Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 6, 2003, 8:07 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,543
Default

geof

The 4/3 camp is two (just like the xD camp). Kodak is playing it smart with both feet... Let see if they can fit the full-frame CCD of their DCS14n in a 4/3 mount! A larger CCD also has its benefit over a smaller one with the same # of pixels like smearing from adjacent pixels...

The economic benefit of the 4third system is to exploit the smaller size of the 4/3" CCD to create smaller lenses at the same equivalent focal lenght, check the last link (in japanese and french): http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...082&highlight=
Quote:
o Smaller than APS (18mmx13.5mm)
o 1/2 the lens size
o Bayonet mount
o Electronic handshaking with body
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2003, 11:08 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 292
Default

We need to keep one thing straight: a good camera design is made with the human proportions in mind: if the camera does not sit well in your hands, it doesnt matter how small and light it is. As a matter of fact, I found that the weight of a film slr helps a lot in the stability of the shot, and the size very comfortable. Eventhough I love my oly5050, it is a little too small and light.

:lol: I am glad we are only being academic here. I would hate (and love) to be in the team whose jobs depend on getting these answers right. :shock:
geof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2003, 12:13 PM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

As long as we are "thinking, out of the box," we probably should forget entirely about conventional cameras and conventional prints and think in terms of where we would like to be in 25 years or so.

I suspect that there will always be "prints" and "conventional" cameras using glass lenses, etc. Just how far we can push the technology is difficult to say.

I think for practical purposes, we may be at the cutting edge of what 35mm lenses can do in terms of digital resolution now. Theory and practice are quite different animals. Though in "theory" a lens might support 25 megapixel resolution, in practice we are already running up against the limits with the Canon 1Ds at only 11.8 megapixels. I suspect we will see this even more with the Kodak Pro 14n at nearly 14 megapixels. We see problems with lenses used with these cameras which "hardly" are apparent with 35mm color film. So let's assume that we may be up against some of the practical optical barriers already, and instead of thinking about how to "work around" these limitations, what if we go another direction altogether.

Why must we "limit" out thinking to "optical" glass lenses? What about "electronic" lenses? We have incredibly powerful radio telescopes, why not incredibly powerful radio cameras? We examine the micro world with scanning electron microscopes; is it too far fetched to assume that technology may find a non-destructive way to use similar technology to bring us three dimensional holographic capture devices which could "project" nearly perfect replicas of what we see with our eyes? Wouldn't that be a major improvement for the "photographer" of tomorrow?

There are myriad possibilities out there - maybe our latest and greatest camera of the future will look nothing at all like what we envision today.... Just a thought....

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2003, 2:10 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 292
Default

you are right Lin, but...
This endeavours into a new instrument class altogether. There are certain requirements for a camera that make it a camera. Things like electron microscopes and radio telescopes are instruments onto which you attach a camera. I am with you in comming up with new stuff altogether, but it will be NEW STUFF. The invention of motion capture sure was a leap to imaging, but it is not the next step for the camera.
I dont think the still camera (whatever the medium is) will be gone anytime soon, but will definately go through some phases still :shock:
geof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2003, 7:52 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,543
Default

I don't think that's what Lin refered to, check under Products > High Resoltution Scan Systems: http://www.phaseone.com/en/
They are somewhat already here... not in 25 years! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Also here (just need a little speed improvement that's all):
http://www.betterlight.com/
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2003, 4:34 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 161
Default

To turn to a non-tech response....

When I bought my Dimage 7 I assumed it was a bridge camera. I waited until it was good enough and I found a focal length zoom varied enough to meet most of my needs---but the market is still changing, and I assume this isn't mature technology, and in a five years I may get something twice as good for half the price with a bunch of features I haven't thought of.

In some respects I was wrong. I'm actually more impressed with the camera than I thought I'd be. I wanted digital desperately----but there are fewer compromises than I expected. I think, given my nature to trade up and gadget freak personality, i will likely be in the market for a new one in a few years if advances warrant it. BUT I think for a lot of people this is more than enough camera to satisfy all their needs all the time.

As long as they don't just fall apart or break or whatever, I suspect most people will be happy indefinitely. (To be sure--it's not a 35mm slr. There's almost a cachet to some old cameras that hold their value quite well and never seem to die.)
monsieurms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2003, 5:39 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

I'm inclined to think that if sensor performance and processing can get better, there is more mileage in improving the quality of 'electronic zoom' and offering image stabilisation.

The alternative big tele lenses whilst functional, are expensive, a handful and don't lend themselves to machine mass production. So how would a telecam with stabilisation not requiring a tripod, which fits the shirt pocket suit?
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:27 PM.