Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2010, 03:50 PM   #166
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I think this is the main point - the need is for a large sensor compact, not for MILC/EVIL/whatever specifically. Just a competent portable camera for experienced photographers.
Note that Hogan (an excellent source and really the camera industry's "deep thinker" on all matters, not just his beloved Nikon--and an extraordinary photog) shows the increasing relevance of a "mirrorless" system.

I disagree with him on the compacting DSLR market. I agree that EVF will likely come to dominate the lower-end of the interchangeable lens market where prosumer buyers meet the mass market, and look for quality at value. I have always doubted the superzoom P&S category, and the wannabe's like the Canon G-series precisely because the offer so little for the opportunity cost compared to a low-end DSLR, save size. APS mirrorless systems should beat out M4/3. APS has the established base, are compact enough when designed so, and don't require a re-engineering of the lens production system now dominant. APS has given the camera industry and by default, society, quality photography with a combined financial and cultural boost not seen since the early 1960's and before that the mid-1920's. A lot of $$$ has been made on APS, and that revenue stream will be protected to our benefit by lower prices, more features (my prediction: video-capable AF focus lenses), and overall better value.

I also think Hogan is nuts to show such growth in cellphone photos. At some point people who like photos look for quality once the convenience novelty wears off. We emotionally, culturally, and socially tire of low-rez junk in our faces. No one goes to Flickr to see camera phone photos. What happens is they browse, see some amazing quality shots of birds, or macros, or whatever, and then compare those to their crappy P&S or cellphone camera and say "I want something better". Why do you think the "smartphone" is now rocketing off? Same exact principle. Sure, DSLR is a mature market, but SLR was a mature market for 5 decades until digital came along. Many attempts were made to unseat the "tyranny" of that accident known as 35mm, and none really succeeded.

The main junction of cost/benefit and technology is the optics, not the body. You need big glass to get photons to whatever sensor for quality, and there appears to be nothing on the horizon to make photons behave differently. The lens legacy is the sunk market and manufacturing cost of quality photography. The manufacturer's that nail that implementation will come out ahead (Nikon, Canon) those that mess around too much may find themselves stretched with too many lines and objectives, and will pay a price when there short market growth in none of their areas as they are masters of none (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung). Pentax? Wise for not jumping too far. As an investor, follow the $$$. Right now it is APS.


Last edited by Aristophanes; 05-02-2010 at 05:13 PM.
05-02-2010, 04:48 PM   #167
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan (Australian expat)
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by Thom Hogan:
Mirrorless will be like Netbook
April 28 (commentary)--While all the camera makers are piling into the mirrorless market (Sony should be the next to announce, on May 11th), I expect in the end most of them will be a bit disappointed. The reason: it'll be a short trend.

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I think this is the main point - the need is for a large sensor compact, not for MILC/EVIL/whatever specifically. Just a competent portable camera for experienced photographers.
Personally, I disagree. Remember, Thom Hogan is mainly a Nikon man, and his predictions have been wrong before. Nikon don't seem to have near term plans for a MILC/EVIL camera, so he gravitates toward this opinion.

However, let's not dwell on Thom Hogan himself. Let's look at his contention that MILC/EVIL will "be a short trend".


I remember when AF came in. Most people said it was a gimmick, and that they preferred to continue manually focusing. What do most photographers use now?? AF, even though they could turn it off, they don't.

This is what Thom Hogan said in 2008:

"Imagine, for example, a future where Nikon has a D35, D45, and D55 that are all some DX variant of an EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) design, while the high-end has evolved to a more modular and FX (and possibly FX+) approach. At that point, a "tweener" camera has to pick which side it wants to be more strongly associated with, I think. It's either the top of the consumer (EVIL) side, or the bottom of the pro side (FX, modular). For awhile, you can get away with just executing a value-priced traditional DSLR in that spot (e.g., the D90), but long-term I think you have to make a choice and break with tradition. Why? Because you can't successfully sell a "past" design for long when the public believes that the market has changed (look how fast film SLRs disappeared). " (Sept 2008, just after the G1 was released)

And ten years ago, most film SLR users scoffed when predictions said that DSLRs would overtake film SLRs..... and yet it happened.

The SLR design with mirror has been around for about 60 years. There will come a time when most of the DSLR cameras (what is now the DSLR market) will not have a mirror. You only have to look at what happened to film SLRs to know that. It may take ten years, but it WILL happen. And if that happens, then how could Thom Hogan suggest that MILC/EVIL will "be a short trend"???
05-02-2010, 05:03 PM - 1 Like   #168
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by kevinschoenmakers Quote
Thom Hogan predicts MILCs will be a shortlived trend
I disagree with netbooks being an analogy to MILCs.

MILCs are more like electronic paper which will eventually replace real paper when it has equivalent reading properties (which hasn't happened yet).

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
But FF cameras will still be more expensive than APS ones, because the sensor is larger and it will be costlier to produce. The cameras will also be bulkier. And the lenses will be both larger and more costly. Thus, even if a FF camera will get within $100-300 from an APS one, it will still represent a more costly system.

Basically, there's a an artificial dam due to using FF sensors in high-end cameras - that may break. But there is a production cost dam that cannot go away.
Already today, the larger FF sensor would only be a 70$ difference in manufacturing cost (if produced in quantity). I researched the cost subject somewhere else in this forum. It isn't easily found information on the public web.

However, to make lenses which resolve 90 rather than 60 lp/mm (which is about the difference we are talking about today) is much more expensive. The difference is not so much in the wide angle where the shorter flange distance and smaller image circle would help. Would, if APS-C bodies would use an APS-C flange distance, actually...

And with an increasing hunger for resolution, the difference will grow. Already today, a FourThird system with lenses is more expensive than an APS-C system. And soon, an APS-C system (with good IQ) is more expensive than an FF system.

The lenses aren't larger. You go for one stop less (300/4 rather than 200/2.8) for equivalent image quality which is why FF lenses are only larger if they shall provide a light gathering advantage. So, they are same size and as I mentioned above, they are cheaper because of their nominally smaller f-stop.

And the camera isn't bulkier because the body and mount do already provide the space for the larger sensor -- by design.

There is no way APS-C can survive as soon as the arbitrary separation of markets broke loose.
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
That wasn't an argument for film being better than digital
I really think I understood your argument. And you're right. Digital bodies are deprecating to quickly. But with increasing deprecation time (inevitable sensor progress slow down) and soon marginal FF premium, this argument pales against mine. And I'm not sure you understood my argument, actually.

It is like a big car: Big bodies, in the past, were expensive on purchase AND on consumption. Many people drive smaller cars than they could afford because of consumption, especially here in Europe.

Now, with digital bodies, it is like big "digital cars" which may still be more expensive on purchase but won't cost any extra on consumption anymore. This would severely drive the average car size up.

This has happened with cameras except that the updrive of sizes didn't happen yet because of prohibitive (and somewhat arbitrary) cost (of motor volume).
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
You always use signs or lack of signs to predict the future.
No, not always. Signs are nice and it is always easy to extrapolate a trend to predict the future. Most so-called experts do nothing else.

However, it is much more reliable to use simple logic. A method I prefer. If I can explain the current situation and if I know how the reasons behind are going to change I can deduce the future up to a random factor.

For instance, I know that the performance of image sensors is bound by the laws of physics and I know how much improvement is still possible. So, I can predict a slow-down of sensor progress without needing a sign or trend.
05-02-2010, 05:44 PM   #169
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
I disagree with falconeye (respectfully) because I actually don't see the quest for resolution being any greater than it ever was.

I see the quest for utility being much greater now than ever before; we want our cellphones to be cameras, our DSLR's to do video, both to upload wirelessly and use GPS, and all for a lower price.

This diminishes the quest for a single dynamic like resolution, which becomes one criteria in a sea of noise.

That said, the resolution of a lens is its prime (ha ha) focus (ha ha ha).

APS sensors deliver "good enough" quality to blow the minds of people who think either cellphones, $200 P&S's, or older SLR's are the end-all-be-all of camera output. Peruse Flickr and we see a K200D taking macros that only a decade ago were strictly in the realm of National Geographic or esoteric publications. Niche photography has become mainstream enough to make people understand the possibilities...within a reasonable price. Photography has always been the one "art form" accessible to many, and that process has actually accelerated in the last 5 years. With a reasonably priced APS-C DSLR they can get fantastic snapshots in vitually all conditions, and have the adventure of creative possibilities they desire without likely ever having the time to accomplish them (he says with an evil marketing grin).

I can see how the viewfinder may change with graphic EVF systems enhancing the eye substantially over even a prism-focusing system, but I cannot see either M4/3 or FF taking over that DX sweet spot. I see FF being limited some because of its body size (show me a highly successful small car with 8-cyilinders still seen as a default model), but more because the core manufacturers require a high-end devices in the marketing plan. FF will stay pricey because it has to, or companies lose their profit margins. An FF price war seems unlikely, especially these days with credit tight and the Yen a problem currency. APS will shrink its form factor enough to make M4/3 an also ran; and M4/3 will continue to be starved for affordable glass. If you want the glass to get the quality, you need some dimensions to mount it. Lecia had to resort to micro-lens gimmickry to get its form factor. Compromises everywhere. I see less with APS-C than anything out there.



QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I think this is the main point - the need is for a large sensor compact, not for MILC/EVIL/whatever specifically. Just a competent portable camera for experienced photographers.
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I disagree with netbooks being an analogy to MILCs.

MILCs are more like electronic paper which will eventually replace real paper when it has equivalent reading properties (which hasn't happened yet).


Already today, the larger FF sensor would only be a 70$ difference in manufacturing cost (if produced in quantity). I researched the cost subject somewhere else in this forum. It isn't easily found information on the public web.

However, to make lenses which resolve 90 rather than 60 lp/mm (which is about the difference we are talking about today) is much more expensive. The difference is not so much in the wide angle where the shorter flange distance and smaller image circle would help. Would, if APS-C bodies would use an APS-C flange distance, actually...

And with an increasing hunger for resolution, the difference will grow. Already today, a FourThird system with lenses is more expensive than an APS-C system. And soon, an APS-C system (with good IQ) is more expensive than an FF system.

The lenses aren't larger. You go for one stop less (300/4 rather than 200/2.8) for equivalent image quality which is why FF lenses are only larger if they shall provide a light gathering advantage. So, they are same size and as I mentioned above, they are cheaper because of their nominally smaller f-stop.

And the camera isn't bulkier because the body and mount do already provide the space for the larger sensor -- by design.

There is no way APS-C can survive as soon as the arbitrary separation of markets broke loose.

I really think I understood your argument. And you're right. Digital bodies are deprecating to quickly. But with increasing deprecation time (inevitable sensor progress slow down) and soon marginal FF premium, this argument pales against mine. And I'm not sure you understood my argument, actually.

It is like a big car: Big bodies, in the past, were expensive on purchase AND on consumption. Many people drive smaller cars than they could afford because of consumption, especially here in Europe.

Now, with digital bodies, it is like big "digital cars" which may still be more expensive on purchase but won't cost any extra on consumption anymore. This would severely drive the average car size up.

This has happened with cameras except that the updrive of sizes didn't happen yet because of prohibitive (and somewhat arbitrary) cost (of motor volume).

No, not always. Signs are nice and it is always easy to extrapolate a trend to predict the future. Most so-called experts do nothing else.

However, it is much more reliable to use simple logic. A method I prefer. If I can explain the current situation and if I know how the reasons behind are going to change I can deduce the future up to a random factor.

For instance, I know that the performance of image sensors is bound by the laws of physics and I know how much improvement is still possible. So, I can predict a slow-down of sensor progress without needing a sign or trend.



Last edited by Aristophanes; 05-02-2010 at 07:18 PM. Reason: tpyos
05-03-2010, 12:26 AM   #170
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Already today, the larger FF sensor would only be a 70$ difference in manufacturing cost (if produced in quantity). I researched the cost subject somewhere else in this forum. It isn't easily found information on the public web.
Yes, but that's enough difference for a start and I expect it would have a cascading effect in more ways than I can imagine.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
However, to make lenses which resolve 90 rather than 60 lp/mm (which is about the difference we are talking about today) is much more expensive.
I lost your point here - can you tell me how this comes into play? An APS lens would require as much resolution as a FF one, except it wouldn't need to cover a larger sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And with an increasing hunger for resolution, the difference will grow. Already today, a FourThird system with lenses is more expensive than an APS-C system. And soon, an APS-C system (with good IQ) is more expensive than an FF system.
I'm not sure that this reflects a manufacturing reality (4/3 more expensive than APS) - I think they're just overpriced because they're new.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The lenses aren't larger. You go for one stop less (300/4 rather than 200/2.8) for equivalent image quality which is why FF lenses are only larger if they shall provide a light gathering advantage. So, they are same size and as I mentioned above, they are cheaper because of their nominally smaller f-stop.
I think having to worry about covering a smaller surface would make the job of lens designers easier and would lead to lower prices. I'd expect it would lead to smaller lenses too.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And the camera isn't bulkier because the body and mount do already provide the space for the larger sensor -- by design.
I'd imagine a larger sensor leading to more data to process would require a faster imaging engine which would lead to higher costs across the entire image processing pipeline and would lead to some size difference as well in the end.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Now, with digital bodies, it is like big "digital cars" which may still be more expensive on purchase but won't cost any extra on consumption anymore. This would severely drive the average car size up.
They would cost more for upgrade and I still maintain lenses would cost more - corner resolution won't come cheap. So, overall, FF would be more expensive. And for what? What exactly would most people get out of it - some will want the extra resolution, but most won't need it.

Also, camera companies don't have any interest in providing us with FF cameras for the price of an APS camera. They can just give us better IQ in APS cameras by stopping the MP race and that would be cheaper for them to do than to drop the price of FF cameras.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
However, it is much more reliable to use simple logic. A method I prefer. If I can explain the current situation and if I know how the reasons behind are going to change I can deduce the future up to a random factor.
To use logic you must have some data to use it on. That's what I called signs. Also, we can reason based on what can be built, but what can be built and what will be built are often different things because of a variety of reasons having less to do with logic and more to do with feelings and economy. I think logically too (or so I thought), but I think mostly of this as a weakness when predicting stuff.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
For instance, I know that the performance of image sensors is bound by the laws of physics and I know how much improvement is still possible. So, I can predict a slow-down of sensor progress without needing a sign or trend.
I assume you mean by this that APS sensors wouldn't be able to keep up with FF - but that's my point - there is nothing different between APS and FF sensors except the obsession of cramming as many photosites on APS as there are on FF. What the APS format has to do is stabilize itself around the pixel density of FF and accept a lower resolution that will anyway be more than what most people need.
05-03-2010, 12:37 AM   #171
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I think this is the main point - the need is for a large sensor compact, not for MILC/EVIL/whatever specifically. Just a competent portable camera for experienced photographers.
Note that Hogan (an excellent source and really the camera industry's "deep thinker" on all matters, not just his beloved Nikon--and an extraordinary photog) shows the increasing relevance of a "mirrorless" system.
Let me clarify a bit what I meant.

What I lack today is an ultra portable, competent, higher IQ compact camera that doesn't cost a ton. This is the only thing that makes me look at stuff like P&S and current MILC stuff.

If people can figure out how to build an EVF that equals the optical one I enjoy today in a DSLR, power to them and their cameras! I just don't think that technology is available today or will become available in the next few years. If they get that right, it will mean the end of SLRs.

So, I'm not against the idea of MILC, but I'm just talking about the implementations available today, which are far from being things I wish for - what I wish to buy is their future, and I think there will be one, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
05-03-2010, 03:13 AM   #172
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,267
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I actually looked at the LX3 too, but I forgot about it when I wrote that post. The LX3 advantage was that its zoom started at 24mm equivalent, but as you said, it's larger than the S90 and I like the S90 more for that lens wheel control.
OK, more clear to me. I understand you prefer the S90 interface. If it had a 24mm wide and as bright f/2-2.8 as the LX3, I'd have bought the S90 for the same reason: size.

However, I'm extremely pleased by my LX3 (for what it is)
05-03-2010, 03:18 AM   #173
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,267
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote

I lost your point here - can you tell me how this comes into play? An APS lens would require as much resolution as a FF one, except it wouldn't need to cover a larger sensor.
What I understood: it depends on the Mpix/area ratio. If one crams 15Mpix into a tiny P&S sensor, its lens will need a very good resolution, better than an equivalent lens for APS sensor of 15Mpix. Its lens however can be reduced size. Which costs more I dunno.

05-03-2010, 04:27 AM   #174
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
I think we are starting to turn in circles now. We probably emphasize more where we differ than where we agree too. So. let me confine my reply to where you asked questions.
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
1. I lost your point here - can you tell me how this comes into play? An APS lens would require as much resolution as a FF one, except it wouldn't need to cover a larger sensor.
[...]
2. I'm not sure that this reflects a manufacturing reality (4/3 more expensive than APS) - I think they're just overpriced because they're new.
[...]
3. I think having to worry about covering a smaller surface would make the job of lens designers easier and would lead to lower prices. I'd expect it would lead to smaller lenses too.
[...]
4. I'd imagine a larger sensor leading to more data to process would require a faster imaging engine which would lead to higher costs across the entire image processing pipeline and would lead to some size difference as well in the end.
[...]
5. They can just give us better IQ in APS cameras by stopping the MP race and that would be cheaper for them to do than to drop the price of FF cameras.
[...]
6. I assume you mean by this that APS sensors wouldn't be able to keep up with FF
At several points throughout your post, you seem to assume that sensor size and resolution (#pixels in an image) are linked like if the pixel pitch were constant.

However, I never made this assumption. Today, we have a sweet spot around 12MP for all camera classes, P&S, FT, FT, APS-C (K-x), FF (D700). So, I actually assumed a constant resolution in order not to introduce yet another free variable in our equation.

You're right, the larger formats have more headroom for higher resolutions. But I left that for higher end segments of the markets for the respective formats.


1. As said above, larger format, larger pixel pitch, less lp/mm requirement on the lens, less money on the lens...


2. I talked about system prices. I always did. That's one of my most important arguments: system may be cheaper even if the body is more expensive.

And good IQ lenses for FT are expensive for a reason. Because they need twice the lp/mm power compared to FF. And for equal light gathering capabilities, they need half the f-stop figure. So, please tell me how a 35-100mm f/1.4 zoom with 120 lp/mm isn't more expensive than a 70-200/2.8 zoom with 60 lp/mm for FF. Doesn't even exist! The closest thing is ED 35-100/2.0 which translates to 70-200/4 on FF and still costs 2000€ which is about 3x the price of an equivalent FF lens.

FT systems are expensive. Ask an Olympus guy how much money he has in lenses...


3. In the part you didn't quote ("the advantage of the smaller image circle")(which only exists for focal lengths ~1.5x diagonal and smaller) I explained that APS-C looses out on it because of an unappropriately large flange distance. Advantage exists with P&S, FT, FT and APS-C-EVILs though.

Corner aberrations are (in first approximation) a function of the maximum_of(lens diameter,image circle,flange distance,focal length). So, if you cannot scale all four in proporton, you're going to loose the advantage. Same goes for lens size.


4. A larger sensor doesn't lead to more data. A higher resolution does (cf. above). (And a 40MP 645D seems to be fine with the K-7 electronics (at just a reduced fps).)


5. As I said, 12MP is the current sweet spot independent of sensor size. I can't see a MP race in the APS-C camp except maybe with the Canon 7D.

And anyway, image quality is not negatively affected by a small pixel pitch (independent on the number of people thinking so).

At least not for a pixel pitch above 3m (e.g., the LX3 has 2.1m and delivers very good IQ (within the format contraints). K-7 has 5 m.


6. No, this isn't what I meant. I meant that technological progress for better image sensors is limited. Which means that deprecation time for digital cameras will normalize.

At least for true cameras. I say nothing about new fancy devices with a camera function. But fortunately, glass collecting photons has a given minimum size in order to be able to collect a given minimum number of photons So, there is a chance that true cameras which cannot be shrunk to an arbitrarily small size do survive.

Last edited by falconeye; 05-03-2010 at 04:32 AM.
05-03-2010, 06:57 AM   #175
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan (Australian expat)
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote

And for equal light gathering capabilities, they need half the f-stop figure.
This is not correct.

The lens has an F-stop number which is related to the ratio of focal length and effective aperture. This means that so far as light gathering capacity is concerned, a FF and a 4/3 has exactly the same capacity if the F number is the same.

So 200mm F2.8 will provide the same light gathering capability on a FF as on a 4/3 sensor.
However, it is the DEPTH OF FIELD that differs, even though the same 200mm F2.8 is used.
05-03-2010, 07:22 AM   #176
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote
This is not correct.
It is.

I hope my hard earned reputation saves me from explaining it yet another time

Just a hint for you ... a photon not hitting the front lens element will have a hard time to ever reach the sensor ... don't confuse iso with signal.
05-03-2010, 09:17 AM   #177
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
It is.

I hope my hard earned reputation saves me from explaining it yet another time

Just a hint for you ... a photon not hitting the front lens element will have a hard time to ever reach the sensor ... don't confuse iso with signal.
Believe falconeye.

The f-stop is proportional to the sensor size, so if the sensor is smaller, then the f-stop measure is of a lesser physical diameter as well, meaning less light hitting the sensor.

In other words: f-stop is relative to sensor size. The focal length is a constant.

"crop factor" = cropped # of photons. Just because it is "Micro" 4/3, does not mean the photons are micro as well
05-03-2010, 12:10 PM   #178
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
At several points throughout your post, you seem to assume that sensor size and resolution (#pixels in an image) are linked like if the pixel pitch were constant.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I forgot now if it was in response to you. But that is part of my predictions - that sanity will prevail at some point and pixel density on APS won't be much higher than on FF.

I use FF lenses on APS and I can't say yet that the sensor "outresolves" them. So I don't think APS needs better lenses today.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
However, I never made this assumption. Today, we have a sweet spot around 12MP for all camera classes, P&S, FT, FT, APS-C (K-x), FF (D700). So, I actually assumed a constant resolution in order not to introduce yet another free variable in our equation.
I understand now. But as I said above, I don't think the resolution of sensors today is outresolving modern FF lenses, so APS does not need more costly lenses either. This is based on my experience with the Samsung 14MP sensor and lenses like the Nokton.

Also check photozone's reviews of the Canon 50/1.2 - see how much better it looks on APS than on FF.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
2. I talked about system prices. I always did. That's one of my most important arguments: system may be cheaper even if the body is more expensive.
I understand now the argument you are making, but I don't think it's valid.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And for equal light gathering capabilities, they need half the f-stop figure.
Not true. What you gain when using a FF lens on APS is DOF, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. But it doesn't affect the light - it doesn't make a FF lens "slower" when used on APS.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
3. In the part you didn't quote ("the advantage of the smaller image circle")(which only exists for focal lengths ~1.5x diagonal and smaller) I explained that APS-C looses out on it because of an unappropriately large flange distance. Advantage exists with P&S, FT, FT and APS-C-EVILs though.
I understand that point and while it may prevent APS lenses from being smaller, I don't think it implies that they have to be as large as FF lenses.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
A larger sensor doesn't lead to more data. A higher resolution does (cf. above). (And a 40MP 645D seems to be fine with the K-7 electronics (at just a reduced fps).)
Keep in mind that I was talking from the perspective of pixel pitch equalizing in the future. That's part of my prediction.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And anyway, image quality is not negatively affected by a small pixel pitch (independent on the number of people thinking so).

At least not for a pixel pitch above 3m (e.g., the LX3 has 2.1m and delivers very good IQ (within the format contraints). K-7 has 5 m.
Noise is the problem. I've seen output from the D700 and it looks amazing at high ISO compared to what I get from the K-7.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
No, this isn't what I meant. I meant that technological progress for better image sensors is limited. Which means that deprecation time for digital cameras will normalize.
I agree with this, but I also think that when the industry will get there, they will scale back on the MP. Right now, they're using the technological advances to cram more photosites and keep a status quo on IQ performance rather than making IQ improvement the main goal - they should cram less and make the photosites better. I think that will come, but I also wish it, so it's not an objective prediction. People kept predicting the end of MP wars for years as well, but that didn't happen either.

BTW, I digged up this article by Bob Atkins on APS vs FF. The article is 6 years old - from 2004. The death of APS was discussed since the introduction of the format, I guess - I doubt that it will happen now if it didn't start yet. It's more like the revenge of film era's APS.
05-03-2010, 12:35 PM   #179
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 679
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
  • EVIL: Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens
Gee, I wonder if the industry will embrace this one?

QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
  • MILC: Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera
Oh, nice. Put 'Camera' in the acronym so we can start seeing people redundantly write 'MILC Camera'.
05-03-2010, 02:12 PM   #180
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Not true. What you gain when using a FF lens on APS is DOF, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. But it doesn't affect the light - it doesn't make a FF lens "slower" when used on APS.
Ok, I get your points now. This little detail needs clarification though: See my answer to dnas four posts up.

BTW, of course it doesn't make a FF lens "slower" when used on APS, nor does it gain DOF. It's just a lens. E.g., for some lenses we don't even know if its an APS-C or an FF lens, like the DA*60-250

To get this point right, you need to understand the concept of lens equivalence (equivalence means that two images taken with different size sensors but with equivalent lenses are entirely indistinguishable).

A good start to read may be
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/459034-post21.html "Case A".
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!
blog, el, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 49mm rubber hood for standard lens fulcrumx29 Sold Items 1 11-20-2009 05:02 PM
DNG - The non standard standard Lowell Goudge Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 07-21-2009 05:02 AM
how does one join the pentax photo gallery nirvanaguy19 Photographic Technique 4 01-08-2008 08:45 PM
Pentax Days! Come join us and meet Pentax! codiac2600 Pentax News and Rumors 23 11-19-2007 08:46 PM
SMC PENTAX-M 28mm F/1.7 STANDARD LENS HmmmGoFigure Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 07-07-2007 08:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:41 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