How thin can a sensor become - or could you live without a LCD?

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

On Jan 4, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
In article2016010208294628742-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

David Taylor:
Size, weight, bulk - one of the major reasons I went to
micro-four-thirds from an APS-C DSLR. Not everyone needs the
extra capabilities of a full-frame camera.

Agreed. That is one of my reasons for my move to the Fuji X-system
(in my case an X-E2). I get an APS-C sensor in a camera which gives
me all I need without the bulk and weight of the DSLR system

True, but that has nothing to do with sensor size. I.e. you could have
moved to
Sony A7 and gotten a full frame mirrorless camera in the same size
bracket.


They are not in the same weight bracket. A Sony A7R II weighs almost
twice as much as a Fujifilm X-E2.

...and costs more than three times as much for the body only, so the A7RII
will lighten your wallet more than the X-E2.

It would be more proper to compare between the a7II and TX2, or D750...
--
teleportation kills

In article m, Savageduck
wrote:

David Taylor:
Size, weight, bulk - one of the major reasons
I went to micro-four-thirds from an APS-C DSLR. Not everyone
needs the extra capabilities of a full-frame camera.

Savageduck:
Agreed. That is one of my reasons for my move to the Fuji
X-system (in my case an X-E2). I get an APS-C sensor in a
camera which gives me all I need without the bulk and weight
of the DSLR system

Sandman:
True, but that has nothing to do with sensor size. I.e. you
could have moved to Sony A7 and gotten a full frame mirrorless
camera in the same size bracket.

PAS:
They are not in the same weight bracket. A Sony A7R II weighs
almost twice as much as a Fujifilm X-E2.

...and costs more than three times as much for the body only, so the
A7RII will lighten your wallet more than the X-E2.

But again, the *A7*, which was what I wrote above, does not cost three times as
much, nor weigh "almost" twice as much. It is comparably priced and weighs
about 35% more, and is roughly the same size. It has (obviously) a better
sensor, and arguably a better viewfinder. Also, I would argue that it has
better ergonomics, but that's subjective.

My point was only that if the smaller physical size of mirrorless is what
you're after, you're not limited to small sensors to obtain it.

--
Sandman

On 01/04/2016 12:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

DSLR's are always going to be thick, but an FE is easily possible as an
sensor system could be as thin as the back of the camera and its film
pressure plate.

except for redesigning the mirror box, among other changes.

I think one experimenter got away with machining down the film rails and
simply mounting a sensor on the back of and old SLR.

they might have tried, but whatever they did would not have worked for
numerous reasons.

Please elaborate on some of those "numerous reasons".

I've seen plans for
one.

none that would actually work.

But, hey, if Leica could do it what, 15 years ago, they could certainly do it again.

leica did not retrofit a digital sensor into a film camera.

however, there was a completely bogus company 15 years ago who called
themselves silicon film as well as many other names that supposedly had
a drop-in sensor cartridge for some slrs. they got a lot of publicity
but it was completely bogus.

If you do some research on "Silicon Film", you will find that it was not
"completely bogus". They were intending to be a serious company, but
failed. They had a concept, they had prototypes, but the funds,
staffing, and economy all worked against them.
They had a working product that was reviewed somewhat favorably by some
of the press at the time.

Given the current state of technology, and looking at the design they
were using, their concept is no longer so difficult as it was fifteen
years ago. Three areas of tech advances would cure many problems they
had then: improved batteries, more dense memory storage devices, and
wifi connectivity.


kodak took nikon and canon bodies and retrofitted a sensor, but it was
cropped and required communication with the camera body.



--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

DSLR's are always going to be thick, but an FE is easily possible as an
sensor system could be as thin as the back of the camera and its film
pressure plate.

except for redesigning the mirror box, among other changes.

I think one experimenter got away with machining down the film rails and
simply mounting a sensor on the back of and old SLR.

they might have tried, but whatever they did would not have worked for
numerous reasons.

Please elaborate on some of those "numerous reasons".

the surface of film is light sensitive, whereas a sensor is covered
with glass, antialias filter, bayer filters, etc. which means it would
have to protrude into the shutter mechanism, preventing the shutter
from operating (likely damaging it). the sensor would also need to be
cropped for the support electronics around the periphery.

if the sensor is positioned further back to avoid shutter collisions,
the focus system would need to be recalibrated, including the camera's
focus screen. that makes a drop-in film replacement impossible, and
that's assuming that such a calibration can even be done, something
that would require a camera technician and eliminate any future
possibility to shoot film.

the focus screen has no crop markers so there's no way to know what is
inside or outside the frame. there is also no status information in the
viewfinder from the sensor, such as how many photos are left or its
battery charge level or even its iso. you'd be shooting blind.

the metering system expects a full frame, so it will be measuring what
won't be photographed. ttl flash would no longer work.

there is no communication between the camera and sensor, so there's no
way to know how many photos have been taken or how many are left.
settings such as iso would need to be set twice, once on the camera and
once on the cartridge and any time you open the camera back to change
the iso, the frame counter (which won't be accurate anyway) will reset.

the camera won't be able to tell the sensor to take a photo when its
shutter opens and it can't stop the user from taking additional photos
after the sensor's buffer is full. a digital camera slows down (or even
stops) taking photos when its buffer is full, which won't happen with
such a device, so the camera will have no way to tell the camera to
stop. that means the user would be blindly shooting photos that are
completely lost. users don't like when that happens.

the film supply bay would need to hold the electronics *and* a battery
big enough to power everything for a reasonable number of photos.

put simply, even if all of the technical hurdles could be overcome (and
they can't), the entire thing would be a horrible user experience
that's worse than even a low end digital slr.


I've seen plans for
one.

none that would actually work.

But, hey, if Leica could do it what, 15 years ago, they could certainly do
it again.

leica did not retrofit a digital sensor into a film camera.

however, there was a completely bogus company 15 years ago who called
themselves silicon film as well as many other names that supposedly had
a drop-in sensor cartridge for some slrs. they got a lot of publicity
but it was completely bogus.

If you do some research on "Silicon Film", you will find that it was not
"completely bogus".

it was.

They were intending to be a serious company,

that's generally the idea for any company planning to make a product.

but
failed. They had a concept, they had prototypes, but the funds,
staffing, and economy all worked against them.
They had a working product that was reviewed somewhat favorably by some
of the press at the time.

it was never a working product and the press was duped.

what they supposedly had was a prototype that did not fit in the film
bay, with claims that it could be miniaturized, something that never
happened. the demos also used the same models and the same backdrops
and produced the same photos every time. in other words, it was a
canned demo. not cool.

they fooled a lot of people, including venture capitalists, and it
didn't take long until people caught on to the scam.

Given the current state of technology, and looking at the design they
were using, their concept is no longer so difficult as it was fifteen
years ago. Three areas of tech advances would cure many problems they
had then: improved batteries, more dense memory storage devices, and
wifi connectivity.

it's not possible for the reasons i gave, but even if it was, it's an
incredibly stupid idea that would not sell, nor could it even be made
at a price point where it would even be a consideration for purchase,
let alone be competitive.

a 24 megapixel slr can be had for $400 or so which will outperform any
film camera where such a device would be used, particularly with
autofocus and metering, and that's ignoring the lack of rear lcd for
configuring the camera and looking at photos (users like to do that and
won't be happy without that ability).

even the lowly nikon d3300 has an 11 point autofocus system that has
more than twice the number of focus points than the once top of the
line nikon f5.

put simply: it would need to undercut and outperform a $400 entry level
digital slr. not gonna happen.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being used for small
format cameras, yet they've obviously made slim(mer) cameras in the past,
like
the Nikon FE.

Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in the very back
of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that is several times more
thicker, mounted on a circuit board that also adds thickness. On top of that,
there is a LCD screen just behind it as well with accompanying circuitry.

So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would only be
possible
if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we live without a LCD?

Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be as big
obviously, but with enough resolution you could still make out whether the
photo was exposed correctly, which really is all we use the LCD for anyway.

90% of the thickness in a camera is for aligning the light. The light
has to hit the sensor at a reasonable angle - perpendicular would be
optimal. Current technology has small sensor arrays, interference
arrays, many layers of corrective lenses, or the big open cavity of an
SLR. The large open cavity produces the best optical quality. Many
layers of corrective lenses works fairly well except for near the edges.
The other known means are not photo quality.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.

In article , Kevin McMurtrie
wrote:

Sandman:
So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being used
for small format cameras, yet they've obviously made slim(mer)
cameras in the past, like the Nikon FE.

Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in
the very back of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that
is several times more thicker, mounted on a circuit board that
also adds thickness. On top of that, there is a LCD screen just
behind it as well with accompanying circuitry.

So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would
only be possible if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we
live without a LCD?

Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be as
big obviously, but with enough resolution you could still make
out whether the photo was exposed correctly, which really is all
we use the LCD for anyway.

90% of the thickness in a camera is for aligning the light.

No, it's for making room for a huge mirror, meaning that light focusing needs
to be at minimum at a specific distance to make room for the mirror.

Looking at mirrorless you can easily see that this distance is not actually
needed when there is no mirror in the way, and the flange distance is much much
shorter.

So, in my example above - where the mirror box is still intact and we're still
using the F-mount with its flange distance, question is how thin we can make
the camera behind the focus plane.

To illustrate it further, here is a Nikon D3 cutaway:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/images/D3R_4636-cutaway-950.jpg

And here is a Nikon F5 cutaway:

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/4/9/cutawayf5.jpg

The flange distance is the same, but the D3 camera body is a lot thicker due to
the sensor being thicker and the LCD and its circuitry adding to that
thickness.

Here's a Nikon F2 to further show the massive difference:

http://www.nikonf6.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/nikon-f2-cutaway-800px.jpg

--
Sandman

In article , nospam wrote:

RichA:
DSLR's are always going to be thick, but an FE is easily
possible as an sensor system could be as thin as the back
of the camera and its film pressure plate.

nospam:
except for redesigning the mirror box, among other changes.

RichA:
I think one experimenter got away with machining down the film
rails and simply mounting a sensor on the back of and old SLR.

nospam:
they might have tried, but whatever they did would not have
worked for numerous reasons.

Ken Hart:
Please elaborate on some of those "numerous reasons".

the surface of film is light sensitive, whereas a sensor is covered
with glass, antialias filter, bayer filters, etc. which means it
would have to protrude into the shutter mechanism, preventing the
shutter from operating (likely damaging it). the sensor would also
need to be cropped for the support electronics around the periphery.

Easily fixed by removing the shutter and using an electronic shutter, of
course.

Also no need for a crop sensor since sensor circuitry can be made to the
sensor sides, where there's plenty of space

there is also no status information in the viewfinder from the
sensor, such as how many photos are left or its battery charge level
or even its iso. you'd be shooting blind.

Which, for the people that wants this, wouldn't be a problem. Also, you'd
imagine that if it was to be done, the digital sensor would be replacing the
entire back door, using the film area for battery etc etc, and a small
display with a counter could be shown there.

there is no communication between the camera and sensor, so there's
no way to know how many photos have been taken or how many are left.
settings such as iso would need to be set twice, once on the camera
and once on the cartridge and any time you open the camera back to
change the iso, the frame counter (which won't be accurate anyway)
will reset.

So you'd ignore the mechanical frame counter obviously and use the frame
counter on the back instead. Also, a plus and minus button on the back for
setting ISO would be equally possible.

the camera won't be able to tell the sensor to take a photo when its
shutter opens

Of course it will. You'd remove the shutter, and replace it with an
electronic shutter that is wired directly to the cameras shutter release.
Quite possible, but also probably hard to implement and not economical for
anyone involved

put simply, even if all of the technical hurdles could be overcome
(and they can't), the entire thing would be a horrible user
experience that's worse than even a low end digital slr.

It can be done, but it would be very hard to implement, and not economical to
mass produce.

Ken Hart:
If you do some research on "Silicon Film", you will find that it
was not "completely bogus".

it was.

No, they just couldn't deliver. But the product was real:

http://www.theinspiredeye.net/conver...tal-efs-1-the-
technology-that-almost-was/

Ken Hart:
but failed. They had a concept, they had prototypes, but the
funds, staffing, and economy all worked against them. They had a
working product that was reviewed somewhat favorably by some of
the press at the time.

it was never a working product and the press was duped.

It was. As was the Leica digital back for the R8 and R9. So it's no secret
that it can be done, it's just not economical or practical

a 24 megapixel slr can be had for $400 or so which will outperform
any film camera where such a device would be used, particularly with
autofocus and metering, and that's ignoring the lack of rear lcd for
configuring the camera and looking at photos (users like to do that
and won't be happy without that ability).

People that want to use their old SLR cameras don't have that need for
obvious reasons.

even the lowly nikon d3300 has an 11 point autofocus system that has
more than twice the number of focus points than the once top of the
line nikon f5.

put simply: it would need to undercut and outperform a $400 entry
level digital slr. not gonna happen.

The target market is not those that want a product that equals or outperforms
a D3300, the target market is those that want to use their beloved old camera
gear. Coincidentally a very small target audience, of course, which is why it
wouldn't be economical even though it is technologically possible.

--
Sandman

In article , nospam wrote:

RichA:
DSLR's are always going to be thick, but an FE is easily
possible as an sensor system could be as thin as the back
of the camera and its film pressure plate.

nospam:
except for redesigning the mirror box, among other changes.

RichA:
I think one experimenter got away with machining down the film
rails and simply mounting a sensor on the back of and old SLR.

nospam:
they might have tried, but whatever they did would not have
worked for numerous reasons.

Ken Hart:
Please elaborate on some of those "numerous reasons".

the surface of film is light sensitive, whereas a sensor is covered
with glass, antialias filter, bayer filters, etc. which means it
would have to protrude into the shutter mechanism, preventing the
shutter from operating (likely damaging it). the sensor would also
need to be cropped for the support electronics around the periphery.

Easily fixed by removing the shutter and using an electronic shutter, of
course.

Also no need for a crop sensor since sensor circuitry can be made to the
sensor sides, where there's plenty of space

there is also no status information in the viewfinder from the
sensor, such as how many photos are left or its battery charge level
or even its iso. you'd be shooting blind.

Which, for the people that wants this, wouldn't be a problem. Also, you'd
imagine that if it was to be done, the digital sensor would be replacing the
entire back door, using the film area for battery etc etc, and a small
display with a counter could be shown there.

there is no communication between the camera and sensor, so there's
no way to know how many photos have been taken or how many are left.
settings such as iso would need to be set twice, once on the camera
and once on the cartridge and any time you open the camera back to
change the iso, the frame counter (which won't be accurate anyway)
will reset.

So you'd ignore the mechanical frame counter obviously and use the frame
counter on the back instead. Also, a plus and minus button on the back for
setting ISO would be equally possible.

the camera won't be able to tell the sensor to take a photo when its
shutter opens

Of course it will. You'd remove the shutter, and replace it with an
electronic shutter that is wired directly to the cameras shutter release.
Quite possible, but also probably hard to implement and not economical for
anyone involved

put simply, even if all of the technical hurdles could be overcome
(and they can't), the entire thing would be a horrible user
experience that's worse than even a low end digital slr.

It can be done, but it would be very hard to implement, and not economical to
mass produce.

Ken Hart:
If you do some research on "Silicon Film", you will find that it
was not "completely bogus".

it was.

No, they just couldn't deliver. But the product was real:

http://www.theinspiredeye.net/conver...tal-efs-1-the-
technology-that-almost-was/

Ken Hart:
but failed. They had a concept, they had prototypes, but the
funds, staffing, and economy all worked against them. They had a
working product that was reviewed somewhat favorably by some of
the press at the time.

it was never a working product and the press was duped.

It was. As was the Leica digital back for the R8 and R9. So it's no secret
that it can be done, it's just not economical or practical

a 24 megapixel slr can be had for $400 or so which will outperform
any film camera where such a device would be used, particularly with
autofocus and metering, and that's ignoring the lack of rear lcd for
configuring the camera and looking at photos (users like to do that
and won't be happy without that ability).

People that want to use their old SLR cameras don't have that need for
obvious reasons.

even the lowly nikon d3300 has an 11 point autofocus system that has
more than twice the number of focus points than the once top of the
line nikon f5.

put simply: it would need to undercut and outperform a $400 entry
level digital slr. not gonna happen.

The target market is not those that want a product that equals or outperforms
a D3300, the target market is those that want to use their beloved old camera
gear. Coincidentally a very small target audience, of course, which is why it
wouldn't be economical even though it is technologically possible.

--
Sandman

On 01/04/2016 10:30 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

DSLR's are always going to be thick, but an FE is easily possible as an
sensor system could be as thin as the back of the camera and its film
pressure plate.

except for redesigning the mirror box, among other changes.

I think one experimenter got away with machining down the film rails and
simply mounting a sensor on the back of and old SLR.

they might have tried, but whatever they did would not have worked for
numerous reasons.

Please elaborate on some of those "numerous reasons".

the surface of film is light sensitive, whereas a sensor is covered
with glass, antialias filter, bayer filters, etc. which means it would
have to protrude into the shutter mechanism, preventing the shutter
from operating (likely damaging it). the sensor would also need to be
cropped for the support electronics around the periphery.

Just a quick glance at the back of one of my Canon FX cameras shows a
depth at least two millimeters from the shutter curtain to the surface
of the film guide rails.

As to area around the sensor; I didn't measure, but remember the
sprocket holes on 35mm film? All that area is available.

if the sensor is positioned further back to avoid shutter collisions,
the focus system would need to be recalibrated, including the camera's
focus screen. that makes a drop-in film replacement impossible, and
that's assuming that such a calibration can even be done, something
that would require a camera technician and eliminate any future
possibility to shoot film.

the focus screen has no crop markers so there's no way to know what is
inside or outside the frame. there is also no status information in the
viewfinder from the sensor, such as how many photos are left or its
battery charge level or even its iso. you'd be shooting blind.

Ever hear of interchangeable focus screens or Sharpie markers? Back in
my studio days, all of my 6x6 viewfinders were marked for 5x7 and 8x10
print formats.

As for status info, there this thing called wifi that could communicate
to a cell phone ap.

the metering system expects a full frame, so it will be measuring what
won't be photographed. ttl flash would no longer work.

I haven't used a built-in camera meter for years. Same for TTL flash.
All of my flash units are independent of the camera.

there is no communication between the camera and sensor, so there's no
way to know how many photos have been taken or how many are left.
settings such as iso would need to be set twice, once on the camera and
once on the cartridge and any time you open the camera back to change
the iso, the frame counter (which won't be accurate anyway) will reset.

the camera won't be able to tell the sensor to take a photo when its
shutter opens and it can't stop the user from taking additional photos
after the sensor's buffer is full. a digital camera slows down (or even
stops) taking photos when its buffer is full, which won't happen with
such a device, so the camera will have no way to tell the camera to
stop. that means the user would be blindly shooting photos that are
completely lost. users don't like when that happens.


When the sensor "sees" light, it knows the shutter has opened and it
takes a photo.

The original design called for a warning sound to indicate the sensor
was not ready for the next photo.

Increases in memory density could surely hold 24-36 photos, a limit that
film photographers are very familiar with.

the film supply bay would need to hold the electronics *and* a battery
big enough to power everything for a reasonable number of photos.

Early "brick" cell phones did less than today's models with a much
bigger size. Technology advances have made electronics and batteries
smaller. Surely you're not being a Luddite?!

put simply, even if all of the technical hurdles could be overcome (and
they can't), the entire thing would be a horrible user experience
that's worse than even a low end digital slr.


Technical hurdles are overcome every day.

I've seen plans for
one.

none that would actually work.

But, hey, if Leica could do it what, 15 years ago, they could certainly do
it again.

leica did not retrofit a digital sensor into a film camera.

however, there was a completely bogus company 15 years ago who called
themselves silicon film as well as many other names that supposedly had
a drop-in sensor cartridge for some slrs. they got a lot of publicity
but it was completely bogus.

If you do some research on "Silicon Film", you will find that it was not
"completely bogus".

it was.

They were intending to be a serious company,

that's generally the idea for any company planning to make a product.

but
failed. They had a concept, they had prototypes, but the funds,
staffing, and economy all worked against them.
They had a working product that was reviewed somewhat favorably by some
of the press at the time.

it was never a working product and the press was duped.

what they supposedly had was a prototype that did not fit in the film
bay, with claims that it could be miniaturized, something that never
happened. the demos also used the same models and the same backdrops
and produced the same photos every time. in other words, it was a
canned demo. not cool.

they fooled a lot of people, including venture capitalists, and it
didn't take long until people caught on to the scam.

Given the current state of technology, and looking at the design they
were using, their concept is no longer so difficult as it was fifteen
years ago. Three areas of tech advances would cure many problems they
had then: improved batteries, more dense memory storage devices, and
wifi connectivity.

it's not possible for the reasons i gave, but even if it was, it's an
incredibly stupid idea that would not sell, nor could it even be made
at a price point where it would even be a consideration for purchase,
let alone be competitive.

a 24 megapixel slr can be had for $400 or so which will outperform any
film camera where such a device would be used, particularly with
autofocus and metering, and that's ignoring the lack of rear lcd for
configuring the camera and looking at photos (users like to do that and
won't be happy without that ability).

even the lowly nikon d3300 has an 11 point autofocus system that has
more than twice the number of focus points than the once top of the
line nikon f5.

put simply: it would need to undercut and outperform a $400 entry level
digital slr. not gonna happen.

The price of the camera is not the issue- it's the price of a collection
of lenses. I would gladly buy $400 for a film replacement device that
would allow me to continue to use my thousands of dollars worth of
lenses. (Maybe not "gladly", but I would certainly consider it!)

Or does your $400 entry level digital camera include 30+ lenses with
focal lengths from 19mm to 1200mm?

--
Ken Hart

In article ,
Ken Hart wrote:

The price of the camera is not the issue- it's the price of a collection
of lenses. I would gladly buy $400 for a film replacement device that
would allow me to continue to use my thousands of dollars worth of
lenses. (Maybe not "gladly", but I would certainly consider it!)

Here you go...

http://petapixel.com/2011/04/04/35mm...orms-film-came
ras-into-digital/

Could be a joke... But this one seem darn serious!

http://petapixel.com/2013/08/16/conv...into-a-digital
-camera-with-the-digipod/
--
teleportation kills