite example of this: remember SACD and DVD-Audio formats? Both offering better sound quality over CDs, plus surround sound. Both flopped. Why? CDs are "good enough". In fact, most people have dropped even getting CDs so that they can get MP3s or AACs with inferior sound quality.

The point of all this, to repeat - the "quality" - whether it be sound quality, image quality (still photos or video), whatever - is only one part of the equation.

This is one of the better descriptions of consumer trends descriptions that I've come across. Well written.

I think many of the Canon rebel users; are lusting more for the performance oriented Eos 7D with some serious tele glass, than the 5D mark II. Should Canon only offer FF, than they couldn't compare pricewise to the Nikon entry segment DSLR.

people want small size and convenience.

Yes, I think this is one of the reasons that so many still stick with P&S. Bringing in the weight issue, FF cannot win against APS-C crop. And the digital SLR standard frame size, easily matches what people were used to with film SLR cams.
As *Isteve wrote, after buying the D700; he loves the quality, but hates lugging the camera around.
I don't see much IQ improvement for me with FF, since often times I wouldn't be bringing such a big camera around with me.
To my knowledge, there is no Sony NEX with FF sensor. Often when getting a FF cam, people wanna have high quality glass for specific purposes too. The FF lens offerings from Canikon are lovely, but also filled with a lot of heavy glass too.

Bigger and heavier, but how much so? Honestly, the only place that I really see size MUST increase is in the viewfinder - everywhere else can benefit from the constant miniaturization of modern electronics. .

Nope, sensor size cannot be made any smaller. And cutting them in the bigger pieces is much more expensive, since it results in accumulated malproducts. They have to discard way more FF sensors, than when making crop ones.
Have you opened a DSLR ? the space is pretty much taken up. They have to be ingenuitive.

And, you are committing the same error that you accuse everybody else of: assuming that smaller and lighter is what everybody wants. I personally wouldn't want an SLR any smaller than the K-7, as it is right on the edge of usability right now.

What you're stating, goes against making an NEX FF.

At any rate, though, the argument really doesn't involve what people do or don't want, as that changes based on what is available and what is marketed. The argument is based almost purely on what technology developments will do to the market, and when everybody starts selling $1000 FF cameras, it is going to be tough to sell $1000 APS-C cameras. APS-C will become the budget SLR, and significant profit margins will only be found on FF.

Sony is bleeding in FF land, no amount of commercials will make the A900 a lighter camera.
High up decisions from Sony, have often simply seen areas being cut off, which weren't making money. Time is running out for Sony FF. The cheap FF way didn't work.

As well, if you don't think that consumers care about DOF control, just look at how Sony is marketing their new NEX-based video camera. This is precisely the advantage that Sony is using to market their new system. You claim that consumers don't care about sensor size, but Sony is showing us different right now.
People already know, subconsciously, that a cheap disposable cam and their fixed-focus cell phone camera give them lots of detail. They also know, without realizing it, that pro pictures look different, and they've already come to associate a razor-thin DOF with high end photography and videography thanks to Hollywood and others. If you don't think a larger sensor can be marketed effectively to the masses, then obviously you underestimate the enormous (and sometimes scary) power that advertising can wield.

Exactly, Sony are showing that you can get plenty of DoF control with APS-C crop sensor.
Slap on a macro lens to a standard DSLR frame size, and you have thin DoF indeed. As also my 50/1.2 lens on my K10.

FF will die out, as APS-C improves. And as the old Film Frame user base are retiring from photography purchases. Young users, do not see FF as any particular universal right format.

(Personally, I would like eventually to have a FF Pentax DSLR)

Many consumers who have invested in APS-C lenses will demand APS-C cameras for many years to come. What company would dare turn their backs on such a large consumer base? If I had invested in several expensive DX lenses and Nikon suddenly announced it was abandoning APS-C, what incentive would I have for remaining with Nikon?

Very true, volume is in the entry level. They sell much more than high-end. Canon make their big money in the entry-level market.
Some enthusiasts will buy FF, general consumers don't care as much as us on forums.

At the beginning of DSLRs; Pro's were shooting award winning stuff with standard crop digital SLR format. And it has gotten even better afterwards.

[ManuH]

FF will die out, as APS-C improves. And as the old Film Frame user base are retiring from photography purchases.

FF will never die out, because all the major mounts are FF mounts. I believe even the new Sony E mount is FF, that tells you something! People will always want that additional 1.3 stop even if APS-C is able to do a clean ISO 25600. FF is growing slowly but it's growing, it's just a matter of price.

[Aristophanes]

FF will never die out, because all the major mounts are FF mounts. I believe even the new Sony E mount is FF, that tells you something! People will always want that additional 1.3 stop even if APS-C is able to do a clean ISO 25600. FF is growing slowly but it's growing, it's just a matter of price.

APS-C will die out because FF will become as cheap to make as APS-C is now, or "close enough". Manufacturers like Canon and Nikon and Sony will preserve capital by moving to a single sensor fab instead of the multiple ones they have now for different sizes.

For the Canikon camera divisions, almost all the capital is going into FF sensors right now.

It is just a matter of the price curve, absolutely.

[glanglois]

APS-C will die out because FF will become as cheap to make as APS-C is now, or "close enough". Manufacturers like Canon and Nikon and Sony will preserve capital by moving to a single sensor fab instead of the multiple ones they have now for different sizes.

For the Canikon camera divisions, almost all the capital is going into FF sensors right now.

It is just a matter of the price curve, absolutely.

Well, I won't disagree with that, particularly as I've agreed with those general ideas elsewhere.

But for personal preference, I'd like APS-C (or similar) to continue for quite a while. Perhaps until, oh, the day after my estate is settled. So my impecunious heirs may get some value from the gear sale.

Leaving the body aside, I am not yet convinced that I'd be happy with weight, size, and price of a stable of FF glass. By sticking with APS-C for the most part, I've assembled a nicely-varied group of lenses that were affordable and are easy to handle. And fit into a single bag for almost all occasions.

There was a comment made elsewhere that FF lenses are actually cheaper to make because good small things always cost more to build. I didn't respond but I'd be shocked to hear that applied to our glass, particularly as large-aperture lenses require some careful work owing to the varying optical paths length and angles of incidence from the edges of the front lens. But I can be corrected on that if I'm wrong.

If size and weight goals are to be reached via EVIL, I'd have to see an entirely new form factor. Like a keyboard for typing, some things just need to be of the right size and heft to be used to advantage. I'm thinking of balance for steadiness and of easy to use exterior manual controls.

I shoot with a Sigma 10-20 and a Sigma 100-300 f/4, among others. Perfectly OK on a K-7. I'd have to see how that capability would handle on a body the size and shape of a bar of soap.

[Mister Guy]

FF sensors aren't getting better and cheaper, from what I can see in the consumer market, any faster than EVIL is getting higher quality. I'd be shocked if APS-C dies, and if it dies, it won't be killed from the FF side, it'll be killed from the smart phone side.

There's just a huge difference between how a serious enthusiast or professional, and your average "camera user" takes pictures, and thinks about their equipment.

FF you need a bag for, and the camera needs to be comfortably sized to balance the weight of heavy glass, grips, flashes, accessories.

EVIL you need to fit in your existing bag, and the camera needs to be comfortably sized to fit in your existing life.

The megabyte vs megapixel race is already becoming an issue for the generic consumer, the generic consumer doesn't give a crap about the exposure triangle as long as the camera has good default settings; these two market segments just don't conflict as much as people are acting like they do.

[Aristophanes]

FF will never die out, because all the major mounts are FF mounts. I believe even the new Sony E mount is FF, that tells you something! People will always want that additional 1.3 stop even if APS-C is able to do a clean ISO 25600. FF is growing slowly but it's growing, it's just a matter of price.

FF sensors aren't getting better and cheaper, from what I can see in the consumer market, any faster than EVIL is getting higher quality. I'd be shocked if APS-C dies, and if it dies, it won't be killed from the FF side, it'll be killed from the smart phone side.

There's just a huge difference between how a serious enthusiast or professional, and your average "camera user" takes pictures, and thinks about their equipment.

FF you need a bag for, and the camera needs to be comfortably sized to balance the weight of heavy glass, grips, flashes, accessories.

EVIL you need to fit in your existing bag, and the camera needs to be comfortably sized to fit in your existing life.

No. FF can be as small as the Sony NEX which has a FF image circle and mount by design (the E-Mount is FF).

Clearly Sony anticipates FF in EVIL in the same size package as the current NEX.

All that matters is the price.

[TaoMaas]

No. FF can be as small as the Sony NEX which has a FF image circle and mount by design (the E-Mount is FF).

When we say that these lenses can cover FF (and I'm also thinking about Pentax DA lenses here), does that take into account the amount of image circle needed to cover sensor movement for in-camera shake reduction?