Nikon to announce new products on Sep. 1

In article ,
Father Kodak wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:14:55 +0200, (Philip
Homburg) wrote:
Suppose that Nikon creates a camera with interchangeable sensors: one
24 Mpixpel sensor that only works at ISO 200, and a 6 Mpixel sensor that
goes up to ISO 1600 or higher. (and a B/W sensor, and an IR sensor, etc.)

Wow. I still do film and I carry either two or three bodies, K64,
Ekta pushed to 3200 and a print film at 100 or 400. One of the
reasons for me to go digital is that I would need only one body. Now
I would need two!

But this may happen anyway. Dedicated high speed dSLRs for sports already
exist. Why not build dedicated high ISO dSLRs (assuming there is enough
demand for them)?

I have to imagine that changing the sensor out in the (dusty) field is
a great way not to keep your sensor dust-free.

One of the advantages of removable sensors is that they are easier to clean...

It's a nice idea, though, as long as the rest of the electronics is
upgrade able to accommodate larger files from future hi-res sensors.

I guess that the limits of resolution will be reached soon (though there is
the 'Bayer' factor). If you compute DoF using the size of a single sensor
element in a 16 Mpixel camera as CoC, you get close to nothing.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Father Kodak wrote:

Which older Nikon lenses wouldn't do justice to a
full-frame digital sensor?

You'll have to wait for a full frame camera to find out. Just look at the
examples from canon's wide zooms to see how poorly a digital FF sensor can
react to use with a "legacy" lens. At least the newer Nikon zooms are
being
designed with a longer exit pupil distance so they at least have a good
chance of being FF friendly.

--

Stacey

Again, Stacey, the 17-40 isn't a "legacy" lens, it postdates the 1D
somewhat. Which doesn't explain the WA shot on Canon's website, I'll agree.
But I still want to know why, if digital res is just equal to film, the
performance of the WA lenses significantly worse on full frame digital than
on film. After all, the sensor size is similar.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Father Kodak wrote:


Wow. I still do film and I carry either two or three bodies, K64,
Ekta pushed to 3200 and a print film at 100 or 400. One of the
reasons for me to go digital is that I would need only one body. Now
I would need two!

Doesn't matter if you're doing film or digital, two bodies is a good
idea because Murphy was an optimist.

Stacey wrote:

Father Kodak wrote:


Which older Nikon lenses wouldn't do justice to a
full-frame digital sensor?


You'll have to wait for a full frame camera to find out. Just look at the
examples from canon's wide zooms to see how poorly a digital FF sensor can
react to use with a "legacy" lens. At least the newer Nikon zooms are being
designed with a longer exit pupil distance so they at least have a good
chance of being FF friendly.


OTOH, that's as much a function of sensor design (or more properly the
algorithm for recording sensor data) as any "problem" with the legacy lens.

Canon could make their full frame sensor more compatable with their
existing wide angle lenses, but why would they, since it would make it
harder to motivate you to buy new wide angle lenses for your new FF
digital slr.

Again, Stacey, the 17-40 isn't a "legacy" lens, it postdates the 1D
somewhat. Which doesn't explain the WA shot on Canon's website, I'll
agree.
But I still want to know why, if digital res is just equal to film, the
performance of the WA lenses significantly worse on full frame digital
than on film. After all, the sensor size is similar.

The problem is with photo elements on digital sensors. They react to light
differently when it doesn't fall at the 90 degree angle. As you get further
away from the center of the projected by the lens image, the angle at which
the rays hit the surface of the sensor deviates from the 90 degree angle
further and further. Canon somewhat have a solution to the problem by
placing a microscopic lens in front of each light element right on the
sensor, thus converting the light right before it hits the element. Others,
(Olympus with the 4/3 format of theirs), approaches this problem by
redesigning the lens to achieve parallelism of all light rays projected onto
the sensor, which, I must add, is an extremely difficult process.

Film, on the other hand, doesn't really care (or probably not as much) at
which angle the light hits the reactive surface. Hence, the same lenses that
performed quite well (quality of image wise) on film bodies will now perform
somewhat worse on a digital body with the same size sensor.

I understand why Nikon take their time to come up with an FF sensor body.
Their goal is to retain the quality of the image while allowing their
customers use the same glass arsenal that was used for the 35mm film bodies.
I'm guessing they will have to come with a similar solution like Canon (or
maybe redesign the sensor totally) since changing the lenses would, IMHO, be
less desirable for the already existing crowd of Nikon users.


Dimitri


P.S. I'm not partial to anyone but I love my 20D

It's a nice idea, though, as long as the rest of the electronics is
upgrade able to accommodate larger files from future hi-res sensors.

I guess that the limits of resolution will be reached soon (though there is
the 'Bayer' factor). If you compute DoF using the size of a single sensor
element in a 16 Mpixel camera as CoC, you get close to nothing.


Are you saying that the circle-of-confusion size is much smaller than
a single sensor element, or the other way around?

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:46:40 -0400, no one
wrote:

Father Kodak wrote:


Wow. I still do film and I carry either two or three bodies, K64,
Ekta pushed to 3200 and a print film at 100 or 400. One of the
reasons for me to go digital is that I would need only one body. Now
I would need two!

Doesn't matter if you're doing film or digital, two bodies is a good
idea because Murphy was an optimist.

Film bodies make a great backup. Especially if you already own them
and you already have a scanner.

"Dimitri Cohen" wrote in message
ink.net...
Again, Stacey, the 17-40 isn't a "legacy" lens, it postdates the 1D
somewhat. Which doesn't explain the WA shot on Canon's website, I'll
agree.
But I still want to know why, if digital res is just equal to film, the
performance of the WA lenses significantly worse on full frame digital
than on film. After all, the sensor size is similar.

The problem is with photo elements on digital sensors. They react to light
differently when it doesn't fall at the 90 degree angle. As you get
further away from the center of the projected by the lens image, the angle
at which the rays hit the surface of the sensor deviates from the 90
degree angle further and further. Canon somewhat have a solution to the
problem by placing a microscopic lens in front of each light element right
on the sensor, thus converting the light right before it hits the element.
Others, (Olympus with the 4/3 format of theirs), approaches this problem
by redesigning the lens to achieve parallelism of all light rays projected
onto the sensor, which, I must add, is an extremely difficult process.

Film, on the other hand, doesn't really care (or probably not as much) at
which angle the light hits the reactive surface. Hence, the same lenses
that performed quite well (quality of image wise) on film bodies will now
perform somewhat worse on a digital body with the same size sensor.

I understand why Nikon take their time to come up with an FF sensor body.
Their goal is to retain the quality of the image while allowing their
customers use the same glass arsenal that was used for the 35mm film
bodies. I'm guessing they will have to come with a similar solution like
Canon (or maybe redesign the sensor totally) since changing the lenses
would, IMHO, be less desirable for the already existing crowd of Nikon
users.


Dimitri


P.S. I'm not partial to anyone but I love my 20D

Thanks, I don't know how many times I've voiced that question, and you are
the first to provide a cogent answer. Now I understand it better, it leaves
the question of why Canon, when they designed the 16-35, 24-70 and 17-40, in
chronological order, didn't take that into consideration. These lenses were
released post digital, and in their blurbs, Canon even talks about them
being suitable for digital use...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Skip M wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Father Kodak wrote:

Which older Nikon lenses wouldn't do justice to a
full-frame digital sensor?

You'll have to wait for a full frame camera to find out. Just look at the
examples from canon's wide zooms to see how poorly a digital FF sensor
can react to use with a "legacy" lens. At least the newer Nikon zooms are
being
designed with a longer exit pupil distance so they at least have a good
chance of being FF friendly.

--

Stacey

Again, Stacey, the 17-40 isn't a "legacy" lens, it postdates the 1D
somewhat.

But they still failed to design it to be digital sensor friendly.


Which doesn't explain the WA shot on Canon's website, I'll
agree. But I still want to know why, if digital res is just equal to film,
the performance of the WA lenses significantly worse on full frame digital
than
on film. After all, the sensor size is similar.


Yet the ability for them to deal with off axis light rays isn't even close
to the same.

--

Stacey

Dimitri Cohen wrote:


Film, on the other hand, doesn't really care (or probably not as much) at
which angle the light hits the reactive surface. Hence, the same lenses
that performed quite well (quality of image wise) on film bodies will now
perform somewhat worse on a digital body with the same size sensor.


Yes THIN emulsion films don't care about this at all, the old thick emulsion
films did have an issue similar to what digital sensors have to deal with
and weren't nearly as sharp, especially with wide angle optics.


--

Stacey