Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-02-2016, 08:42 PM   #826
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,866
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I guess I need to find out if my daughters {currently aged 28 and 24} remember watching Shari Lewis and that song.
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
28? I'm 60 and it was old when I was 6.
I watched Shari Lewis with them when they were young.

03-02-2016, 08:55 PM   #827
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,480
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
28? I'm 60 and it was old when I was 6.
She didn't start the original show until 1960.. if you are 60 then you were born in 56 and thus you were 6 in 62 so it was fresh then... still on the air.

She came back in the 90s with another Lambchop oriented show (complete with the aforementioned song).. but the 90s were a long time ago. haha. A college freshman today wasn't even born when the 'new' show stopped production.
03-02-2016, 10:05 PM - 1 Like   #828
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 269
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
APS-H finally died as a 1/2 stop increment a few years back and I don't think many people miss it.
Apparently Sigma didn't get the memo...
03-02-2016, 10:40 PM   #829
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,731
I watched Shari Lewis and Lambchop in the 70's.

Lambchop spoke before Congress. Really.



03-03-2016, 12:05 AM   #830
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I think it the market is a bit crowded with sensor formats relatively close to each other. 1 stop difference are small in my opinion. APS-H finally died as a 1/2 stop increment a few years back and I don't think many people miss it. For the future I predict there will be no more 1/2 stop increments in sensor sizes. I also predict the current trend of fewer cheap P&S will continue because phone cameras will continue to get vastly better, but not with single larger sensors as they have up till now, but with camera arrays and the possibilities that imply. Sensors in all sizes will slowly become cheaper and shift the whole camera market slowly to larger sensor formats.
1 stop difference is small would be true if:
- people were not willing to spend 2-3X more to get an FF (1.1 stop) instead of an APSC
- people were not willing to buy a 645Z over an FF (less than 1 stop).
- people were not willing to buy an 1" sensor camera over 2/3" or 1/7" were you have respectively 1 and 1.3 stops. Still 1" compact cameras get all the hype today.
- people were not willing to pay high money for f/2.8 vs f/4 zoom or f/1.4 vs f/1.8 primes.

As to what format will stay or leave, difficult to say. Sigma just made an APSC-H camera for example so the format not dead...

Would somebody say to me that in 5 years Sony will and other will have no more 1" sensors at all and migrated to m4/3 that I would not be surprized 1 bit. The format full of hype but not much used. Still we may have 1" sensor for next 30 years too. Prediction is difficult, in particular for the future. After the fact, it is always easier to explain how obvious it was.

One could go to great lens what format will remain but this is more a business decision and branding strategy than anything else.

For now the gap in price is still between APSC and FF. there no visible price difference between APSC, m4/3 and 1", but APSC provide 2 stop more better quality than 1" and 1 stop more than m4/3 so that why APSC DSLR/mirorless still get the most share of the shere between thses sensor size. Until APSC, getting 1 stop more is almost free. Jumping FF or MF is very expensive.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-03-2016 at 12:15 AM.
03-03-2016, 03:15 AM   #831
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
1 stop difference is small would be true if:
- people were not willing to spend 2-3X more to get an FF (1.1 stop) instead of an APSC
- people were not willing to buy a 645Z over an FF (less than 1 stop).
- people were not willing to buy an 1" sensor camera over 2/3" or 1/7" were you have respectively 1 and 1.3 stops. Still 1" compact cameras get all the hype today.
- people were not willing to pay high money for f/2.8 vs f/4 zoom or f/1.4 vs f/1.8 primes.

As to what format will stay or leave, difficult to say. Sigma just made an APSC-H camera for example so the format not dead...

Would somebody say to me that in 5 years Sony will and other will have no more 1" sensors at all and migrated to m4/3 that I would not be surprized 1 bit. The format full of hype but not much used. Still we may have 1" sensor for next 30 years too. Prediction is difficult, in particular for the future. After the fact, it is always easier to explain how obvious it was.

One could go to great lens what format will remain but this is more a business decision and branding strategy than anything else.

For now the gap in price is still between APSC and FF. there no visible price difference between APSC, m4/3 and 1", but APSC provide 2 stop more better quality than 1" and 1 stop more than m4/3 so that why APSC DSLR/mirorless still get the most share of the shere between thses sensor size. Until APSC, getting 1 stop more is almost free. Jumping FF or MF is very expensive.
One stop more - for whom and for what? Most people likely don't know what a stop is and nor should they need to know unless they are deep into photography. I suspect that what succeeds or fails is rarely decided by technical matters that are beyond most folks. How many users know the aperture of the lens on their smartphone? Maybe one per cent or even far less. They simply do not need to know since it has no relevance to what the vast majority want to do.

After all, if it is all just a game of stops then one might as well spend $30K and go for medium format since everything else is clearly inferior to it. In practice, folks draw a clear line somewhere and a blend of convenience, affordability and ability wins out. Yes it is a compromise, but for a business it is also a sweet spot of sales. A business cannot afford to get that wrong.

I think one needs to step back and look at a broad mix of attributes which will offer something compelling enough to cause folks to want it and pay a lot of money for it. Otherwise, why should they bother? And those attributes won't be seen as technical, any more than folks obsess about the processor in an iPhone. For this reason my guess is that something smaller will prove mighty popular in a few years' time for the simple reason that packing incredible power into smaller and smarter packages has been the general trend for a few decades now. What once took a big box now takes only something the size of a pack of cards. Who knows, of course - anything could happen. But it is fun to speculate, imho, and fun also to see what can now be done with "small stuff" that has hitherto been dismissed as not up to the job, like the 1" sensor.

Besides, nothing lasts. The 1" sensor won't last indefinitely, any more than will the m43, the APS-C or the APS-H sensors. But one of them could last long enough to put paid to a few "rivals" in the meantime.

So, anyway, I would guess that there'll be at least one new Pentax APS-C camera this year using a good modern sensor of a more recent design than that in the K3, and that within five years the Pentax Q will be called something slightly different and that it will be using a 1" sensor!

Last edited by mecrox; 03-03-2016 at 01:19 PM.
03-03-2016, 05:41 AM - 2 Likes   #832
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Large sensors --> large lenses. And large cameras. It also means huge lenses for birders. With something mFT sized you can fit it all into a much smaller package, while doing the same (apart from low light performance). Some people also don't like the super shallow look a FF will give them. Or they want everything to be in focus. If they are stopping down like mad, they may as well shoot with a smaller sensor.

And IMHO APS-C is a good compromise. Not that big lenses, not that big sensor, but also decent image quality and the ability to get relatively shallow DoF AND big DoF. It sits in the middle.
Larger sensors don’t necessarily mean larger lenses. Speaking of a hypothetical future where larger sensors become cheaper and people put more pressure on having a small camera and lens, I don't think it will. Maybe for some, but not all.

Since I love to talk about the technical and theoretical side of it I will, and I start by doing a rather extreme comparison just to show things more clearly then on neighbouring sensor sizes. I have an old 3x4 inch medium format camera with a notably smaller lens (114mm f/4,5) then a Voigtländer 17,5/0,95 on m43 even though the field of view is the same and the MF lens have a larger aperture diameter, passing more light (photons/s) to the film. While I would struggle to compare resolution in a scientifically good way I bet the old MF lens would produce more detail then the m43 lens, if it was used with the same sensor technology. If we get (still in a hypothetical future) a new and comparable lens as the MF lens it would probably be cheaper to produce too (its a simple 4 element lens).

My point with this extreme comparison is that while larger sensor sizes are more expensive, they also give us cheaper, lighter and smaller lenses. IF and only if, we compare lenses with the same field of view, same light capture (photons/s to that reaches the sensor), and same resolution demands.

Even more extreme comparisons like a 1/4" cmos sensor with a f/1,7 normal prime compared to a 1 square meter sensor with a pinhole makes it even clearer. Here is a reference to that example.

But why doesn't this apply to the mFT, APS-C and FF cameras of today? Its because larger sensors make the cameras much more expensive, targeting people with higher demands, and those people will generally not be satisfied with just comparable lenses. They demand something more, and thus cost more too, weigh more and are larger. So the reason the FF lenses are bigger are not that they have to be, but because its targeting a market with other needs and wants.

Now, if the future becomes as I predict, sensors becoming cheaper per area and more pressure on making smaller lenses, the lens producers will also make smaller lenses for bigger formats to fit that demand. And its not a waste of resources to increase sensors while reducing the lenses because, as I tell in the example, its possible to use less money on the lenses to compensate for more expensive cameras, and at the same time get both more light and better detail.

I must add and underline that I don't expect a fast or huge shift in sensor sizes. Maybe a doubling of sensor area in each price class in a decade or two. For the last decade I have been a APS-C user, for the next probably a FF user and closer to retirement I predict I might increase that to medium format. Assuming lots of if-s.

Last edited by Simen1; 03-03-2016 at 05:54 AM.
03-03-2016, 08:55 AM   #833
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 24
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote


My point with this extreme comparison is that while larger sensor sizes are more expensive, they also give us cheaper, lighter and smaller lenses. IF and only if, we compare lenses with the same field of view, same light capture (photons/s to that reaches the sensor), and same resolution demands.

Even more extreme comparisons like a 1/4" cmos sensor with a f/1,7 normal prime compared to a 1 square meter sensor with a pinhole makes it even clearer. Here is a reference to that example.

But why doesn't this apply to the mFT, APS-C and FF cameras of today? Its because larger sensors make the cameras much more expensive, targeting people with higher demands, and those people will generally not be satisfied with just comparable lenses. They demand something more, and thus cost more too, weigh more and are larger. So the reason the FF lenses are bigger are not that they have to be, but because its targeting a market with other needs and wants.

Now, if the future becomes as I predict, sensors becoming cheaper per area and more pressure on making smaller lenses, the lens producers will also make smaller lenses for bigger formats to fit that demand. And its not a waste of resources to increase sensors while reducing the lenses because, as I tell in the example, its possible to use less money on the lenses to compensate for more expensive cameras, and at the same time get both more light and better detail.
Let me see if I understood you correctly. You are stating that you could have a similar-sized or even smaller lens on a larger format camera and get similar performance to a smaller sensor system with a larger lens. Okay, I never thought about it like that, but it makes sense. You then state that FF lenses don't have to be bigger, but that customers are simply more demanding. This is where the arguments gets a bit trickier. Of course, to some degree you are right, the customers that are willing to invest more do so only to get better performance.

In general people don't look at it this way. Basically people don't want lenses that are significantly outperformed by the sensor. Lenses that do that are seen as being bad lenses. Cameras with bigger sensors and a bigger pixel-count do need better engineered lenses to match the bigger sensor with a higher pixel count.

I personally found your post slightly confusing because of the tricky ways in which the word 'resolution' can be used. Usually resolution is indicated as number of pixels per area. However, in the linked example, the pixel-pitch of the sensor was huge. The amount of pixels and the field of view was the same between the huge sensor with the pinhole lens and the 35mm-format 50mm f/38 camera and lens. So in the conventional way of using the word resolution, the resolution between these two hypothetical cameras is different. However, as the cameras have the same number of pixels and the same field of view, this might indicate that we should use another type of resolution, where we simply divide number of pixels by the area-of-view (for example as a fraction of the surface of a sphere). Using that as a definition for resolution, the resolution of the two different systems becomes the same, and your statement that a large sensor with smaller optics can perform the same as bigger optics with a smaller sensor is valid.

When we now go back to FF vs ASPC, we should note that often (although not always), the FF camera will have a higher megapixel count. For two lenses giving the same field of view, the requirements on the FF lens will be higher if it is to match the full-frame resolution.

The last point in your post is interesting to think about: having budget systems with worse optics and better sensors as the prices of sensors become lower compared to lenses. I guess it would make perfect sense for that to happen, limited of course by the size of cameras people are happy to put up with. I think most people (those which need huge glass excluded) will always prefer to get the same performance out of a system that is easier to carry around, so there will be some compromise. Anyway, thanks for the interesting post!

Disclaimer: I do not understand lens design, and do not know what extra difficulties present themselves when optimizing for corner sharpness for a lens with a larger sensor and the same flange-to-rear-element distance. I suspect that the simplified reasoning used above and in the link might break down there.

03-03-2016, 02:10 PM   #834
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
One stop more - for whom and for what? Most people likely don't know what a stop is and nor should they need to know unless they are deep into photography. I suspect that what succeeds or fails is rarely decided by technical matters that are beyond most folks. How many users know the aperture of the lens on their smartphone? Maybe one per cent or even far less. They simply do not need to know since it has no relevance to what the vast majority want to do.
People using their phones don't care, but I don't see how that relevant. Smartphone are not relevant for quality photography.

It is a bit like in a discussion about van and truck load capacity if you would have said that anyway most people buy car with very low load capacity and doesn't care so that trucks and van are not relevant and will soon disapear. This is simply completely missing the point of what van and trucks provide and why their owners will not exchange for a car.

If you restrict the market to people that do care about photography and to have quality picture, then the conclusion are widely different.

As for price, up to APSC included, the price of the sensor is irrelevant. There APSC camera sold for 300$ and 1/2.3" camera sold for 700$. Still people choose different camera and sensor size for valid reasons.

You want to draw a conclusion that the APSC format, the most used one for DSLR and mirorless will soon disapear without any proof just saying that people don't care. That no argument.
03-03-2016, 02:29 PM   #835
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Larger sensors don’t necessarily mean larger lenses. Speaking of a hypothetical future where larger sensors become cheaper and people put more pressure on having a small camera and lens, I don't think it will. Maybe for some, but not all.[...]
I'am thinking that if you count the whole system camera + lens that your 3x4" photographic system isn't at small at you make us think. I bet the m4/3 + the 17mm f/0.95 to be significantly smaller at the end.

I also think that because there only 0.6EV light gathering difference that the m4/3 + f0.95 lens will perform much much better in low light. Finally I think that if I take many of the small m4/3 lenses, I'll not find matching small lenses on the 3x4" system, regardless of the apperture.

Nobody will use you camera for a compact system and you know it. While your finding is interresting, it is not even an exception, the larger sensor system still bigger.

Somebody that want a small system does it differently. It doesn't try to see how the biggest lense in a given system compare to the smallest of another system. He rather compare 2 cameras and 2 lines up of lenses matching his need and what is smaller/bigger lighter/heavier. Exception that make it well in forum discussions don't work that well in practice, because you can't really buy a full line up + camera and actuall getting something light with a large sensor.
03-03-2016, 02:38 PM   #836
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I bet the m4/3 + the 17mm f/0.95 to be significantly smaller at the end.
17mm F/0.95 Filter Thread Front:58 mm Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.50 x 3.15" (63.4 x 80 mm) Weight 19.05 oz (540 g)
FA 35mm F2 (equivalent on FF)
Diam x Length
64 x 44.5 mm (2.5 x 1.8 in.) Weight
195 g (6.9 oz.)
Filter Size
49 mm
03-03-2016, 02:50 PM   #837
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
People using their phones don't care, but I don't see how that relevant. Smartphone are not relevant for quality photography.

It is a bit like in a discussion about van and truck load capacity if you would have said that anyway most people buy car with very low load capacity and doesn't care so that trucks and van are not relevant and will soon disapear. This is simply completely missing the point of what van and trucks provide and why their owners will not exchange for a car.

If you restrict the market to people that do care about photography and to have quality picture, then the conclusion are widely different.

As for price, up to APSC included, the price of the sensor is irrelevant. There APSC camera sold for 300$ and 1/2.3" camera sold for 700$. Still people choose different camera and sensor size for valid reasons.

You want to draw a conclusion that the APSC format, the most used one for DSLR and mirorless will soon disapear without any proof just saying that people don't care. That no argument.
In fact I have been careful not to predict the certain demise of APS-C as a mass-market platform, just to point out there are good reasons why that may happen and to point out that defending APS-C (or any other format) as some kind of necessity has no logic to it. Camera-makers are businesses and they have to go where the sales are. If the market shifts, for whatever reason, and buyers show a preference for something else, then the camera-makers will shift too.

As for whether people care, of course they care but some folks, perhaps a lot of folks, may well not care about the same things as technically minded enthusiasts. They may care very much about completely different things, and thank heavens they do because the result is that more cameras are sold. An obvious example is the offer of multi-coloured cameras, which Pentax pioneered, and product catalogues aimed at style-conscious buyers, young buyers as a distinct group, and so on. Camera-makers have to accommodate all that too. By and large, I suspect that the Internet causes traditional photography enthusiasts vastly to overrate their own importance and influence.

Camera-makers have one overriding priority: to stay in business and to deliver acceptable returns for their owners. "Quality photography" - and catering to the enthusiasts who just love to lay down rules about what quality photography actually is - is one way they may do it, but it's far from the only one. Step forward GoPros, or that pink and yellow camera with the blue plastic spaceman on top.

Last edited by mecrox; 03-03-2016 at 03:00 PM.
03-03-2016, 03:46 PM   #838
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I'am thinking that if you count the whole system camera + lens that your 3x4" photographic system isn't at small at you make us think. I bet the m4/3 + the 17mm f/0.95 to be significantly smaller at the end.
Thats absolutely true. The 3x4 inch MF camera is somewhat larger then a m43 camera with a 17mm f/0,95. Maybe 50% higher, 50% wider and 50% longer when in use. But because of a retractable bellow construction its probably close to half the thickness when its folded. The whole lens construction is less then 2 cm thick and 5 cm in outside diameter. Its a Polaroid Land camera 190 with a 114mm f/4,5 lens, not the more common f/3,8, if you want to look it up.

QuoteQuote:
I also think that because there only 0.6EV light gathering difference that the m4/3 + f0.95 lens will perform much much better in low light. Finally I think that if I take many of the small m4/3 lenses, I'll not find matching small lenses on the 3x4" system, regardless of the apperture.
I estimated the difference in aperture areas like this (114mm/4,5 * 0,95/17,5mm)² = 1,89 = almost 1 stop difference. Film have very poor QE so I did a mental journey into the future and assumed equal sensor technology, probably cmos.

QuoteQuote:
Nobody will use you camera for a compact system and you know it. While your finding is interresting, it is not even an exception, the larger sensor system still bigger.

Somebody that want a small system does it differently. It doesn't try to see how the biggest lense in a given system compare to the smallest of another system. He rather compare 2 cameras and 2 lines up of lenses matching his need and what is smaller/bigger lighter/heavier. Exception that make it well in forum discussions don't work that well in practice, because you can't really buy a full line up + camera and actuall getting something light with a large sensor.
I just explained why current cameras and lenses don't follow that theoretical and future predicting trend. Different prices and different expectations. But I also think that a slow shift towards larger sensors will give a slow shift towards more compact lenses for a given sensor size.

Speaking for myself and the near future, I have no principal things against upgrading to K-1 and at the same time choose f/4 zooms in stead of f/2,8 zooms and similar for primes. Heck I even expect to get a sharper images and maybe even get a lighter camera + lens in the process if I choose wisely.
03-04-2016, 12:05 AM   #839
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I just explained why current cameras and lenses don't follow that theoretical and future predicting trend. Different prices and different expectations. But I also think that a slow shift towards larger sensors will give a slow shift towards more compact lenses for a given sensor size.
You given an examplen this doesn't mean that this really work. Last time I checked, hubble wasn't smaller than your typical m4/3 and there little change for that to happen.

QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Speaking for myself and the near future, I have no principal things against upgrading to K-1 and at the same time choose f/4 zooms in stead of f/2,8 zooms and similar for primes. Heck I even expect to get a sharper images and maybe even get a lighter camera + lens in the process if I choose wisely.
Possible because of f/4 vs f/2.8 and because there no much more than a stop difference between APSC and FF. This doesn't scale to more different format outside of 1-2 lenses well choosed comparison.
03-04-2016, 12:06 AM   #840
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I estimated the difference in aperture areas like this (114mm/4,5 * 0,95/17,5mm)² = 1,89 = almost 1 stop difference. Film have very poor QE so I did a mental journey into the future and assumed equal sensor technology, probably cmos.
You assume this will happen, but since photography was invented, the long tendency is the opposite.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
a7000, aps, aps-c, apsc pentax, budget, camera, delay, dollar, dslr, ff, frame, generations, glass, info, k-3, k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, photography, product, quality, release, replacement, request, ricoh, rumor, sensor, sony, sources, sub, time, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Pentax 645D2014 also uses the 50MP Sony CMOS sensor! ElJamoquio Pentax News and Rumors 442 03-21-2014 12:57 AM
Using 67 lenses on Pentax APSC bodies-focal length setting cleffa Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 11-26-2013 05:22 AM
K-3 with 24mp Sony A77 sensor will be announced in early October jogiba Pentax News and Rumors 35 10-01-2013 02:07 PM
Behold! Sony's new trojan horse DSLR, the A7000 Z-shift JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 09-02-2013 06:26 AM
New APSC/FF sensor news beginning to take shape... JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 07-06-2011 04:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top