Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Tom C wrote: I don't know why anybody that has the mindset to shoot RAW format and spend the time post-processing would also not want the max resolution they could get. If file size is an overarching concern, trumping quality, then there's other 6MP models they can buy. Do these other models have grip, pentaprism, buffer, IS, (maybe two wheels)... Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
[Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full- frame sensors will always cost much more than [ ... ] (Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D MarkII N is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. [ ... ] ] OK, obviously, they are trying to justify the price of their models with larger sensors but it does say that the APS size is indeed the max size obtainable in one shot by a stepper (sigh of relief :-). That's APS-H, though. Meaning 1.3x crop, not 1.5x, I think. I also saw an article just a couple of days ago, stating that the cost of FF sensor is 10 to 20 times larger than that of APS sized one and it won't narrow. But I have a bad habit of not bookmarking. Maybe I read it somewhere in this white paper. I will take a time to read it more in detail later ;-). Really? *Someone* provided some info *somewhere* in the context of the release of the Canon 5D that suggested it had actually narrowed quite a bit since the release of the 1Ds, and that there was also a lot more room for improvement. I think it said that the yield was up from 10% to 25% - while it had remained stable for a while at 80% or whatever for smaller sensors. But perhaps your article was written after that and/or gave a good reason while this gap won't be reduced further? - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
My response in-line below. On 8/30/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full- frame sensors will always cost much more than [ ... ] (Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D MarkII N is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. [ ... ] ] That's APS-H, though. Meaning 1.3x crop, not 1.5x, I think. Yes, I'm fully aware of it. As I said, this was not the article I read the first time about the max size limit of a sensor. Nevertheless, the point is the same. The photo sensor size is limited by the max size of a given stepper which can be produced by a one shot exposure. Canon also produce steppers and it appears that they have invested a bit more dedicated machine for their own in-house mfg. At present, Canon are the only company that is offering 1.3 crop factor models (AFIK). However, at the time DSLRs came into mainstream, APS sized sensors, H or C, became standard. Perhaps sensor makers were using standard steppers designed mainly for the chip making, I do not know. But regardless of the crop factor, sensor size was NOT determined by the optical performance or other such factors, but they simply had no choice (so, it seems to me). Canon indeed are the wild card in this area, as they announced some time ago that they developed a process (or machine) that can produce FF sized sensors in one shot exposure process. But I am sure Nikon are developing something similar (or they may be holding it purposely for their own benefit? :-). I also saw an article just a couple of days ago, stating that the cost of FF sensor is 10 to 20 times larger than that of APS sized one and it won't narrow. But I have a bad habit of not bookmarking. Maybe I read it somewhere in this white paper. I will take a time to read it more in detail later ;-). Really? *Someone* provided some info *somewhere* in the context of the release of the Canon 5D that suggested it had actually narrowed quite a bit since the release of the 1Ds, and that there was also a lot more room for improvement. I think it said that the yield was up from 10% to 25% - while it had remained stable for a while at 80% or whatever for smaller sensors. But perhaps your article was written after that and/or gave a good reason while this gap won't be reduced further? OK, I finally found where these descriptions were. They were right in the article of 8/28 which quoted the Galbraith's site (which quoted the Canon's white paper). It's the Japanese article but introducing the Galbraith's article and summarizing what the white paper was supposed to say, and that's why I thought I saw it in the white paper. But I could not find such phrases in the white paper. The original Japanese article was titled the cost of FF sized sensor is more than 20 times that of APS-C. Sensational, isn't it? :-). There may be some additional part to this white paper which we do not see. But if you found such description in the white paper, don't blame me as I only skimmed through it diagonally (but it appears to be an interesting article). Anyway, here is what the Japanese article says; 1. yield from 8 wafer is 200/APS-C, 46/APS-H, 20/FF 2. number of LSI's on a single wafer is 1000~2000. If for example, there were 20 defects but rather uniformly distributed over the wafer, it could be possible that ALL FF sized sensor could be defective. 3. It requires 3 shots exposures to produce an FF sized sensor where as one shot produces APS-H or APS-C. 4. The cost of FF sized sensor is 10, 20 or more times that of APS-C. Even with the advancement of the technology in the future, the cost of FF sized sensor stay's very high and the gap won't narrow. So, above was what was burnt in my head and it's a recent article. As Graywolf said, stepper is for making as small as possible IC chips but when it is used for the sensor mfg which uses the larger spectrum of the process, there is a physical limitations. Theoretically, I suppose a dedicated stepper to produce larger size sensors in one shot exposure could be invested, but considering the market price of these machines, it must be so costly. But canon did announce that they developed such a machine. From the white paper though, it does not appear that they have any working/production model yet. Anyway, so much for this. All I ask is that makers (particularly Pentax :-), maintain models with APS sized sensors. As Canon themselves admit, cameras with FF sensors would be too big and heavy to carry. Cameras not carried would be photos not taken. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 30.08.2006, at 13:14 , KEN TAKESHITA wrote: Nevertheless, the point is the same. The photo sensor size is limited by the max size of a given stepper which can be produced by a one shot exposure. Canon also produce steppers and it appears that they have invested a bit more dedicated machine for their own in-house mfg. At present, Canon are the only company that is offering 1.3 crop factor models (AFIK). Leica's digital back for R9 uses sensor with 1.3x crop and probably it will be used in upcoming digital Leica M8. Best regards, Sylwek -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
- Original Message - From: KEN TAKESHITA [EMAIL PROTECTED] As Canon themselves admit, cameras with FF sensors would be too big and heavy to carry. Cameras not carried would be photos not taken. They don't have to be as big. The Pentax 645D is in fact smaller and will have twice the sensor. Canon make big camera because they sell better than small ones according to their marketing philosophy (big is expensive; small is cheap - I saw this in an interview with an engineer; they dicide first the size of the thing based on marketing, then make it so). Look at the Elan II; a crappy entry level slr approaching the size of a Pentax medium format camera for no other reason that it will impress the customer in the shop who seem to get more (air) for their money. Making something small cost money; sometimes a lot if you really want to do real miniaturization. Pål -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 8/30/06 7:38 AM, Pål Jensen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They don't have to be as big. The Pentax 645D is in fact smaller and will have twice the sensor. Canon make big camera because they sell better than small ones according to their marketing philosophy (big is expensive; small is cheap - I saw this in an interview with an engineer; they dicide first the size of the thing based on marketing, then make it so). Look at the Elan II; a crappy entry level slr approaching the size of a Pentax medium format camera for no other reason that it will impress the customer in the shop who seem to get more (air) for their money. Making something small cost money; sometimes a lot if you really want to do real miniaturization. Very radical idea ;-), but I do not brush it off. Canon are a marketing machine, but also a shrewd expert of cost cutting which is well known in Japan. I am not saying it's good or bad, but they certainly know how to pursue the profit. I might have posted this before, but in their presentation material for the shareholders meeting, they were talking about a lot of ways to cut the production cost, one example of which was proto (type) less production. This is their way of shortening the product cycle by eliminating the prototyping. There are a number of other ways they were talking about. Lime in auto industry, the cost cutting is an important part of the production process, but when it went too far Other well known example is their AF accuracy algorithm. Their AF speed is fast, mainly due to hardware (USM) but they also tweaked the software so that the AF accuracy has a bit wider margin than other makers' and stop the AF process when the focus enters into this range, without much hunting. As a result, the Canon lists in Japan are filled with complaints. Perhaps their higher end models have tighter tolerance. But in general, their tolerances, be it on ASF accuracy or lens assembly etc, are looser than those of say, Nikon or Pentax. There are other examples. It does not bother me much as long as their camera's/lenses are worth what I pay for, but I do have this bias that Nikon/Pentax are much more solid machines and generally conscientious (not that Canon are not, but I just do not like their contemporary profit pursuing corporate mentality. I do have some of their equipment and so far no complaint though :-). Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda) Really? *Someone* provided some info *somewhere* in the context of the release of the Canon 5D that suggested it had actually narrowed quite a bit since the release of the 1Ds, and that there was also a lot more room for improvement. I think it said that the yield was up from 10% to 25% - while it had remained stable for a while at 80% or whatever for smaller sensors. But perhaps your article was written after that and/or gave a good reason while this gap won't be reduced further? Canon makes their own sensors. They can set their cost targets and wafer yeilds at whatever they want. Companies that have to buy sensors from outside companies don't get to play those games. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
I would like to point out that that white paper is gray at best. Its purpose is not informational but promotional. Another point is that if you do not have the tools to manufacture what you want to sell, you eventually produce the tooling to do it. Put another way, if you can not now produce the FF sensors in a one step process, that does not mean you will not be able to in a couple of years. And on your final comment below, I guess something the size of a MZ-S would be too big to carry (after all, Pentax has produced a FF prototype that size). For non-photographers any camera is too big and heavy to carry. Many a serious photographer hauls an 8x10 and all the paraphernalia around without a complaint. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- KEN TAKESHITA wrote: My response in-line below. All I ask is that makers (particularly Pentax :-), maintain models with APS sized sensors. As Canon themselves admit, cameras with FF sensors would be too big and heavy to carry. Cameras not carried would be photos not taken. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 8/30/06 10:00 AM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to point out that that white paper is gray at best. Its purpose is not informational but promotional. I agree. It's very obvious in the way it is written. Nevertheless, a good reading material :-). Another point is that if you do not have the tools to manufacture what you want to sell, you eventually produce the tooling to do it. Put another way, if you can not now produce the FF sensors in a one step process, that does not mean you will not be able to in a couple of years. I agree with this too. And on your final comment below, I guess something the size of a MZ-S would be too big to carry (after all, Pentax has produced a FF prototype that size). For non-photographers any camera is too big and heavy to carry. Many a serious photographer hauls an 8x10 and all the paraphernalia around without a complaint. I just do not want to become a pro, and have no talent either :-). MZ-S was fine. But the paper is talking about 1Ds etc. No thanks to even 5D. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 8/30/06, K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/30/06 10:00 AM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another point is that if you do not have the tools to manufacture what you want to sell, you eventually produce the tooling to do it. Put another way, if you can not now produce the FF sensors in a one step process, that does not mean you will not be able to in a couple of years. I agree with this too. And I am sure Nikon can produce the stepper that can do the FF size, but they probably see no reasonable market for it, at lkeast not yet. The machine is awfully expensive and unless there are enough buyers, they simply do not produce it. Probably the same for Canon. They may have developed such a machine but not for a commercial use yet. If they produce the machine, they just have to sell it to other chip makers to keep the cost down. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, K.Takeshita wrote: I just do not want to become a pro, and have no talent either :-). MZ-S was fine. But the paper is talking about 1Ds etc. No thanks to even 5D. What is the comparison in dimensions between MZ-S and 5D/1Ds? Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, K.Takeshita wrote: I just do not want to become a pro, and have no talent either :-). MZ-S was fine. But the paper is talking about 1Ds etc. No thanks to even 5D. What is the comparison in dimensions between MZ-S and 5D/1Ds? Kostas The 5D is noticably bigger than an MZ-S. The 1Ds is about twice the size (Larger than a 645NII). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
I agree with you. I would not upgrade from a 6 to 8MP body for the 2MP alone. If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my decision. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:56:15 -0700 8Mpixel does pose an advantage over 6Mpixel, presuming all else is equal. I disagree with your comment Just because one does not immediately perceive it [higher resolution] in a given shot, or at particular print size, does not mean it is not there... . The improvement is simply small and is not noticeable until you get to very large sized print output. With a photograph, unless you can see the resolution in the image at some print size, it isn't there. The cropping advantage is there but it's modest. For instance, the Canon 20D produces 3504 x 2336 image resolution vs the *ist DS 3008x2008. That's a 496 x 328 pixel difference, not nothing but only enough for about a 5 degree rotation at best without cropping the 6Mpixel image. Given the choice of an updated, improved *ist D or DS with 8Mpixel as the *only* improvement, I'd pass. It's not *enough* of an improvement to warrant buying a new body, for me at least. Godfrey On Aug 29, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Tom C wrote: What I don't understand is the feigned negativity or brush-off of an 8MP sensor vs. a 6 MP sensor. All things being equal (a phrase now in popular usage on the PDML) an 8MP sensor should provide a higher resolution image than a 6MP sensor. Just because one does not immediately perceive it in a given shot, or at particular print size, does not mean it is not there, or that it will not be of value when cropping an image. If 8 or 9% is considered trivial, than I would gladly invite any and all to donate between 8 and 9% of their paycheck to my cause. I won't turn it down. :-) For that matter it seems that 8MP DSLR's will be considered passe in the immediate future. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
It's an unfortunate thing that in marketing hype, bigger numbers usually win regardless of whether a camera is a better performer or not. Just like in the megahertz/gigahertz wars in the personal computer world. Buyers should try not to be so driven by marketing hype. G On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Tom C wrote: I agree with you. I would not upgrade from a 6 to 8MP body for the 2MP alone. If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my decision. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
A point of fact here. Having worked on these kinds of things, the last being a robot to produce Cell Phone Repeaters (cost $1.5 million), I can tell you that this kind of equipment is usually one-off. The are built to customers specs one by one. They certainly are not production line items. So if you want one specific to producing large sensors you can get one at little or no extra cost. I believe that PerkinElmer also produces step and repeat machines, or at least used to. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Ken Takeshita wrote: On 8/30/06, K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/30/06 10:00 AM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another point is that if you do not have the tools to manufacture what you want to sell, you eventually produce the tooling to do it. Put another way, if you can not now produce the FF sensors in a one step process, that does not mean you will not be able to in a couple of years. I agree with this too. And I am sure Nikon can produce the stepper that can do the FF size, but they probably see no reasonable market for it, at lkeast not yet. The machine is awfully expensive and unless there are enough buyers, they simply do not produce it. Probably the same for Canon. They may have developed such a machine but not for a commercial use yet. If they produce the machine, they just have to sell it to other chip makers to keep the cost down. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Well 'they' are not lying when they claim to have two more MP. That's not marketing hype. It is true. So far I have read nothing in the reviews of Canon's 8MP camera bodies that suggest they perform poorly when held up against Pentax's 6MP bodies. Are you just editorializing? If Pentax had an 8MP and Canon only 6MP, would the same skew be applied? :-) Honestly asking, because so far I haven't heard a single person anywhere clamor for a camera with fewer MP. I agree there is a significant amount of hype in advertising. Two MP does not sound like alot. Yet, only 8 or nine years ago a 2MP digital camera was a BIG thing and totally blew away a 1MP or 1MP digital camera. Now those poor megapixels are essentially chaff? I realize in relative terms they are less, but they are far from meaningless. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:00:56 -0700 It's an unfortunate thing that in marketing hype, bigger numbers usually win regardless of whether a camera is a better performer or not. Just like in the megahertz/gigahertz wars in the personal computer world. Buyers should try not to be so driven by marketing hype. G On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Tom C wrote: I agree with you. I would not upgrade from a 6 to 8MP body for the 2MP alone. If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my decision. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
When there's a market, there's a way. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:28:13 -0400 A point of fact here. Having worked on these kinds of things, the last being a robot to produce Cell Phone Repeaters (cost $1.5 million), I can tell you that this kind of equipment is usually one-off. The are built to customers specs one by one. They certainly are not production line items. So if you want one specific to producing large sensors you can get one at little or no extra cost. I believe that PerkinElmer also produces step and repeat machines, or at least used to. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Ken Takeshita wrote: On 8/30/06, K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/30/06 10:00 AM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another point is that if you do not have the tools to manufacture what you want to sell, you eventually produce the tooling to do it. Put another way, if you can not now produce the FF sensors in a one step process, that does not mean you will not be able to in a couple of years. I agree with this too. And I am sure Nikon can produce the stepper that can do the FF size, but they probably see no reasonable market for it, at lkeast not yet. The machine is awfully expensive and unless there are enough buyers, they simply do not produce it. Probably the same for Canon. They may have developed such a machine but not for a commercial use yet. If they produce the machine, they just have to sell it to other chip makers to keep the cost down. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 8/30/06 11:40 AM, Tom C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my decision. That was my point. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
For all practical purposes, there is no real-world difference in performance between 6MP and 8MP. You need a larger jump (say 6MP to 10MP) for the difference to be noticable. Ironically, 8MP is a sweet spot, as it is close in visible performance to both 6MP and 10MP, while there is a visible difference between the latter two. -Adam Tom C wrote: Well 'they' are not lying when they claim to have two more MP. That's not marketing hype. It is true. So far I have read nothing in the reviews of Canon's 8MP camera bodies that suggest they perform poorly when held up against Pentax's 6MP bodies. Are you just editorializing? If Pentax had an 8MP and Canon only 6MP, would the same skew be applied? :-) Honestly asking, because so far I haven't heard a single person anywhere clamor for a camera with fewer MP. I agree there is a significant amount of hype in advertising. Two MP does not sound like alot. Yet, only 8 or nine years ago a 2MP digital camera was a BIG thing and totally blew away a 1MP or 1MP digital camera. Now those poor megapixels are essentially chaff? I realize in relative terms they are less, but they are far from meaningless. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:00:56 -0700 It's an unfortunate thing that in marketing hype, bigger numbers usually win regardless of whether a camera is a better performer or not. Just like in the megahertz/gigahertz wars in the personal computer world. Buyers should try not to be so driven by marketing hype. G On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Tom C wrote: I agree with you. I would not upgrade from a 6 to 8MP body for the 2MP alone. If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my decision. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 8/30/06 12:28 PM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They certainly are not production line items. So if you want one specific to producing large sensors you can get one at little or no extra cost. I am not an expert of course, but the stepper is pretty much a standard fixture in any chip or LCD production line, which is also pretty much standardized, except for the capacity. Because of the price of these machines (usually tens of million dollars at least), I am sure they are customizable but they are not hand-made machines. Nikon alone sell about 1,000 units a year (probably of various sizes and capabilities). They have catalogues of series of these machines. Also see below for their machines. http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news/1997/jan01_97.htm http://www.ave.nikon.co.jp/pec_e/products/ic.htm Cheerss, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
I'm not arguing the point. I'm saying it surprises me (I guess it shouldn't), that this being a Pentax list, a competitor's higher MP sensor is minimalized, whereas if the shoe were on the other foot, the higher MP capability of the Pentax would be talked up. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:52:57 -0400 For all practical purposes, there is no real-world difference in performance between 6MP and 8MP. You need a larger jump (say 6MP to 10MP) for the difference to be noticable. Ironically, 8MP is a sweet spot, as it is close in visible performance to both 6MP and 10MP, while there is a visible difference between the latter two. -Adam Tom C wrote: Well 'they' are not lying when they claim to have two more MP. That's not marketing hype. It is true. So far I have read nothing in the reviews of Canon's 8MP camera bodies that suggest they perform poorly when held up against Pentax's 6MP bodies. Are you just editorializing? If Pentax had an 8MP and Canon only 6MP, would the same skew be applied? :-) Honestly asking, because so far I haven't heard a single person anywhere clamor for a camera with fewer MP. I agree there is a significant amount of hype in advertising. Two MP does not sound like alot. Yet, only 8 or nine years ago a 2MP digital camera was a BIG thing and totally blew away a 1MP or 1MP digital camera. Now those poor megapixels are essentially chaff? I realize in relative terms they are less, but they are far from meaningless. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:00:56 -0700 It's an unfortunate thing that in marketing hype, bigger numbers usually win regardless of whether a camera is a better performer or not. Just like in the megahertz/gigahertz wars in the personal computer world. Buyers should try not to be so driven by marketing hype. G On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Tom C wrote: I agree with you. I would not upgrade from a 6 to 8MP body for the 2MP alone. If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my decision. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 8/30/06 12:42 PM, Tom C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When there's a market, there's a way. Invest first and create the market, or hype the market first and then invest? :-). Which are Canon doing? Difficult call. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
Really? *Someone* provided some info *somewhere* in the context of the release of the Canon 5D that suggested it had actually narrowed quite a bit since the release of the 1Ds, and that there was also a lot more room for improvement. I think it said that the yield was up from 10% to 25% - while it had remained stable for a while at 80% or whatever for smaller sensors. But perhaps your article was written after that and/or gave a good reason while this gap won't be reduced further? Canon makes their own sensors. They can set their cost targets and wafer yeilds at whatever they want. ¿Qué? I was referring to the yield as in the percentage of items you try to produce that actually come out good. This is not something you can set. It is what it is. (But you can improve it by getting better raw material and/or improving production techniques.) OK, I'm sure Canon can do their bookkeeping in such a way that the sensor cost seems lower than it really is, but they'll only be fooling themselves in the long run. Companies that have to buy sensors from outside companies don't get to play those games. They will pay a price that's governed by competition and/or perceived value, but that's surely also influenced by the actual production cost .. - T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
I also saw an article just a couple of days ago, stating that the cost of FF sensor is 10 to 20 times larger than that of APS sized one and it won't narrow. But I have a bad habit of not bookmarking. Maybe I read it somewhere in this white paper. I will take a time to read it more in detail later ;-). Really? *Someone* provided some info *somewhere* in the context of the release of the Canon 5D that suggested it had actually narrowed quite a bit since the release of the 1Ds, and that there was also a lot more room for improvement. I think it said that the yield was up from 10% to 25% - while it had remained stable for a while at 80% or whatever for smaller sensors. But perhaps your article was written after that and/or gave a good reason while this gap won't be reduced further? OK, I finally found where these descriptions were. [ ... ] Anyway, here is what the Japanese article says; 1. yield from 8 wafer is 200/APS-C, 46/APS-H, 20/FF 2. number of LSI's on a single wafer is 1000~2000. If for example, there were 20 defects but rather uniformly distributed over the wafer, it could be possible that ALL FF sized sensor could be defective. OK. I was referring to an article someone posted when the 5D was discussed just after its launch, but of course I can't find it now (haven't tried too hard, though.) I think it included figures similar to the ones included above, but claimed that this was the (average) yield after defective units was taken into account (or counted out, if you like.) The number of units that can actually fit on a wafer was quoted as something like 250 for APS-C and 80 for FF. You may notice that the ratio between those numbers is already larger than the actual difference in area because you're bound to loose more material near the edges with larger chips (the wafer is round.) What's worse, however, is that (according to the article), out of those 80 FF units, as much as 60 on average are going to be useless. You'll loose some with the smaller size, too, but only about 50 out of 250. But the article went on to say (or perhaps began by saying) that it used to be worse - around the time of the introduction of the first 1Ds only 5 to 10 of the 80 units would be usable. I don't know enough about IC production to know for sure how Canon has managed to reduce the number of defective units, but I'm assuming that the industry has learned over time how to utilise lower-quality silicon (thus reducing the effects of bad areas on the wafer) and also minimise the number of errors in the production itself. And I've also been assuming that the production quality will continue to improve, which will of course be most beneficial for the larger chips, thus narrowing the gap... - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Tom C wrote: Honestly asking, because so far I haven't heard a single person anywhere clamor for a camera with fewer MP. I posted a question asking for a camera with very few MP. So, does price go into the 6 vs 8MP dilemma? Two MP does not sound like alot. Yet, only 8 or nine years ago a 2MP digital camera was a BIG thing and totally blew away a 1MP or 1MP digital camera. Now those poor megapixels are essentially chaff? I realize in relative terms they are less, but they are far from meaningless. I have never printed more that A4. I believe that they are meaningless. Now, viewfinder, in-body IS, noise, ergonomics, looks, aperture coupling, whether it's a Can*n, they would come into the equation, assuming the 6MP baseline. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:39:47AM -0600, Tom C wrote: Well 'they' are not lying when they claim to have two more MP. That's not marketing hype. It is true. So far I have read nothing in the reviews of Canon's 8MP camera bodies that suggest they perform poorly when held up against Pentax's 6MP bodies. Are you just editorializing? If Pentax had an 8MP and Canon only 6MP, would the same skew be applied? :-) Honestly asking, because so far I haven't heard a single person anywhere clamor for a camera with fewer MP. I guess you've missed all the people who want a 6MP K10D (or K1D), and not a 10MP one. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 8/30/06 3:07 PM, Toralf Lund, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I finally found where these descriptions were. [ ... ] Anyway, here is what the Japanese article says; 1. yield from 8 wafer is 200/APS-C, 46/APS-H, 20/FF 2. number of LSI's on a single wafer is 1000~2000. If for example, there were 20 defects but rather uniformly distributed over the wafer, it could be possible that ALL FF sized sensor could be defective. OK. I was referring to an article someone posted when the 5D was discussed just after its launch, but of course I can't find it now (haven't tried too hard, though.) I think it included figures similar to the ones included above, but claimed that this was the (average) yield after defective units was taken into account (or counted out, if you like.) The number of units that can actually fit on a wafer was quoted as something like 250 for APS-C and 80 for FF. You may notice that the ratio between those numbers is already larger than the actual difference in area because you're bound to loose more material near the edges with larger chips (the wafer is round.) What's worse, however, is that (according to the article), out of those 80 FF units, as much as 60 on average are going to be useless. You'll loose some with the smaller size, too, but only about 50 out of 250. But the article went on to say (or perhaps began by saying) that it used to be worse - around the time of the introduction of the first 1Ds only 5 to 10 of the 80 units would be usable. I don't know enough about IC production to know for sure how Canon has managed to reduce the number of defective units, but I'm assuming that the industry has learned over time how to utilise lower-quality silicon (thus reducing the effects of bad areas on the wafer) and also minimise the number of errors in the production itself. And I've also been assuming that the production quality will continue to improve, which will of course be most beneficial for the larger chips, thus narrowing the gap... I do not know if the yield I quoted (20) already counted out the defects (by definition, yield means that after taking out the defects, right?), however, since they are talking about possible zero yield if the 20 wafer defects are distributed evenly, I would assume that 20/FF is a pre-defect yield. But calculating the yield count on zero defect wafer of a given size is not a rocket science and can be easily calculated (you do, please :-). They are talking about a 8' wafer and now they are pretty much going for 12. I think the article was merely trying to illustrate the problem associated with producing larger chips like photo sensors when the relative count of wafer defects have a significant impact on the yield compared with normal IC chips which could be produce by thousands. And Canon probably have no control over the wafer defects rate as they do not produce wafers (do they?). They may be exaggerating this effect in order to justify their high price of FF models but the zero yield could be theoretically true. It's a simple arithmetic with a bit of probability theory that the larger the chip is, the more impact by wafer defects. As you say, the improvement of wafer mfg should naturally increase the yield. But it is true that, when we are talking about the yield of 20 or even 80 as you say, it is not like 1000s as in case of IC chips and larger sensors are far more susceptible to a dramatically lower yield, even including near zero. That's the way I think anyway :-). Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
I find that hard to imagine... and misguided... and I still haven't heard a clamor. I don't know why anybody that has the mindset to shoot RAW format and spend the time post-processing would also not want the max resolution they could get. If file size is an overarching concern, trumping quality, then there's other 6MP models they can buy. Tom C. From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:44:02 -0400 On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:39:47AM -0600, Tom C wrote: Well 'they' are not lying when they claim to have two more MP. That's not marketing hype. It is true. So far I have read nothing in the reviews of Canon's 8MP camera bodies that suggest they perform poorly when held up against Pentax's 6MP bodies. Are you just editorializing? If Pentax had an 8MP and Canon only 6MP, would the same skew be applied? :-) Honestly asking, because so far I haven't heard a single person anywhere clamor for a camera with fewer MP. I guess you've missed all the people who want a 6MP K10D (or K1D), and not a 10MP one. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
What's needed is a simple number to indicate picture quality. Something that would, perhaps, indicate the best camera to use to produce a near-perfect 10x8. That's what most of us are really interested in, whether or not we actually want to print 10x8s. Of course, I realise that in the real world life is more complicated. But this is the number that pixel-counts are standing-in for. John On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:00:56 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's an unfortunate thing that in marketing hype, bigger numbers usually win regardless of whether a camera is a better performer or not. Just like in the megahertz/gigahertz wars in the personal computer world. Buyers should try not to be so driven by marketing hype. G On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Tom C wrote: I agree with you. I would not upgrade from a 6 to 8MP body for the 2MP alone. If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my decision. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
But the article went on to say (or perhaps began by saying) that it used to be worse - around the time of the introduction of the first 1Ds only 5 to 10 of the 80 units would be usable. I don't know enough about IC production to know for sure how Canon has managed to reduce the number of defective units, but I'm assuming that the industry has learned over time how to utilise lower-quality silicon (thus reducing the effects of bad areas on the wafer) and also minimise the number of errors in the production itself. And I've also been assuming that the production quality will continue to improve, which will of course be most beneficial for the larger chips, thus narrowing the gap... I do not know if the yield I quoted (20) already counted out the defects (by definition, yield means that after taking out the defects, right?), however, since they are talking about possible zero yield if the 20 wafer defects are distributed evenly, I would assume that 20/FF is a pre-defect yield. I agree. I can't quite get the numbers to add up, though (see below) But calculating the yield count on zero defect wafer of a given size is not a rocket science and can be easily calculated (you do, please :-). Not rocket science, but still the kind of thing it is a bit too late in the evening for right now... What I mean to say, however, is that intuitively, it seems unlikely that you can fit 10 times as many of the APS-C sized sensors compared to the FF ones, when their area is just 2.5 times or so lower. They are talking about a 8' wafer and now they are pretty much going for 12. I think the article was merely trying to illustrate the problem associated with producing larger chips like photo sensors when the relative count of wafer defects have a significant impact on the yield compared with normal IC chips which could be produce by thousands. Probably. The flip side of the coin here is of course that a reduction of defects also leads to a more significant reduction of cost. And Canon probably have no control over the wafer defects rate as they do not produce wafers (do they?) No, I don't think so. They may be exaggerating this effect in order to justify their high price of FF models but the zero yield could be theoretically true. Quite. It's a simple arithmetic with a bit of probability theory that the larger the chip is, the more impact by wafer defects. As you say, the improvement of wafer mfg should naturally increase the yield. But it is true that, when we are talking about the yield of 20 or even 80 as you say, it is not like 1000s as in case of IC chips and larger sensors are far more susceptible to a dramatically lower yield, even including near zero. That's the way I think anyway :-). Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Well now we're getting into printer characteristics as well. If the native resolution of your printer is 300dpi then you need about 7mp in 6x4.5 equivalent format. Of course if you're willing to put up with 1/2 the native resolution then you would only need a little less than 2mp. There is much left out in this however, and a simple answer there isn't. John Forbes wrote: What's needed is a simple number to indicate picture quality. Something that would, perhaps, indicate the best camera to use to produce a near-perfect 10x8. That's what most of us are really interested in, whether or not we actually want to print 10x8s. Of course, I realise that in the real world life is more complicated. But this is the number that pixel-counts are standing-in for. John On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:00:56 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's an unfortunate thing that in marketing hype, bigger numbers usually win regardless of whether a camera is a better performer or not. Just like in the megahertz/gigahertz wars in the personal computer world. Buyers should try not to be so driven by marketing hype. G On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Tom C wrote: I agree with you. I would not upgrade from a 6 to 8MP body for the 2MP alone. If I was buying a first DSLR though, it would factor into my decision. -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
That depends on what you mean by an 8x10? If you mean a matted 8x10 (7.5x9.5 inches) at 300dpi you need 7.5mp in a 2x3 format sensor. So, the 8mp figure is right in there, while 6mp is a bit small. My little Oly is 5mp but in a 3x4 format so it produce a 256dpi image at that size (7.5x10 actually) as does the 6mp 2x3 format sensor in the Pentax D-SLR's, but with fewer wasted pixels. If you want an 8x10 (or 8x12) 300dpi full bleed image then you need a few more pixels. However 9mp will do it with a tiny bit to spare. If you want 360dpi then you need a bigger sensor, and if you are will to settle for 240dpi a smaller one will do. So, as I said, it it depends upon your definition of a near perfect 8x10. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Forbes wrote: What's needed is a simple number to indicate picture quality. Something that would, perhaps, indicate the best camera to use to produce a near-perfect 10x8. That's what most of us are really interested in, whether or not we actually want to print 10x8s. Of course, I realise that in the real world life is more complicated. But this is the number that pixel-counts are standing-in for. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Of course this completely ignores the fact that a RAW converter interpolation will give you a bigger file with minimal penalty. A post conversion PhotoShop interpolation is almost as good. The gain realized in more pixels far offsets anything lost in the interpolation process. Thus, I print most of my *istD images at 11 x 17, 360 DPI, with excellent results. (Assuming the photographer doesn't screw thins up.:-)/ Paul On Aug 30, 2006, at 9:16 PM, graywolf wrote: That depends on what you mean by an 8x10? If you mean a matted 8x10 (7.5x9.5 inches) at 300dpi you need 7.5mp in a 2x3 format sensor. So, the 8mp figure is right in there, while 6mp is a bit small. My little Oly is 5mp but in a 3x4 format so it produce a 256dpi image at that size (7.5x10 actually) as does the 6mp 2x3 format sensor in the Pentax D-SLR's, but with fewer wasted pixels. If you want an 8x10 (or 8x12) 300dpi full bleed image then you need a few more pixels. However 9mp will do it with a tiny bit to spare. If you want 360dpi then you need a bigger sensor, and if you are will to settle for 240dpi a smaller one will do. So, as I said, it it depends upon your definition of a near perfect 8x10. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Forbes wrote: What's needed is a simple number to indicate picture quality. Something that would, perhaps, indicate the best camera to use to produce a near-perfect 10x8. That's what most of us are really interested in, whether or not we actually want to print 10x8s. Of course, I realise that in the real world life is more complicated. But this is the number that pixel-counts are standing-in for. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may be for cost reduction in the surrounding circuitry. Aligning two CCDs comes with it's own set of problems, I guess. Jostein On 8/29/06, Takeshita K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one, and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 29.08.2006, at 03:38 , Paul Stenquist wrote: But that assumes no further progress in sensor design and capability. I'm not an engineer, so my opinions aren't worth much, but it seems that almost all techologies evolve. Based on lens production, it seems makers like Pentax are betting that they can continue to use APS sensors. Time will tell. Yes, technology is evolving, we shouldn't restrict imaging only to traditional CCD/CMOS imagers. There are already first sensors with very high dynamic range like this one: http://www.ims-chips.de/content/pagedb/pagedb.php3?id=e0841# The most interesting part in description is Aperture or exposure control is not necessary ;-) Cheers, Sylwek -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 8/29/06, Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most interesting part in description is Aperture or exposure control is not necessary ;-) Not sure if the f/64-group would have cringed or applauded...:-) Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:17:43 +0100, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a problem to control (that's simply tied with the physics of semiconductors) and lens performance will become more of an issue. APS formats will now stagnate IMHO. In much the same way there was littl real improvement in film emulsions over the past twenty years. But that didn't make film obsolete - it needed a totally different technology to do that. I suspect that further improvements will be in small increments, but that the (relatively) low cost and small size of APS-based cameras will ensure their survival for the next ten yeras or so. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
I think that is the price, cost would be in the neighborhood of 4x. Price could come down a lot if the productions levels were in the same order of the APS sized sensors. Would you pay a $500 premium for a 24x36mm sensor? That would be a reasonable figure if the cameras were produced in the same quantities. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Joseph Tainter wrote: Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one, and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon. ... We'll see. Cheers, Ken - And I thought I had seen that Sony's APS-C sensors are now down to $50 apiece. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 29/08/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does stagnate mean in this context? Did 135mm film improve in the 15-20 years before digital as dramatically as it originally did? So we will see no more pixelage off APS-C. What is the problem? I can't really see the point to more Pixels in APS form factor sensors, unless you wish to keep buying new improved lenses. Lets see how many good lenses fall out of favour when the 10MP camera arrives first. Secondarily there are the noise and latitude trade-offs to be had which smaller pixel sites, it's just physics. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 8/28/06 10:30 PM, graywolf, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you talking about a Step and Repeat Machine? * That takes a photograph of the IC artwork, and reduces it in size, then prints 4 copies of the artwork 1/2 size. Then it does it again and you get 16 copies 1/4 size, again and you have 64 copies 1/8 size, etc. When you get the IC's down to the desired size you use the image to photo etch the IC's onto the wafer. I can see how there may be a minimum size limit, but not how there can be a maximum size limit. After all the original image is many times larger than the wafer. Of course there may well be a size limit on the automatic cutters that cut the wafers into individual IC's. *My knowledge of this is ancient, they undoubtedly use digital imaging now, but the principle should be the same. I could do some research on modern IC production methods. But why? No one is going to hire me to design IC's for them grin. Hi Graywolf, Several people posted on this subject, and please let me take the liberty of lumping them together and respond with what poor knowledge I have. Like you said, no one is going to hire me on this matter :-). I saw the article a year or so ago, explaining how the current APS size became the de facto standard, and it was NOT performance related, and thought interesting. I do not even remember if it was in Japanese or English. So, I hastily googled, trying to find out the site which might be talking about specifically about this subject (not about the general IC making etc). But so far, I do not have much luck (strange). I googled stepper to see if there is any article talking about the origin of APS sensor size, but the sites explaining the stepper machine itself is relatively few. Anyway, here is what I know. Yes, the stepper is indeed the Step and Repeat Machine for the photolithographing the minute circuit detail on the wafer with photoresist, which by itself is a well known process. But today's stepper became so sophisiticated and cost tens of millions of dollars per unit. I think Nikon, that currently dominate the market sell a few thousand units a year of various sizes as I understand it. It projects the circuit detail through various reticles (circuit pattern) and then a huge reduction glass to demagnify (20cm dia and often 1m length etc). After each shot, the wafer is moved minutely and repeat this step, thus step and repeat. I am sure many people know about this process. The reduction glass obviously requires an extremely high resolution with no distortion and other imaging defects. Now getting to the point, and this is where I only guess as I could not find a dead-on explanation (my disclaimer :-). People in the know should chime in. There is a huge size difference between the IC chips and optical sensor, and the reduction glass must have certain limited range regarding the minimum size (for IC chips) and the maximum size (for optical sensor). I think the sensor mfg probably require the largest projection image from a given stepper. This is probably the limiting factor of the size of the sensor which can be produced in one shot projection process as in IC chip making. To manufacture a larger sensor, the process has to be repeated and it is said that the FF size sensor requires 3 shots to achieve the required photo etching. Then they have to precisely stitch (probably the wrong term) them together to make into a single FF sensor. This obviously requires a lot of redundant steps/process and smaller yield (sometimes zero yield?) and when translated into a commercial production, it is going to cost so much. But above part is only my guess but should not be too far from the truth. The only thing I thought I knew was that the APS-H size sensor was derived from the stepper driven limitations, but NOT by its optimum performance as a product etc, as some people pointed it out recently. I too thought that the APS sensor size was based on the performance-driven considerations but when I read the article (which I am still searching), I remember I was struck to find out that it was actually hardware-driven size. But I could very well be wrong. If and when I found the 'dead-on article (this is not any sort of engineering secret etc, and there must be tons of article about it. Only if I have time...), I will of course post the link. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 29, 2006, at 7:43 AM, K.Takeshita wrote: ... But above part is only my guess but should not be too far from the truth. The only thing I thought I knew was that the APS-H size sensor was derived from the stepper driven limitations, but NOT by its optimum performance as a product etc, as some people pointed it out recently. I too thought that the APS sensor size was based on the performance-driven considerations but when I read the article (which I am still searching), I remember I was struck to find out that it was actually hardware-driven size. ... From my experience with engineering teams working a new product that utilized components like this, the availability of components at a favorable price often places a very high priority on their usage BUT this simple common-sense is not invariably adhered to if there are good engineering reasons to do otherwise. If such a priority is *also* deemed to produce a good engineering solution to a general problem, then there is no reason not to do so. While there were other chip format choices that would fit within the price point, none as big as a 35mm film format that performed well enough were available and they were/are very expensive. This dovetailed nicely with the fact that the lens lines not designed for a digital sensor don't perform as well on larger sensors as they do on smaller sensors. Which came first ... the issues on imaging quality vs the cost advantage ... is irrelevant, really, in the greater scheme of things. Both were considerations. Obviously, since Pentax ran the failed MZ-D project, the incentives to use a 35mm-sized sensor was great to support the use of the existing lens line without change: this would have been the ideal situation. It is also the case that many projects fail for a larger number of reasons than the simplistic report that the public later sums up the failure as being result of. Since we weren't on the project team, we likely do not know all the issues they ran into that caused the MZ-D project failure although some of the highlights are easily understood to be sensor performance, availability and cost. The 16x24 format choice then became a matter of what is available, at what price, and how well will what we have work with it to which I can only surmise that it was deemed acceptable and sensible, and likely going to live for a long time to come given that the company's line of lenses is being shifted to support the new format. I, personally, prefer the 16x24 format as it promotes smaller, lighter lenses that produce the field of view range that I use the most, and I have seen no difficulties with performance for my needs as yet. Others' needs and uses that differ want something different, and there are choices available on the market that suit such differences, just as there were 35mm and medium format cameras in the past. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Would you pay a $500 premium for a 24x36mm sensor? That would be a reasonable figure if the cameras were produced in the same quantities. -- graywolf Yes! Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:24:20AM +0200, Jostein ?ksne wrote: AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may be for cost reduction in the surrounding circuitry. None, to all intents and purposes. If you look at the amount of support circuitry on a sensor (other than the per-pixel stuff, which needs to be there no matter hom many individual pieces the sensor is made of) there's hardly any - a few latches, and the A-to-D logic. Having, one, two, or four copies of those circuits is at most going to add a few pennies to the total cost. Aligning two CCDs comes with it's own set of problems, I guess. Jostein On 8/29/06, Takeshita K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one, and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:24:21AM +0100, John Forbes wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:17:43 +0100, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a problem to control (that's simply tied with the physics of semiconductors) and lens performance will become more of an issue. APS formats will now stagnate IMHO. In much the same way there was littl real improvement in film emulsions over the past twenty years. But that didn't make film obsolete - it needed a totally different technology to do that. I suspect that further improvements will be in small increments, but that the (relatively) low cost and small size of APS-based cameras will ensure their survival for the next ten yeras or so. John I'm sure we'll see APS sensors survive considerably longer than that. I don't subscribe to the doom-and-gloom scenario that we've reached the limits of signal-to-noise ratio, or other physically-based limits; we're still some way away from counting individual photons, and the semiconductor industry as a whole is currently applying vast resources to the issues of power consumption and heat (and noise) generation. In five years time I expect to see at least an order of magnitude improvement in noise control, which would allow for 16-bit sensors. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren at mac.com Tue Aug 29 10:37:23 EST 2006 On Aug 29, 2006, at 7:43 AM, K.Takeshita wrote: But above part is only my guess but should not be too far from the truth. The only thing I thought I knew was that the APS-H size sensor was derived from the stepper driven limitations, but NOT by its optimum performance as a product etc, as some people pointed it out recently. I too thought that the APS sensor size was based on the performance-driven considerations but when I read the article (which I am still searching), I remember I was struck to find out that it was actually hardware-driven size. From my experience with engineering teams working a new product that utilized components like this, the availability of components at a favorable price often places a very high priority on their usage BUT [snipped for short] I, personally, prefer the 16x24 format as it promotes smaller, lighter lenses that produce the field of view range that I use the most, and I have seen no difficulties with performance for my needs as yet. Others' needs and uses that differ want something different, and there are choices available on the market that suit such differences, just as there were 35mm and medium format cameras in the past. I was talking mainly about the origin of the APS sized sensor but wasn't really talking about the APS size vs. FF. However, I always preferred smaller, lighter and more compact cameras and believe APS sized sensor gave the camera makers an opportunity to design compact cameras (and lenses). But Oly's 4/3 was a disappointment. Today's APS sensor gives performance fairly compatible with 35mm film cameras (I know they still need to catch up on shadow details and dynamic ranges, the lack thereof and all that) and there is no question that the performance be further improved rather rapidly. It is already giving us the convenience of usable ISOs WB etc in a single camera (so that we do not have to carry around different films or even bodies) for one thing. With everything else being equal (of course it may never be equal), the argument between APS size and FF size begin to centre around bigger is better just as happened in the film era (I am oversimplifying here of course) and the argument becomes endless. 4x5 67 645 35 APS and so forth. 6mp camera is adequate for the most application. In fact, it would be ideal, as far as I am concerned, if the upcoming K10D would have something like 8mp but with better dynamic range etc. It is benign to the processing system (smaller file size) and kless susceptible to camera shake etc. Canon openly said that 10mp for the APS size sensor is probably the practical (not technical) limit, even though they were the one who hyped up the MP race. When they announced the 30D with 8mp sensor when everybody was expecting 10mp sensors, I was impressed by them so much that I was almost jumping to the dark side. But then, Canon must have other hidden reasons to promote the hype of FF sensors. For one thing, their lenses are too big. They cannot cherish the compact size, but are willing to justify bigger size on everything. Canons are good cameras and I am not bashing them, but they don't entice me for various reasons. Size and weight are not the only reason. Anyway, I side tracked Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
John Francis wrote: On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:24:20AM +0200, Jostein ?ksne wrote: AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may be for cost reduction in the surrounding circuitry. None, to all intents and purposes. If you look at the amount of support circuitry on a sensor (other than the per-pixel stuff, which needs to be there no matter hom many individual pieces the sensor is made of) there's hardly any - a few latches, and the A-to-D logic. Having, one, two, or four copies of those circuits is at most going to add a few pennies to the total cost. I thought a few pennies was the reason we can't have a fully functional aperture ring on the DSLRs. Aligning two CCDs comes with it's own set of problems, I guess. Jostein On 8/29/06, Takeshita K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one, and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
I agree with you about the 4/3 system equipment being much bulkier than I expected. On Aug 29, 2006, at 11:01 AM, K.Takeshita wrote: ..Today's APS sensor gives performance fairly compatible with 35mm film cameras (I know they still need to catch up on shadow details and dynamic ranges, the lack thereof and all that) and there is no question that the performance be further improved rather rapidly. .. Here I disagree with you. From my film and digital work, I'm convinced that I have much more dynamic range and shadow detail to work with in the digital capture exposures than I did with 35mm. Output from the Canon 10D and Pentax *ist DS rivals medium format in tonalities, imo. .. 6mp camera is adequate for the most application. In fact, it would be ideal, as far as I am concerned, if the upcoming K10D would have something like 8mp but with better dynamic range etc. ... Since I don't have one to judge yet, I can't say that the K10D is or isn't better than an 8Mpixel variant of same would be. I do know that between 6 and 8 Mpixel produces very little real difference in output prints, 10Mpixel does pull more detail out on wide views, with a 28-29% improvement in linear resolution. I can see it when comparing *ist DS vs Sony R1 captures where it is extremely difficult to see any difference comparing *ist DS vs KM A2 captures (only 8-9% linear resolution improvement for the latter). Side tracked? On the PDML? ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Den 29. aug. 2006 kl. 18.56 skrev John Francis: On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 09:24:20AM +0200, Jostein ?ksne wrote: AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may be for cost reduction in the surrounding circuitry. None, to all intents and purposes. If you look at the amount of support circuitry on a sensor (other than the per-pixel stuff, which needs to be there no matter hom many individual pieces the sensor is made of) there's hardly any - a few latches, and the A-to-D logic. Having, one, two, or four copies of those circuits is at most going to add a few pennies to the total cost. No. It is much easier to produce two small and sufficiently perfect silicon crystals than one at the size of the two. On the other hand the problem with combining two sensors is the production of circuitry close to the sensor edges or the advanced optics if they are spaced apart. DagT http://dag.foto.no Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren at mac.com Tue Aug 29 16:04:37 EST 2006 .. 6mp camera is adequate for the most application. In fact, it would be ideal, as far as I am concerned, if the upcoming K10D would have something like 8mp but with better dynamic range etc. ... Since I don't have one to judge yet, I can't say that the K10D is or isn't better than an 8Mpixel variant of same would be. I do know that between 6 and 8 Mpixel produces very little real difference in output prints, 10Mpixel does pull more detail out on wide views, with a 28-29% improvement in linear resolution. I can see it when comparing *ist DS vs Sony R1 captures where it is extremely difficult to see any difference comparing *ist DS vs KM A2 captures (only 8-9% linear resolution improvement for the latter). This is well known but when I see Canon's future offer of 20mp or 16.4mp etc (mind you, these are for the pro offering) I shiver :-). I do not have a 10mp camera but I am comfortable with 6mp and 8mp is just for having a bit of margin when it's required, plus 8mp sensors are off the shelf standard item. Other than that, I just took the 8mp figure off the air. If I do commercial photography, I might have to choose at least 10mp body by necessity, but glad I'm not. I just wish to enjoy taking photos and print them. Once in a while, I have to go up to A4 size but 6mp will do and 8mp will just enhance the confidence. I know that between 6mp and 10mp, one can see the difference particularly in the larger size print. But this is where you begin to see other potential problems (other than the lens issue) such as the sensitivity to the camera shake etc. Perhaps SR will take care of it, and it might actually be a necessity. In my genre of photography, I do not see any need of FF size sensor. Besides, the current DA lenses have larger image circle to take care of the sensor movement for SR, thus 40mm for example is usable in 35mm film cameras. But I do not know how much larger image circles the FF lenses might need in relation to the SR. Pentax have obviously been revamping the whole lens line in the last 3 years or so, and the next lens line will be longer telephotos DFAs with USM. I am curious to see what the image circle size for these lenses would be. But evry maker has been saying that the FF (or larger sensor) is almost strictly a matter of cost, and when everybody else offers so called FF size sensor, I do not see any reason why Pentax won't. But I wish every maker retains the APS size sensor anyway. So, to me, the FF issue at the present is a moot point. DA lenses are mostly to take care of wider ends of APS size sensor, which they pretty much completed, and any future lenses would be DFA. I do not think Pentax would offer something like 200/2.8 in APS image circle. No reason for it. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
What I don't understand is the feigned negativity or brush-off of an 8MP sensor vs. a 6 MP sensor. All things being equal (a phrase now in popular usage on the PDML) an 8MP sensor should provide a higher resolution image than a 6MP sensor. Just because one does not immediately perceive it in a given shot, or at particular print size, does not mean it is not there, or that it will not be of value when cropping an image. If 8 or 9% is considered trivial, than I would gladly invite any and all to donate between 8 and 9% of their paycheck to my cause. I won't turn it down. :-) For that matter it seems that 8MP DSLR's will be considered passe in the immediate future. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:04:47 -0400 Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren at mac.com Tue Aug 29 16:04:37 EST 2006 .. 6mp camera is adequate for the most application. In fact, it would be ideal, as far as I am concerned, if the upcoming K10D would have something like 8mp but with better dynamic range etc. ... Since I don't have one to judge yet, I can't say that the K10D is or isn't better than an 8Mpixel variant of same would be. I do know that between 6 and 8 Mpixel produces very little real difference in output prints, 10Mpixel does pull more detail out on wide views, with a 28-29% improvement in linear resolution. I can see it when comparing *ist DS vs Sony R1 captures where it is extremely difficult to see any difference comparing *ist DS vs KM A2 captures (only 8-9% linear resolution improvement for the latter). This is well known but when I see Canon's future offer of 20mp or 16.4mp etc (mind you, these are for the pro offering) I shiver :-). I do not have a 10mp camera but I am comfortable with 6mp and 8mp is just for having a bit of margin when it's required, plus 8mp sensors are off the shelf standard item. Other than that, I just took the 8mp figure off the air. If I do commercial photography, I might have to choose at least 10mp body by necessity, but glad I'm not. I just wish to enjoy taking photos and print them. Once in a while, I have to go up to A4 size but 6mp will do and 8mp will just enhance the confidence. I know that between 6mp and 10mp, one can see the difference particularly in the larger size print. But this is where you begin to see other potential problems (other than the lens issue) such as the sensitivity to the camera shake etc. Perhaps SR will take care of it, and it might actually be a necessity. In my genre of photography, I do not see any need of FF size sensor. Besides, the current DA lenses have larger image circle to take care of the sensor movement for SR, thus 40mm for example is usable in 35mm film cameras. But I do not know how much larger image circles the FF lenses might need in relation to the SR. Pentax have obviously been revamping the whole lens line in the last 3 years or so, and the next lens line will be longer telephotos DFAs with USM. I am curious to see what the image circle size for these lenses would be. But evry maker has been saying that the FF (or larger sensor) is almost strictly a matter of cost, and when everybody else offers so called FF size sensor, I do not see any reason why Pentax won't. But I wish every maker retains the APS size sensor anyway. So, to me, the FF issue at the present is a moot point. DA lenses are mostly to take care of wider ends of APS size sensor, which they pretty much completed, and any future lenses would be DFA. I do not think Pentax would offer something like 200/2.8 in APS image circle. No reason for it. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 8/29/06 3:24 AM, Jostein Øksne, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAIK, many of the MedF digitals achieve larger sensors by combining more than one CCD. When doubling the area of a sensor means a tenfold increase in cost it makes me wonder what kind of potential there may be for cost reduction in the surrounding circuitry. Aligning two CCDs comes with it's own set of problems, I guess. I think this is pretty much true. Not that I am obsessed with this subject, my inability to find the article referring to the origin of the APS sized sensor and its rationalization frustrates me. It may have been Canon's press release or something which made a big deal out of what they called a breakthrough in making larger photo sensors in one shot by a stepper. It may have been more than a year ago. Anyway, I dug into the collection of Canon's press release etc, and accidentally encountered a Japanese site dated yesterday which quoted Rob Galbraith's DPI (Digital Photography Insights) page. This is dated 8/23 and linking to Canon's white paper on their FF sensor which DPI says is not yet available to the public for downloading. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7897-8537 In there, there is a link to the white paper in PDF. Interestingly, there is the following description in page 12; [Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full- frame sensors will always cost much more than cameras with smaller sensors. That's why the EOS Digital RebelXT, EOS20D and EOS30D are such excellent values, and it is also why the EOS5D and the EOS-1DsMarkII must come with a substantial price differential. (Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D MarkII N is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. Extended through the whole sensor production process, the difference in price between the 1D MarkII N and the 1DsMarkII can be readily understood.) Each camera's position in the marketplace is clear. There are many photographers for whom image quality is the most important thing, even as they have serious concerns about portability, practicality and expense. For them, no other manufacturer currently offers a wider selection of solutions than Canon.] OK, obviously, they are trying to justify the price of their models with larger sensors but it does say that the APS size is indeed the max size obtainable in one shot by a stepper (sigh of relief :-). I also saw an article just a couple of days ago, stating that the cost of FF sensor is 10 to 20 times larger than that of APS sized one and it won't narrow. But I have a bad habit of not bookmarking. Maybe I read it somewhere in this white paper. I will take a time to read it more in detail later ;-). Anyway, I thought this was an interesting reading material for those contemplating on FF sensors :-). Incidentally, when I was looking for articles, I also encountered EOS Roadmap which is a private Norwegian site and maybe an old story. Nevertheless, I think it is interesting and put a link here. http://www.dialogen.no/foto/EOS_cameras.pdf Yes, I know this is the Pentax list :-). Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon What I don't understand is the feigned negativity or brush-off of an 8MP sensor vs. a 6 MP sensor. A 6mp sensor is approximately 2000x3000 pixels. An 8mp sensor is about 2300x3400 pixels. At 300dpi printing resolution, you get about 1 more print dimension before you interpolate. It's nothing to get worked up over. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
8Mpixel does pose an advantage over 6Mpixel, presuming all else is equal. I disagree with your comment Just because one does not immediately perceive it [higher resolution] in a given shot, or at particular print size, does not mean it is not there... . The improvement is simply small and is not noticeable until you get to very large sized print output. With a photograph, unless you can see the resolution in the image at some print size, it isn't there. The cropping advantage is there but it's modest. For instance, the Canon 20D produces 3504 x 2336 image resolution vs the *ist DS 3008x2008. That's a 496 x 328 pixel difference, not nothing but only enough for about a 5 degree rotation at best without cropping the 6Mpixel image. Given the choice of an updated, improved *ist D or DS with 8Mpixel as the *only* improvement, I'd pass. It's not *enough* of an improvement to warrant buying a new body, for me at least. Godfrey On Aug 29, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Tom C wrote: What I don't understand is the feigned negativity or brush-off of an 8MP sensor vs. a 6 MP sensor. All things being equal (a phrase now in popular usage on the PDML) an 8MP sensor should provide a higher resolution image than a 6MP sensor. Just because one does not immediately perceive it in a given shot, or at particular print size, does not mean it is not there, or that it will not be of value when cropping an image. If 8 or 9% is considered trivial, than I would gladly invite any and all to donate between 8 and 9% of their paycheck to my cause. I won't turn it down. :-) For that matter it seems that 8MP DSLR's will be considered passe in the immediate future. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On Aug 29, 2006, at 5:15 PM, KEN TAKESHITA wrote: http://www.dialogen.no/foto/EOS_cameras.pdf I'll look at it again when they get to 36 Mpixel. That's double the resolution of the 10D, a worthwhile improvement. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon (and their propaganda)
On 8/29/06 9:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll look at it again when they get to 36 Mpixel. That's double the resolution of the 10D, a worthwhile improvement. ;-) I chuckle too, but look at their pixel density of a couple of models, most notably 6D and 50D (50D particularly). They manage to maintain the density in spite of quite a jump on pixel count. If this means the higher resolution with better dynamic range, it is indeed interesting. But then again, it is not going to be Canon's domination. Others will do the same, but the image quality is equally (or more) resides in the processing capability. But the pixel count appears to go up and up in the foreseeable future. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Which is more important, the heart or the head? Each of us will decide and act accordingly. [Previously, on the PDML] I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but using a wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to me. I still like it, I wish I was using a 50mm focal length instead of a 31mm lens cropped. ??? I don't know how you can tell the difference. The lenses' rendering qualities might be slightly different with respect to out of focus elements and rectilinear correction, but with regard to field of view and perspective: if the field of view is the same, the perspective will look the same. The field of view is the same, but that doesn't say anything about the transform taking place optically. The image from 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens != 50mm full frame. Try it. You can really see it when you're framing, and it makes for weird magnification of things close to the lens. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Your arse! You can pull all sorts of shnonsense out of it. Dave (not meaning to imply anyone here is doing so) On 8/28/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is more important, the heart or the head? Each of us will decide and act accordingly. [Previously, on the PDML] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 28/8/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: You can pull all sorts of shnonsense out of it. Dave (not meaning to imply anyone here is doing so) Why of course not Dave. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Den 28. aug. 2006 kl. 03.11 skrev Ryan K. Brooks: On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is. In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm taking a profile, for example. Whereas a 50mm would compress this distance more. I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but using a wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to me. I still like it, I wish I was using a 50mm focal length instead of a 31mm lens cropped. ??? I don't know how you can tell the difference. The lenses' rendering qualities might be slightly different with respect to out of focus elements and rectilinear correction, but with regard to field of view and perspective: if the field of view is the same, the perspective will look the same. The field of view is the same, but that doesn't say anything about the transform taking place optically. The image from 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens != 50mm full frame. Try it. You can really see it when you're framing, and it makes for weird magnification of things close to the lens. I'm not talking about bokeh or anything esoteric. Try it. Cropped focal length isn't the same as focal length. Not interested in a debate, Time for a reality check? If this was true compact digital cameras would be hopeless. Just image the perspective you get with a 6 or 7mm lens on full frame. Or the other way around: Why do you get wide angle perspective with a 40mm and 6x6cm film, like this: http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=209653 ? DagT http://dag.foto.no Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 28/08/06, Takeshita K marinerone at gmail.com wrote: My understanding is that the current size is the one which produces the most yield under the current process using the stepper. It's not the choice by the camera makers or sensor makers etc. I used to have a link which explains this, but lost it. Will dig it I'm not familiar with the term stepper: in this context. Yield factors make a big difference to sensor manufacture affordability over other general semiconductors which don't often exceed 10x10mm. The shear expanse of a sensor area means that due to the lower numbers of chips per silicon wafer (for all intents a fixed cost) any wafer contaminants will render a larger portion of the wafer to waste. And since wafers are circular (Sony now produced 300mm diameter wafers) the larger the sensor produced the more the waste. The tech used to produce the sensor used in the Kodak 14MP FF meant that there were only 11 full sensors per wafer (approx 125mm diameter) assuming a 100% yield, no wonder they were expensive. Think how many 24x16mm sensor could be shoehorned into a 300mm diameter wafer vs 36x24mm sensors, it's not a linear correlation. My mail on this subject bounced, and that's probably because I inadvertently used a different address. If it's duplicated somehow, my apology. Anyway I have not dug into any specific site yet, but my memory goes like this. This is indeed a stepper' issue, and not about the usual yield per wafer argument. APS-H size sensor is the maximum size that can be obtained by a one shot exposure in the lithography process using a stepper. i.e., it's a stepper-driven size limitation. Anything smaller than that indeed becomes a yield issue, i.e., max obtainable numbers per circular wafer. Incidentally, Nikon is the world largest maker of the high performance stepper which Sony also uses. I thought I saw an article somewhere that Canon developed a process (or probably stepper) which can make a FF size sensor in one shot exposure, thus significantly reducing the cost of such sensor, hence 5D. Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one, and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon. I also saw some articles that both Nikon and Pentax, particularly Nikon, said that if the cost of FF sensors come down sufficiently to make any commercial sense, and if the lens/sensor performance could be reasonably conformed to such a sensor, there is no reason not to produce FF machines. But most of experts are predicting that APS size sensor has already become a de facto standard, and with the performance of APS sized sensor being rapidly increasing, they do not see any pressing need to rush the FF machines. We'll see. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 29/08/06, Takeshita K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is indeed a stepper' issue, and not about the usual yield per wafer argument. APS-H size sensor is the maximum size that can be obtained by a one shot exposure in the lithography process using a stepper. i.e., it's a stepper-driven size limitation. Anything smaller than that indeed becomes a yield issue, i.e., max obtainable numbers per circular wafer. Hi Ken, I'd love to see the article. But most of experts are predicting that APS size sensor has already become a de facto standard, and with the performance of APS sized sensor being rapidly increasing, they do not see any pressing need to rush the FF machines. We'll see. My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a problem to control (that's simply tied with the physics of semiconductors) and lens performance will become more of an issue. APS formats will now stagnate IMHO. Cheers, -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a problem to control (that's simply tied with the physics of semiconductors) and lens performance will become more of an issue. APS formats will now stagnate IMHO. But that assumes no further progress in sensor design and capability. I'm not an engineer, so my opinions aren't worth much, but it seems that almost all techologies evolve. Based on lens production, it seems makers like Pentax are betting that they can continue to use APS sensors. Time will tell. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one, and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon. ... We'll see. Cheers, Ken - And I thought I had seen that Sony's APS-C sensors are now down to $50 apiece. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Are you talking about a Step and Repeat Machine? * That takes a photograph of the IC artwork, and reduces it in size, then prints 4 copies of the artwork 1/2 size. Then it does it again and you get 16 copies 1/4 size, again and you have 64 copies 1/8 size, etc. When you get the IC's down to the desired size you use the image to photo etch the IC's onto the wafer. I can see how there may be a minimum size limit, but not how there can be a maximum size limit. After all the original image is many times larger than the wafer. Of course there may well be a size limit on the automatic cutters that cut the wafers into individual IC's. *My knowledge of this is ancient, they undoubtedly use digital imaging now, but the principle should be the same. I could do some research on modern IC production methods. But why? No one is going to hire me to design IC's for them grin. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Takeshita K wrote: On 28/08/06, Takeshita K marinerone at gmail.com wrote: My understanding is that the current size is the one which produces the most yield under the current process using the stepper. It's not the choice by the camera makers or sensor makers etc. I used to have a link which explains this, but lost it. Will dig it I'm not familiar with the term stepper: in this context. Yield factors make a big difference to sensor manufacture affordability over other general semiconductors which don't often exceed 10x10mm. The shear expanse of a sensor area means that due to the lower numbers of chips per silicon wafer (for all intents a fixed cost) any wafer contaminants will render a larger portion of the wafer to waste. And since wafers are circular (Sony now produced 300mm diameter wafers) the larger the sensor produced the more the waste. The tech used to produce the sensor used in the Kodak 14MP FF meant that there were only 11 full sensors per wafer (approx 125mm diameter) assuming a 100% yield, no wonder they were expensive. Think how many 24x16mm sensor could be shoehorned into a 300mm diameter wafer vs 36x24mm sensors, it's not a linear correlation. My mail on this subject bounced, and that's probably because I inadvertently used a different address. If it's duplicated somehow, my apology. Anyway I have not dug into any specific site yet, but my memory goes like this. This is indeed a stepper' issue, and not about the usual yield per wafer argument. APS-H size sensor is the maximum size that can be obtained by a one shot exposure in the lithography process using a stepper. i.e., it's a stepper-driven size limitation. Anything smaller than that indeed becomes a yield issue, i.e., max obtainable numbers per circular wafer. Incidentally, Nikon is the world largest maker of the high performance stepper which Sony also uses. I thought I saw an article somewhere that Canon developed a process (or probably stepper) which can make a FF size sensor in one shot exposure, thus significantly reducing the cost of such sensor, hence 5D. Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one, and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon. I also saw some articles that both Nikon and Pentax, particularly Nikon, said that if the cost of FF sensors come down sufficiently to make any commercial sense, and if the lens/sensor performance could be reasonably conformed to such a sensor, there is no reason not to produce FF machines. But most of experts are predicting that APS size sensor has already become a de facto standard, and with the performance of APS sized sensor being rapidly increasing, they do not see any pressing need to rush the FF machines. We'll see. Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 28, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: Nevertheless, my understanding is that the cost of the FF size sensors is at least 10 times (or more) that of the APS sized one, and this gap is not going to narrow any time soon. And I thought I had seen that Sony's APS-C sensors are now down to $50 apiece. That sounds like the 9:1 or 10:1 price differential I'd heard some folks at Agilent speak of (24x36 imager chips at around $400-500 per unit). G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
graywolf wrote: *My knowledge of this is ancient, they undoubtedly use digital imaging now, but the principle should be the same. I could do some research on modern IC production methods. But why? No one is going to hire me to design IC's for them grin. I don't know if it's digital or analog, but it's getting into the ultraviolet for the exposure wavelengths to accommodate the teeny tiny feature sizes they're achieving on some ICs. I doubt this applies to imaging sensors, though, because their features tend to be very large as those things go. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Digital Image Studio wrote: My prediction is that anything beyond 10MP in APS format will yield very diminishing returns, noise and dynamics will become more of a problem to control (that's simply tied with the physics of semiconductors) and lens performance will become more of an issue. APS formats will now stagnate IMHO. What does stagnate mean in this context? Did 135mm film improve in the 15-20 years before digital as dramatically as it originally did? So we will see no more pixelage off APS-C. What is the problem? Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Adam Maas wrote: The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's don't have the bokeh of those 85's. The biggest complainers seem to be the Canon users (but Canon 85 f1.2L's are ridiculously expensive). -Adam My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at all to me. -Ryan 1dsm2 and istD user -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics. They could have chosen several different sized sensors in this size/ price class by the economics, including 4/3 and maybe even 1/3x. Choices were available. Choosing the 1.5x or 16x24mm sensor size was a choice for commonality of format proportions, sensible engineering from the lens design, and economics. Personally, I'd have preferred a 4:3 proportion sensor. It would have fit my work from full frame to square to more oblong better, on average, with less overall waste of area for making my average crop. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Economics are certainly a factor in the choice of that sensor size, but it was, nevertheless, a choice. And it seems to have become the industry standard. That will lead to more development and better quality. Paul On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Huh? On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at all to me. -Ryan 1dsm2 and istD user -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's don't have the bokeh of those 85's. The biggest complainers seem to be the Canon users (but Canon 85 f1.2L's are ridiculously expensive). My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at all to me. I'm not sure what you're saying, Ryan. If you're using a 16x24mm sensor and fit a 35mm lens, you get the same field of view as you do with a 50mm lens fitted on a 24x36mm film body. That implies the same perspectives as well, since perspective is a function of distance. A 31mm lens is a little wider than that film 'normal' but is still within the range of normal. What about the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal to you on your *ist D? Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Paul Stenquist wrote: Huh? On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: The difference of a 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens versus a 50mm full-frame shot. My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at all to me. -Ryan 1dsm2 and istD user -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's don't have the bokeh of those 85's. The biggest complainers seem to be the Canon users (but Canon 85 f1.2L's are ridiculously expensive). My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at all to me. I'm not sure what you're saying, Ryan. If you're using a 16x24mm sensor and fit a 35mm lens, you get the same field of view as you do with a 50mm lens fitted on a 24x36mm film body. That implies the same perspectives as well, since perspective is a function of distance. A 31mm lens is a little wider than that film 'normal' but is still within the range of normal. What about the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal to you on your *ist D? It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is. In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm taking a profile, for example. Whereas a 50mm would compress this distance more. I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but using a wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to me. I still like it, I wish I was using a 50mm focal length instead of a 31mm lens cropped. -R -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
I have to admit that my SMC-F 28/2.8 on my D (more or less 42mm) doesn't like normal at all, it does indeed feels like WA. Even my FA 50/1.4 look more normal on my D than my 28... weird. Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is. In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm taking a profile, for example. Whereas a 50mm would compress this distance more. I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but using a wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to me. I still like it, I wish I was using a 50mm focal length instead of a 31mm lens cropped. ??? I don't know how you can tell the difference. The lenses' rendering qualities might be slightly different with respect to out of focus elements and rectilinear correction, but with regard to field of view and perspective: if the field of view is the same, the perspective will look the same. A 31mm field of view on the *ist D is not equivalent to a 50mm field of view on 24x36mm format, for that you need a 35mm lens on the *ist D for the closest match. I don't have a 35mm film body to do a direct comparison myself, but looking at my older 35mm film work with 50mm lenses and comparing them to the *ist DS fitted with a 35mm f/2 lens, there is *no* difference in field of view of any significance and the perspective is identical. Please post a pair of photographs that illustrate what you're seeing. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Thibouille wrote: I have to admit that my SMC-F 28/2.8 on my D (more or less 42mm) doesn't like normal at all, it does indeed feels like WA. Even my FA 50/1.4 look more normal on my D than my 28... weird. Again, please post a couple of comparison photographs showing what you mean. Obviously, 28mm on the D is a wide normal, not equivalent to a 50mm lens on 35mm film. A 35mm lens on the D should look *identical* to a 50mm lens rendering on film. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Ryan Brooks wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's don't have the bokeh of those 85's. The biggest complainers seem to be the Canon users (but Canon 85 f1.2L's are ridiculously expensive). My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at all to me. I'm not sure what you're saying, Ryan. If you're using a 16x24mm sensor and fit a 35mm lens, you get the same field of view as you do with a 50mm lens fitted on a 24x36mm film body. That implies the same perspectives as well, since perspective is a function of distance. A 31mm lens is a little wider than that film 'normal' but is still within the range of normal. What about the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal to you on your *ist D? It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is. In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm taking a profile, for example. Whereas a 50mm would compress this distance more. I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but using a wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to me. I still like it, I wish I was using a 50mm focal length instead of a 31mm lens cropped. -R But 50mm on film is just a crop of a WA as well (since a 50mm is a wide on all larger formats), that's how different formats determine different fields of view. Perspective is entirely a function of differnce, but the 31 is closer to a true normal on DX format digital than 50mm is on 35mm film (50mm is actually a telephoto lens, 43mm is of course the true normal. DX normal is 29mm after rounding to the nearest whole mm). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
The perspective and filed of view you get with a 35mm lens on an *istD should be almost identical to that of a 50mm lens on a film camera. That's what the science says, and it is supported by my experience. I think the difference is in your mind. Paul On Aug 27, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: Huh? On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: The difference of a 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens versus a 50mm full- frame shot. My complaint is about normal lengths, ala 50mm. A 31mm perspective is fine, but the 31mm focal length doesn't look normal at all to me. -Ryan 1dsm2 and istD user -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 28/08/06, Ryan Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics. I've always assumed that it was the sweet spot for sensor design re cost vs saleability. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 27, 2006, at 8:17 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise Nah, not chosen. Dictated by economics. I've always assumed that it was the sweet spot for sensor design re cost vs saleability. My understanding is that the current size is the one which produces the most yield under the current process using the stepper. It's not the choice by the camera makers or sensor makers etc. I used to have a link which explains this, but lost it. Will dig it again. BTW, Canon developed a process which creates a larger sensor size by one step process (not having to repeat) which significantly reduced the cost of larger sensors. One step process or the multi-step ones, I forgot the detail. As I said, i will dig it out, or the resident expert (s) should complement this ;-). Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On 28/08/06, Takeshita K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My understanding is that the current size is the one which produces the most yield under the current process using the stepper. It's not the choice by the camera makers or sensor makers etc. I used to have a link which explains this, but lost it. Will dig it I'm not familiar with the term stepper: in this context. Yield factors make a big difference to sensor manufacture affordability over other general semiconductors which don't often exceed 10x10mm. The shear expanse of a sensor area means that due to the lower numbers of chips per silicon wafer (for all intents a fixed cost) any wafer contaminants will render a larger portion of the wafer to waste. And since wafers are circular (Sony now produced 300mm diameter wafers) the larger the sensor produced the more the waste. The tech used to produce the sensor used in the Kodak 14MP FF meant that there were only 11 full sensors per wafer (approx 125mm diameter) assuming a 100% yield, no wonder they were expensive. Think how many 24x16mm sensor could be shoehorned into a 300mm diameter wafer vs 36x24mm sensors, it's not a linear correlation. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is. In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm taking a profile, for example. Whereas a 50mm would compress this distance more. I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but using a wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to me. I still like it, I wish I was using a 50mm focal length instead of a 31mm lens cropped. ??? I don't know how you can tell the difference. The lenses' rendering qualities might be slightly different with respect to out of focus elements and rectilinear correction, but with regard to field of view and perspective: if the field of view is the same, the perspective will look the same. The field of view is the same, but that doesn't say anything about the transform taking place optically. The image from 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens != 50mm full frame. Try it. You can really see it when you're framing, and it makes for weird magnification of things close to the lens. I'm not talking about bokeh or anything esoteric. Try it. Cropped focal length isn't the same as focal length. Not interested in a debate, -R -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
I can see why you're not interested in a debate. You're incorrect on this one. Paul On Aug 27, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Ryan K. Brooks wrote: On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is. In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm taking a profile, for example. Whereas a 50mm would compress this distance more. I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but using a wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to me. I still like it, I wish I was using a 50mm focal length instead of a 31mm lens cropped. ??? I don't know how you can tell the difference. The lenses' rendering qualities might be slightly different with respect to out of focus elements and rectilinear correction, but with regard to field of view and perspective: if the field of view is the same, the perspective will look the same. The field of view is the same, but that doesn't say anything about the transform taking place optically. The image from 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens != 50mm full frame. Try it. You can really see it when you're framing, and it makes for weird magnification of things close to the lens. I'm not talking about bokeh or anything esoteric. Try it. Cropped focal length isn't the same as focal length. Not interested in a debate, -R -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Ryan K. Brooks wrote: On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote: It appears to be a crop of a wide angle lens, which it is. In particular, informal head and shoulders shots look a bit odd if I'm close to the subject. The shoulder may seem enlarged if I'm taking a profile, for example. Whereas a 50mm would compress this distance more. I thought I would be at home with the 31mm limited on the D, but using a wide angle lens to achieve a normal-length crop is a bit wonky to me. I still like it, I wish I was using a 50mm focal length instead of a 31mm lens cropped. ??? I don't know how you can tell the difference. The lenses' rendering qualities might be slightly different with respect to out of focus elements and rectilinear correction, but with regard to field of view and perspective: if the field of view is the same, the perspective will look the same. The field of view is the same, but that doesn't say anything about the transform taking place optically. The image from 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens != 50mm full frame. Try it. You can really see it when you're framing, and it makes for weird magnification of things close to the lens. I'm not talking about bokeh or anything esoteric. Try it. Cropped focal length isn't the same as focal length. Not interested in a debate, -R The difference you're seeing is at most because the 31mm on Digital is closer to a 45mm lens on 135 film than a 50. Compare a 35mm f2 and a 50 and you'll see the same thing. Perspective is totally due to distance. Field of view is based on focal length and format size. Otherwise everything comes down to the unique character of the lens design. Same field of view and same distance will provide the same perspective. That's simply physics. Note I've tried this, at least on my Nikons (I didn't own a 35mm lens when I had my *istD). The 35mm on my D50 and the 50mm on my F3 look the same. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 27, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Ryan K. Brooks wrote: The field of view is the same, but that doesn't say anything about the transform taking place optically. The image from 50mm crop of a ~31mm lens != 50mm full frame. Try it. You can really see it when you're framing, and it makes for weird magnification of things close to the lens. I'm not talking about bokeh or anything esoteric. Try it. Cropped focal length isn't the same as focal length. Not interested in a debate, Nonsense. There is no such thing as cropped focal length. What transform are you talking about? The lens ls projecting an image, in both cases, straight onto the sensor or film plane. Mayhap I'll borrow a Pentax film camera, stick an FA50 on it, fit an FA35mm on my *ist DS, and take a photo of a reference test subject. You will not be able to tell the difference, I guarantee it. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Mark Roberts wrote: Pentax has already done motorcycles: http://www.motorsports-network.com/kawasaki/06kaw/zx10.htm (ZX-10) Plastic mount? Kostas (Kawasaki fan from the distance) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do about it with lens design. However, since SLR UWA lenses are extreme retrofocus lenses the light coming out the back side is not at the extreme angles that it is from a normal UWA. But it's still more extreme than with longer lenses, isn't it? The conventional wisdom is of course that digital sensors are more sensitive to those angles than film, of course... But I don't know a lot about it, or even care. I was just trying to point out that it seemed unfair to draw conclusions about lenses in general based on the behaviour of wide-angles. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
By the same token, though, the strongest desire for full frame sensors comes from those with older wide angle lenses that they wish to use at their originally intended angle of view. I don't think I've ever seen a complaint that went I'm mad because my 200 2.8 acts like a 300 2.8. So performance of wide angles is of paramount concern. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Fri 2006 Aug 25 2:23 pm Size: 727 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do about it with lens design. However, since SLR UWA lenses are extreme retrofocus lenses the light coming out the back side is not at the extreme angles that it is from a normal UWA. But it's still more extreme than with longer lenses, isn't it? The conventional wisdom is of course that digital sensors are more sensitive to those angles than film, of course... But I don't know a lot about it, or even care. I was just trying to point out that it seemed unfair to draw conclusions about lenses in general based on the behaviour of wide-angles. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
The only complaints about crop factors and telephoto's I've run acros are about 85's. Not many people are happy that their uber-pricey portrait tele's are now too long for general use and the 50's don't have the bokeh of those 85's. The biggest complainers seem to be the Canon users (but Canon 85 f1.2L's are ridiculously expensive). -Adam Aaron Reynolds wrote: By the same token, though, the strongest desire for full frame sensors comes from those with older wide angle lenses that they wish to use at their originally intended angle of view. I don't think I've ever seen a complaint that went I'm mad because my 200 2.8 acts like a 300 2.8. So performance of wide angles is of paramount concern. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Fri 2006 Aug 25 2:23 pm Size: 727 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do about it with lens design. However, since SLR UWA lenses are extreme retrofocus lenses the light coming out the back side is not at the extreme angles that it is from a normal UWA. But it's still more extreme than with longer lenses, isn't it? The conventional wisdom is of course that digital sensors are more sensitive to those angles than film, of course... But I don't know a lot about it, or even care. I was just trying to point out that it seemed unfair to draw conclusions about lenses in general based on the behaviour of wide-angles. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
By the same token, though, the strongest desire for full frame sensors comes from those with older wide angle lenses that they wish to use at their originally intended angle of view. I don't think I've ever seen a complaint that went I'm mad because my 200 2.8 acts like a 300 2.8. So performance of wide angles is of paramount concern. I a way, yes, but with a crop sensor those pixels near the edge simply won't be there at all. I'd prefer a slight fall-off, I think... Also, don't you get the same kind of problems with a e.g. DX-size (!) sensor and a lens that's sufficiently wider to give an equivalent field-of-view? - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 25, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: I a way, yes, but with a crop sensor those pixels near the edge simply won't be there at all. I'd prefer a slight fall-off, I think... The issue is not confined to just a slight fall-off of illumination. With non-perpendicular light paths onto a sensor, diffraction around the edges of the photosite wells at corners add up to make chromatic aberration and moire which is difficult to correct, reducing resolution and quality. Also, don't you get the same kind of problems with a e.g. DX-size (!) sensor and a lens that's sufficiently wider to give an equivalent field-of-view? Not if your lens design for the digital sensor is formulated to correct the ray trace so as to make the edge/corner rays more perpendicular to the sensor plane. This is done with a couple of correcting elements well behind the primary lens groups. Without a swinging mirror to deal with, fixed lens digital cameras with optimized lenses use correcting elements to align the light path with elements that very closely approach the sensor, minimizing photo-site well diffraction and moire effects, corner light fall off, etc. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Also, don't you get the same kind of problems with a e.g. DX-size (!) sensor and a lens that's sufficiently wider to give an equivalent field-of-view? Not if your lens design for the digital sensor is formulated to correct the ray trace so as to make the edge/corner rays more perpendicular to the sensor plane. This is done with a couple of correcting elements well behind the primary lens groups. Graywolf seemed to suggest that the lens designers are (were) in fact doing this already on traditional SLR wide-angles, and that it would be hard to correct the rays even further... - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Exactly! Not that you can not push the design but then you lose more guality. The fact is that the 35mm based Pentax bodies have a backfocus distance of about 46mm. Now the physical nodal point of the lens can be somewhat (a few millimeters) behind that so maybe you can produce a standard lens of say 40mm. That means that any lens shorter than 40mm has to be a retrofocus design. A retrofocus lens is a lens whose optical focal length is shorter than its physical focal length. You design a 15mm/3.5 that adequately covers 43mm (the circle you need to cover 35mm film) it is certainly going to cover an APS-C sized sensor and the light rays coming from it will be at the same angle as those from a 40 mm normal lens in either case. Now if you have no problem with a 40mm lens on the digital sensor, you will obviously have none with the 15mm either. Claiming that it is the short focal length and the acute angle is causing a problem simply implies that the person making the statement does not understand optics very well. Now by restricting the angle of the back focus (smaller circle of coverage) one can make a lens that has slightly better edge definition, simply because one is willing to give up resolution farther out. That has nothing whatsoever with the angle the light is stiking the sensor however. Of course I guess one could design a 15mm lens that actually has a back focus of 100mm or so, but the compromise in quality would be rather extreme. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Toralf Lund wrote: Also, don't you get the same kind of problems with a e.g. DX-size (!) sensor and a lens that's sufficiently wider to give an equivalent field-of-view? Not if your lens design for the digital sensor is formulated to correct the ray trace so as to make the edge/corner rays more perpendicular to the sensor plane. This is done with a couple of correcting elements well behind the primary lens groups. Graywolf seemed to suggest that the lens designers are (were) in fact doing this already on traditional SLR wide-angles, and that it would be hard to correct the rays even further... - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
On Aug 25, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: Graywolf seemed to suggest that the lens designers are (were) in fact doing this already on traditional SLR wide-angles, and that it would be hard to correct the rays even further... The traditional inverted telephoto designs required for very short focal length lenses on SLRs help in this regard but are often still not optimal for a digital sensor. Digital sensors require much more care in designing the light path at the edges of the frame compared to film. Traditional IT ultrawides were primarily designed to allow the mirror to clear the back of the lens, not to straighten the light path for a digital sensor. Many work reasonably well on the 16x24mm sensor format, but lenses designed and tuned specifically for the digital sensor typically show modest improvements at least. The '1.5x crop' sensor format was chosen as a reasonable compromise for an existing 35mm film lens line precisely because it gives a reasonable chance for an lens designed for film capture to operate well within the constraints and sensitivities of a digital sensor (aside from the fact that a sensor with 60% area is much less expensive to manufacture...). BTW: A 'designed for digital' lens mount, like the 4/3 system lens mount, has a shorter register and a wider mount diameter relative to the sensor format to allow additional light path correcting elements at the rear of the lens, situated closer to the focal plane and also to allow the sensor to be more centrally located relative to the lens. The only such mount is the 4/3 mount... note that it has a mouth as large or larger than the Canon EOS mount (which has the largest diameter from the 35mm SLR camera world) and a shorter mount register (38.67 mm vs EOS 44.00 mm or K-mount 45.46mm). The shorter register and wider diameter allows more freedom in making lens designs that work well on a digital sensor. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
I really don't get what's being said here -- old, film optimized lenses perform well on the full frame Canons, as evidenced by the L series? Define well ;-). Even the best film-optimized Canon glass cannot take advantage of the full-frame sensors. In particular, edge performance on wide-angle lenses tends not to be very good. Wide-angle behaviour is a well-known problem with digital sensors, or at least an issue that needs to be carefully addressed in the lens design, so this is probably true. It seems to me however it is not to say that there are problems with wide angles in particular, as this suggests that other lenses also don't perform well. You should probably say that there are issues with wide angles, period. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do about it with lens design. However, since SLR UWA lenses are extreme retrofocus lenses the light coming out the back side is not at the extreme angles that it is from a normal UWA. So, the argument is put forth by those who do not understand optical physics at all. Now if you are expecting the digital cartoon effect to extend evenly to the corners of the frame, you are going to be severely disappointed. Because it simply is not going to happen. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Toralf Lund wrote: I really don't get what's being said here -- old, film optimized lenses perform well on the full frame Canons, as evidenced by the L series? Define well ;-). Even the best film-optimized Canon glass cannot take advantage of the full-frame sensors. In particular, edge performance on wide-angle lenses tends not to be very good. Wide-angle behaviour is a well-known problem with digital sensors, or at least an issue that needs to be carefully addressed in the lens design, so this is probably true. It seems to me however it is not to say that there are problems with wide angles in particular, as this suggests that other lenses also don't perform well. You should probably say that there are issues with wide angles, period. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
Maybe Pentax should get into cars... http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/eos ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Full Frame/Canon
The Chrysler *ist? Cotty wrote: Maybe Pentax should get into cars... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/eos ;-) -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
