Re: Modularity coming to cameras?
 

Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Apparently, it is coming to CCTV and scientific cameras. A new one has a
> specialized AMD-produced onboard computer with both a CPU and GPU on the
> same processor die. What it means is that they'll be able to swap sensors
> when new ones come out.

Ricoh have had a camera like that for a few years now. It has several
sensor and lens combinations for different purposes.

Re: Modularity coming to cameras?
 

On 22/09/2012 9:34 a.m., Gordon Freeman wrote:
> Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Apparently, it is coming to CCTV and scientific cameras. A new one has a
>> specialized AMD-produced onboard computer with both a CPU and GPU on the
>> same processor die. What it means is that they'll be able to swap sensors
>> when new ones come out.
>
> Ricoh have had a camera like that for a few years now. It has several
> sensor and lens combinations for different purposes.
>
Which substitutes the "modular sensor" for the "disposable lens"?

Now the lowest entry level Nikon half-frame consumer slr camera beats
the best Canon full frame camera for image quality (for both resolution
and dynamic range at low ISO), so if the "modular camera" becomes
reality, then hopefully it can work "cross system" - just like using
Fuji film in a Kodak camera.
http://i49.tinypic.com/mmwuue.png

Re: Modularity coming to cameras?
 

Gordon Freeman <Gordon@freeman.invalid> writes:

> Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Apparently, it is coming to CCTV and scientific cameras. A new one has a
>> specialized AMD-produced onboard computer with both a CPU and GPU on the
>> same processor die. What it means is that they'll be able to swap sensors
>> when new ones come out.
>
> Ricoh have had a camera like that for a few years now. It has several
> sensor and lens combinations for different purposes.

Which is the antithesis of the approach being discussed -- the Ricoh
permanently mates the lens and sensor modules.

What people have wanted from day one of digital is to be able to swap
out sensors, keeping the same lens mount, user interface, autofocus
system, and so forth. Nobody has done it yet.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Re: Modularity coming to cameras?
 

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 06:05:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Gordon Freeman <Gordon@freeman.invalid> writes:
>
>> Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, it is coming to CCTV and scientific cameras. A new one has a
>>> specialized AMD-produced onboard computer with both a CPU and GPU on the
>>> same processor die. What it means is that they'll be able to swap sensors
>>> when new ones come out.
>>
>> Ricoh have had a camera like that for a few years now. It has several
>> sensor and lens combinations for different purposes.
>
>Which is the antithesis of the approach being discussed -- the Ricoh
>permanently mates the lens and sensor modules.
>
>What people have wanted from day one of digital is to be able to swap
>out sensors, keeping the same lens mount, user interface, autofocus
>system, and so forth. Nobody has done it yet.


If one uses the PC as an example, just how real is this possibility?
My motherboards have allowed a small range of CPUs to be used for
several generations. Could any really make use of the next generation
cpu, no. Why would one therefor think it reasonable for this to happen
in this application?

Re: Modularity coming to cameras?
 

me <me@mine.net> writes:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 06:05:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Gordon Freeman <Gordon@freeman.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently, it is coming to CCTV and scientific cameras. A new one has a
>>>> specialized AMD-produced onboard computer with both a CPU and GPU on the
>>>> same processor die. What it means is that they'll be able to swap sensors
>>>> when new ones come out.
>>>
>>> Ricoh have had a camera like that for a few years now. It has several
>>> sensor and lens combinations for different purposes.
>>
>>Which is the antithesis of the approach being discussed -- the Ricoh
>>permanently mates the lens and sensor modules.
>>
>>What people have wanted from day one of digital is to be able to swap
>>out sensors, keeping the same lens mount, user interface, autofocus
>>system, and so forth. Nobody has done it yet.
>
> If one uses the PC as an example, just how real is this possibility?
> My motherboards have allowed a small range of CPUs to be used for
> several generations. Could any really make use of the next generation
> cpu, no. Why would one therefor think it reasonable for this to happen
> in this application?

Well, I've been relatively uninterested in increased resolution for 5
years now (and 3 or 4 camera purchases; though only one new "main"
camera). So, if the processing were no faster, and the communication
from sensor to memory were no faster, it wouldn't bother me much. I'd
still like the benefits of better sensor tech (mostly lower noise
levels).

But we're just starting to reach that kind of point in the history of
digital, I agree.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Re: Modularity coming to cameras?
 

Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <ylfk392axqqb.fsf@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> What people have wanted from day one of digital is to be able to swap
>> out sensors, keeping the same lens mount, user interface, autofocus
>> system, and so forth. Nobody has done it yet.
>
> Well, modular PCs (desktops) have to a very large extent been replaced
> by non-modular PCs (notebooks), for reasons of compactness, design, ease
> of use etc.

This is circular, though. Part of the reasoning is that you replace the
whole thing every 3-5 years anyway.

> A modular camera would be much, much more bulky than a non-modular
> camera, because of all those standardised connectors to which to attach
> the components.

Not sure that's true. Particularly if the one thing really separately
swappable was the sensor chip.

> Also, few people would have the necessary skills to replace sensor,
> image processor, AF module etc., i.e. the market for such cameras
> would be very small. To top it all, there is no incentive for camera
> manufacturers to commoditise cameras.

Yes, arguably IBM screwed up when they designed the PC. However, it
wouldn't have caught on like that if it had been a closed
system. So...who's doing the right thing?
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info