A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sony to stop making FX sensors?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 1st 10, 11:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 14:54:07 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:
: "Robert Coe" wrote in message
: news : On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:46:48 -0700, Paul Furman
: wrote:
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:09:51 +1200, wrote:
: : : I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
: : : the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for
: HD
: : : professional quality video.
: : : By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
: : : sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.
: :
: : You're probably right. All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast
: : enough, bright enough, high-resolution EVF. But I'm not sure it's
: relevant
: : to the point under discussion. There's no reason in principle why
: : present-day lenses shouldn't work exactly the same in a mirrorless
: : environment. (With no mirror, the design constraints on lenses can be
: : relaxed somewhat, but that too is of doubtful relevance.) Even with
: EVF,
: : the big question is whether the smaller sensor, and its associated
: lenses,
: : will survive into the moderately distant future or be effectively
: : supplanted by FF.
: :
: : If a technology emerges allowing large affordable sensors, there might
: : be a resurgence of polaroid type cameras, which are medium format P&S.
:
: Interesting thought, but there's a fundamental difference: A Polaroid was
: a
: camera that produced only a print. What you envision is a camera with a
: built-in printer. There would be no reason to jettison the digital image
: when
: the print is completed. So what's the point of the added size, weight, and
: cost of the built-in printer? Wouldn't an attached printer serve just as
: well
: without the disadvantages?
:
:
: We already have portable photo printers. It world not be a large step to put
: an optional dedicated docking system on the printer.

Why bother? All printers and most cameras already have a USB port.

Bob
  #22  
Old August 1st 10, 11:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:47:06 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:37:10 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:46:48 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:09:51 +1200, wrote:
: : : I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
: : : the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for HD
: : : professional quality video.
: : : By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
: : : sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.
: :
: : You're probably right. All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast
: : enough, bright enough, high-resolution EVF. But I'm not sure it's relevant
: : to the point under discussion. There's no reason in principle why
: : present-day lenses shouldn't work exactly the same in a mirrorless
: : environment. (With no mirror, the design constraints on lenses can be
: : relaxed somewhat, but that too is of doubtful relevance.) Even with EVF,
: : the big question is whether the smaller sensor, and its associated lenses,
: : will survive into the moderately distant future or be effectively
: : supplanted by FF.
: :
: : If a technology emerges allowing large affordable sensors, there might
: : be a resurgence of polaroid type cameras, which are medium format P&S.
:
: Interesting thought, but there's a fundamental difference: A Polaroid was a
: camera that produced only a print. What you envision is a camera with a
: built-in printer. There would be no reason to jettison the digital image when
: the print is completed. So what's the point of the added size, weight, and
: cost of the built-in printer? Wouldn't an attached printer serve just as well
: without the disadvantages?
:
:
: Surely you realise that a Polaroid branded camera that does exactly
: this is already available? There is also a printer which connects to
: cameras or cell phones using PictBridge or Bluetooth.
:
: http://www.polaroid.com/category/0/266907/Polaroid_PoGo
:
: I use the PoGo printer to print two copies of all images for which I
: need a signature on a model release form. That way, the subject gets
: an instant copy of the image they are signing for and I am in no doubt
: as to which of the images I shot have been signed for.
:
: Each image takes about a minute to print. They are 2 x 3 inches in
: size. The quality is so-so. But for my purpose, they are ideal.
:
: The PoGo range hasn't been a great commercial success. The camera is
: not very good and the printer's reliability isn't great. There are
: also some Bluetooth compatibility issues. The printer is now selling
: at a fifth of its original price - the last two I bought were about US
: $30 each.
:
: Disappointing sales appear to have led Polaroid to introduce a new
: range of instant film cameras:
:
: http://www.polaroid.com/category/0/3...lassic_Instant

To be honest with you, I didn't know that Polaroid is even still in business.
They've gone bankrupt twice, IIRC. I guess I thought they'd been liquidated.

Bob
  #23  
Old August 2nd 10, 12:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 14:54:07 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


:
: We already have portable photo printers. It world not be a large step to
put
: an optional dedicated docking system on the printer.

Why bother? All printers and most cameras already have a USB port.


Marketing. The target market would be the Joe Snapshooter who probably uses
low - medium end P&S cameras and would like the instant gratification of
being able to pass around his snapshot.
I have not seen any definitive studies on this. Maybe you're right, though.
Unlike others here, I must disclose that the concept comes from my own
imagination.


--
Peter

  #24  
Old August 2nd 10, 06:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Shiva Das[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:28:02 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

To be honest with you, I didn't know that Polaroid is even still in business.
They've gone bankrupt twice, IIRC. I guess I thought they'd been liquidated.



They were. This is a new incarnation of "Polaroid" with only the name
being carried over.

The new company probably needed a much larger advertising campaign if
the brand was ever again to feature in people's consciousness in the
same way as the original Polaroid did in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Public
awareness of the brand is low, and wasn't helped by the previous
owners' poor judgment in selling the cheap 35mm film and low-grade P&S
digicams that led to the brand's recent demise.

I find it more than a little ironic that the new owners of the brand,
having now failed to make a splash in the market with PoGo digital
instant prints, are going back to the old-fashioned instant film that
they so spectacularly rejected when they bought the brand.



Maybe they'll bring back Type 55 Positive/Negative film.

Then again maybe pigs will fly...
  #25  
Old August 2nd 10, 10:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

Robert Coe wrote:

All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast enough,
bright enough, high-resolution EVF.


No problem, you can probably have that, just spend enough dollars
and carry large batteries. Cheap enough and energy-saving enough
and not heating up the sensor (and not blinding you at night
and giving your position away (e.g. when shooting shy animals)
and so on are still problems to be solved.

-Wolfgang
  #26  
Old August 2nd 10, 11:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:46:48 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:


: If a technology emerges allowing large affordable sensors, there might
: be a resurgence of polaroid type cameras, which are medium format P&S.


Interesting thought, but there's a fundamental difference: A Polaroid was a
camera that produced only a print.


There were polaroid films which supplied both a print and
a negative. (I doubt they were used in polaroid cameras, but
they could have been.)

What you envision is a camera with a
built-in printer. There would be no reason to jettison the digital image when
the print is completed. So what's the point of the added size, weight, and
cost of the built-in printer? Wouldn't an attached printer serve just as well
without the disadvantages?


Artists often make limited numbers of prints, even though
technology doesn't demand these low limits. Polaroid-like
one-print-only technologies may well have artistic or business
successes.

-Wolfgang
  #27  
Old August 2nd 10, 11:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Shiva Das[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:46:48 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:


: If a technology emerges allowing large affordable sensors, there might
: be a resurgence of polaroid type cameras, which are medium format P&S.


Interesting thought, but there's a fundamental difference: A Polaroid was a
camera that produced only a print.


There were polaroid films which supplied both a print and
a negative. (I doubt they were used in polaroid cameras, but
they could have been.)


Polaroid type 55 positive/negative was a 4x5 film that peeled apart to
reveal a real negative and a print. When I used it I always had to
decide whether I wanted a good print or a good negative, as it was
almost impossible to split the density down the middle.

The negatives had to be washed in a sodium sulfite solution, but this
could be delayed by dunking them in water until you got back to the
darkroom. Polaroid even sold a bucket with negative holders that would
be filled with water and carried around while shooting. In the darkroom
you just dumped the water and filled the bucket with the clearing
solution.

One benefit was that the edge rarely peeled cleanly so you got a nice
rough "Polaroid" edge in your prints.

In retrospect I preferred the SX-70 :-)
  #28  
Old August 3rd 10, 02:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Outing Trolls is FUN![_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 359
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:56:11 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:

All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast enough,


60 FPS with a 23millisecond lag between real image and display is not fast
enough for you? Are you talking out of your ass again? Yep.


bright enough,


EVF's are plenty bright. Too bright at times, in fact.


high-resolution EVF.



Too high of a resolution and then I'd no longer be able to use
pixel-scintillation in an EVF as a full-frame micro-prism fine-focusing
detector. An excellent advantage to macrophotography where you must get the
most important regions of your subject in focus throughout the full frame,
not just focused correctly in one spot. 180k is just about right for this
purpose. Less and the micro-prism effect becomes more difficult to see in
some situation. More and you can't see it because you can no longer see the
individual pixels in the display to determine which areas are
scintillating.

But then, pretend-photographer trolls like you would only know these things
if you had ever actually used any of the cameras that you spew your
opinions about. AND had any advanced photographer's techniques in your bag
of tricks.



I love this reply of yours, Puppygang Trollberg. Proving without a doubt
that you've never used any of the equipment nor in any of the situations
(if you had a camera) upon which you spew your useless opinions.

No problem, you can probably have that, just spend enough dollars
and carry large batteries.


An EVF uses a very very small backlit LCD panel, therefore it requires a
small light source. Resolution of that EVF has very little if nothing at
all to do with power-requirement differences. The light-source remains the
same, only the density goes up on the LCD for higher resolution, not
size--which would require more illumination.

A larger back-of-camera LCD display *can* use more power, due to the larger
area needing to be illuminated, but not so an EVF. But then this too
depends on the technology of the light-source. Cameras which could only
take 250 photos using the same size LCD and EVF displays from 10 years ago
can take 600-800 photos today on the very same power-source due to advances
in technology. Interestingly, I found that I can shoot 10.5 hours of
non-stop video (stopping only to change cards) on one of my superzoom
cameras (this is with the EVF always on) with just one set of AA batteries.
That's phenomenal performance for any video recording device on such a
small power-source.


Cheap enough and energy-saving enough
and not heating up the sensor


The EVF's light-source is nowhere near the sensor. Nor is it anywhere near
the sensor on an articulated LCD display either.


(and not blinding you at night


Good ones allow you to adjust the light levels. Even one that I have from 8
years ago has 4 levels of illumination. The darkest not quite dark enough
for preserving night-vision when photographing dim aurora (but it's okay
for use during bright aurora). When it is too bright on its lowest setting
then I merely insert a small ND filter that I cut to fit the eye-cup.

Those with only 2 settings, like many of the CHDK Powershot cameras, allow
you to overlay a brightness reducing grid on the EVF display, consisting of
a dark transparent gray, in the darkness level of your choice.


and giving your position away (e.g. when shooting shy animals)


You've never shot any photos of any animals at night, have you. You use IR
for that. On the dimmest setting, the light from the EVF reflecting on your
face is very difficult to see. I've tested this myself by holding my hand
to the light coming from the EVF at night.

What will alert an animal to your position more than any dim glow from an
EVF is that obnoxiously loud clattering mirror and shutter that's slapping
inside of a DSLR. And not just at night. 24 hours a day. With my own
experience of photographing dangerous animals in the wild, this is one of
the main reasons I found DSLRs not only useless but dangerous to use as
well. I wouldn't dare try to track down the Florida Panthers with a DSLR at
night, but I felt no such apprehension when I used a superzoom camera to
accomplish getting images of them. The same when photographing wolf and
grizzly behavior. There is also an interesting report online of some fool
with a DSLR photographing a bull-moose with flash at night. The obnoxious
sound from the camera and the light from the flash startling the moose. It
ran in the direction of what scared and threatened it. Nearly stomping the
idiot photographer to death. Too bad that Darwinism wasn't working in full
force that night.


and so on are still problems to be solved.


Yes, like getting useless pretend-photographer trolls like you to actually
purchase a camera one day. Then hoping like hell that you'll only spew out
your ridiculously stupid opinions on the camera gear you've actually used.

We all await your purchase of your very first camera. Because it's more
than obvious that you've not used any camera in your lifetime on any
subjects based on the outlandish lies and misconceptions that you
relentlessly spew about any of them.
  #29  
Old August 3rd 10, 06:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Outing Trolls is FUN![_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 359
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

Interestingly, I found that I can shoot 10.5 hours of
non-stop video (stopping only to change cards) on one of my superzoom
cameras (this is with the EVF always on) with just one set of AA batteries.
That's phenomenal performance for any video recording device on such a
small power-source.



Correction: I recall now that I did this test with the LCD display always
on, not the EVF. A large LCD display always being a greater energy drain
than an EVF on the same camera. I set up the camera to record a TV display,
so there would always be something in motion in the view to ensure the CPU
was being put to use for video compression, etc. Doing this while I was
working on something else all day. With the articulated LCD facing toward
my work area I could watch for when it had reached a time or memory-card
limit and restart it as soon as possible. It was also part of my "burn in"
test when first getting it, to ensure it wasn't a lemon that would crap out
in 30 days. Not to mention testing the silly claims in the manual that said
you should never record for more than an hour in any one stretch. (Part of
the reason they limited video to only 1 hour in that camera until CHDK
unlocked that limit.) This simple test put that ridiculous claim to rest,
where it belonged. No doubt one of their bean-counter's brilliant ideas so
sales of these cameras wouldn't cut into their video-camera line of sales.
That camera is now 3 years old and still going strong.

I now wonder ... how long it could record video with using the EVF instead.
or even better, with the viewfinder turned off completely (for static scene
wildlife surveillance uses). It has the option to blank the EVF/LCD. An
educated guess upward of 15 hours for the former, maybe 20-30 hours of
video for the latter. With CHDK's scripting and its 110 different levels of
video compression in 2 types (constant bit-rate or constant compression),
and a large SD card it could probably record CD-quality stereo sound and
video for a full day or more on one set of AA batteries.

Impressive stuff they're making these days.

  #30  
Old August 17th 10, 03:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ollie Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Sony to stop making FX sensors?

Peter wrote:
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
cost of the built-in printer? Wouldn't an attached printer serve just as
well
without the disadvantages?


We already have portable photo printers. It world not be a large step to put
an optional dedicated docking system on the printer.


Indeed. Kodak agree with you:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kodak-Z700-D.../dp/B0007X50DM
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Kodak Sensors See Well in Dark - claims a 1 - 2 f/stop advantage David J Taylor[_2_] Digital Photography 22 June 22nd 07 10:18 AM
Canon 200mm f1.8 - why did they stop making it rugbyphoto Digital SLR Cameras 7 February 17th 06 06:52 AM
Nikon to stop making parts for 35mm Harry 35mm Photo Equipment 19 February 3rd 06 10:31 PM
Framed and Exposed: Making Sense of Camera Sensors Frank ess Digital Photography 0 July 7th 04 05:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.