If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica. The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor, Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc. Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not make a good camera. Do you agree? My questions are about another critical component which makes good quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera. I visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on this? In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera will be crappy. On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon? Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS technology better than the other? So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others? I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica (who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by Sony. Thanks for the discussion. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
wrote:
Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica. The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor, Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc. Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not make a good camera. Do you agree? My questions are about another critical component which makes good quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera. I visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on this? In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera will be crappy. On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon? Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS technology better than the other? So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others? I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica (who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by Sony. Thanks for the discussion. I would say it is not easy to say and compare since it is only the final product that counts and the variables all intermix. Test the camera(s) you are considering to see how they do the kind of work you are interested in and how they feel to you. After than don't worry about how they got there. -- Joseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
wrote in message oups.com... Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica. But there were HUGE variations in film, from Kodachrome 25 and 64 (and the unlamented 200) Ektar/Gold 25, Protra through Fuji Reala, Fujipress, the list goes on. And then there were the black and white films, like Technical Pan, Panatomic X, Delta, etc. All of them had distinctly different characteristics. The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor, Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc. Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not make a good camera. Do you agree? It never did. It made a good lens and a good image, but not a good camera. A good lens is critical, no matter what the medium. My questions are about another critical component which makes good quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera. Well, the sensor isn't the "brain," the processor is. The sensor is the replacement for the film. And just as critical. I visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on this? In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera will be crappy. On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon? Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS technology better than the other? So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others? I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica (who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by Sony. Thanks for the discussion. Sony makes the majority of sensors for P&S cameras, and many of the DSLRs, too, including Pentax, most of Nikons. Panasonic makes some (Olympus?) as does Kodak (Leica). Canon makes most of their own, as far as DSLRs are concerned. K/M's failure wasn't due to not producing a good sensor, Sony made them before the acquisition. It was more a failure of business plan. One reason for the unanimity of reviews is that most cameras perform more than acceptably. There are no really bad sensors, some are just better than others, and, to a large degree, which is which is a matter of taste. Even Sigma/Foveon has its adherents. -- Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
Yoggi Berra said something like baseball is 90% physical and the other
50% is mental. I think photography is about the same. I don't think you can rule out the human element because equipment choice of the right stuff for the project is a huge consideration. You don't take a camera will a large telephoto lense on a scuba dive and expect to get any pictures. But anyway. The lense is the most important thing. Here's a test. Go smear vasoline on a lens and try to take a picture. Nope. Nada. You've got to be able to see it. Film was the next most important. You needed to select the right file (but you've ruled out the human element). Film can make a huge different. That's why there are/where so many. Finally the camera. Well, that's pretty irrelevent. It's just a box to keep out the light. You don't need light meters and winders and flashes to take great pictures. Look at all of the large format stuff without it. Heck, a hand light meter normally beats the heck out of a camera's meter. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
wrote in message oups.com... Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the distribution of critical components of a camera This rather pointless attribution of % values reminds me of the famous joke where the parts of the body are arguing about their relative worth. A version can be found he http://joek.com/jokes/joke_102.shtml -- Jeff R. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
On Dec 8, 6:57 pm, "Skip" wrote: wrote in ooglegroups.com... Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica.But there were HUGE variations in film, from Kodachrome 25 and 64 (and the unlamented 200) Ektar/Gold 25, Protra through Fuji Reala, Fujipress, the list goes on. And then there were the black and white films, like Technical Pan, Panatomic X, Delta, etc. All of them had distinctly different characteristics. The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor, Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc. Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not make a good camera. Do you agree?It never did. It made a good lens and a good image, but not a good camera. A good lens is critical, no matter what the medium. My questions are about another critical component which makes good quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera.Well, the sensor isn't the "brain," the processor is. The sensor is the replacement for the film. And just as critical. I visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on this? In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera will be crappy. On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon? Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS technology better than the other? So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others? I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica (who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by Sony. Thanks for the discussion.Sony makes the majority of sensors for P&S cameras, and many of the DSLRs, too, including Pentax, most of Nikons. Panasonic makes some (Olympus?) as does Kodak (Leica). Canon makes most of their own, as far as DSLRs are concerned. K/M's failure wasn't due to not producing a good sensor, Sony made them before the acquisition. It was more a failure of business plan. One reason for the unanimity of reviews is that most cameras perform more than acceptably. There are no really bad sensors, some are just better than others, and, to a large degree, which is which is a matter of taste. Even Sigma/Foveon has its adherents. -- Skip Middletonwww.shadowcatcherimagery.comwww.pbase.com/skipm- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
Pat wrote:
Finally the camera. Well, that's pretty irrelevent. It's just a box to keep out the light. That's only true of film cameras. With Digital cameras, it is quite relevant --- true that the variation between quality for different cameras is perhaps not as high, or doesn't have as much impact, as the variation between different types of film. But still, the rules completely change with digital cameras, since the film is now one of the intrinsic, non-removable-non-replaceable-non-refillable components of the camera. Also, for P&S cameras, the lens is part of the camera as well (but then, P&S things do not even qualify as "cameras", so we'll keep them out of the discussion :-)) Carlos -- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
wrote:
Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica. [..] Nice troll. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vertical capacitors for image sensors | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 18 | June 8th 06 03:13 PM |
Excellent description of CMOS image sensors | Richard Tomkins | Digital Photography | 0 | February 20th 06 06:01 AM |
CNN - Bad image sensors by Sony to be replaced ?? | Joey | Digital Photography | 2 | October 29th 05 01:03 PM |
dynamic range of digital image sensors | Mr.Adams | Digital Photography | 20 | April 5th 05 11:15 PM |
dynamic range of digital image sensors | Mr.Adams | Digital Photography | 0 | April 5th 05 11:23 AM |