«

This may be a stupid question, and I'm fully prepared to admit my ignorance
on the subject of optics and sensors and the in depth workings of
each....but what is keeping us stuck with a 1.5x (or 1.4 or 1.6, whatever)
multiplier in digital SLRs? Whatever happened to the refractive optics
system that Nikon integrated with their E3/E3s digital SLR bodies? Was
there something inherently wrong with that system? Seems like a solution to
the problems of focal length multipliers..... Again, I'm no expert and
please correct me if I'm wrong on this front. Why can't manufacturers today
implement something similar in the newer bodies? Or is it just an excuse
for a second line of digital only lenses? Thanks much.

Aidan

Aidan wrote:
>This may be a stupid question, and I'm fully prepared to admit my ignorance
>on the subject of optics and sensors and the in depth workings of
>each....but what is keeping us stuck with a 1.5x (or 1.4 or 1.6, whatever)
>multiplier in digital SLRs? Whatever happened to the refractive optics
>system that Nikon integrated with their E3/E3s digital SLR bodies? Was
>there something inherently wrong with that system? Seems like a solution to
>the problems of focal length multipliers..... Again, I'm no expert and
>please correct me if I'm wrong on this front. Why can't manufacturers today
>implement something similar in the newer bodies? Or is it just an excuse
>for a second line of digital only lenses? Thanks much.

So far, nobody has been able to invent a *practical* way to repeal the laws of
optics.

In the meanwhile, the digital sensor size remains a stumbling block in the
design of better digital cameras. The sensor can be kept at its 1.5 or 1.6
factor smaller than a 35mm frame, and those can be fabricated in normal
semiconductor fabs using normal lithography methods for normal costs. If you
want the sensor to be full 35mm frame size, then you have to go to unusual
lithography methods, and the costs go up tremendously. Canon or Nikon might do
that for a few professional model cameras that they can charge many thousands
of dollars for. However, if they want to mass-market cameras, the sensor cost
must go down, and that means keeping the sensor smaller than the 35mm frame
size.

---Bob Gross---

"Robertwgross" <> a écrit dans le message de
news:...
> Aidan wrote:
> >This may be a stupid question, and I'm fully prepared to admit my
ignorance
> >on the subject of optics and sensors and the in depth workings of
> >each....but what is keeping us stuck with a 1.5x (or 1.4 or 1.6,
whatever)
> >multiplier in digital SLRs? Whatever happened to the refractive optics
> >system that Nikon integrated with their E3/E3s digital SLR bodies? Was
> >there something inherently wrong with that system? Seems like a solution
to
> >the problems of focal length multipliers..... Again, I'm no expert and
> >please correct me if I'm wrong on this front. Why can't manufacturers
today
> >implement something similar in the newer bodies? Or is it just an excuse
> >for a second line of digital only lenses? Thanks much.
>
> So far, nobody has been able to invent a *practical* way to repeal the
laws of
> optics.
>
> In the meanwhile, the digital sensor size remains a stumbling block in the
> design of better digital cameras. The sensor can be kept at its 1.5 or 1.6
> factor smaller than a 35mm frame, and those can be fabricated in normal
> semiconductor fabs using normal lithography methods for normal costs. If
you
> want the sensor to be full 35mm frame size, then you have to go to unusual
> lithography methods, and the costs go up tremendously. Canon or Nikon
might do
> that for a few professional model cameras that they can charge many
thousands
> of dollars for. However, if they want to mass-market cameras, the sensor
cost
> must go down, and that means keeping the sensor smaller than the 35mm
frame
> size.
>
> ---Bob Gross---

I always tought making things smaller was a lot more difficult than making
them bigger, why is it so with image sensors?

Jean

But where is the stumbling block barring the way for something in the way of
the Nikon refractive optics design (or something similar) used in the
E3/E3s. The sensor size was smaller than a 35mm frame, yet through the use
of additional optics built into the body the image was reduced to fit into
the smaller frame size, thus enabling the normal use of wide angle lenses.
Once again, I'm no physics expert so please do find fault in my reasoning.
I ask only to find the answer.


"Robertwgross" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Aidan wrote:
> >This may be a stupid question, and I'm fully prepared to admit my
ignorance
> >on the subject of optics and sensors and the in depth workings of
> >each....but what is keeping us stuck with a 1.5x (or 1.4 or 1.6,
whatever)
> >multiplier in digital SLRs? Whatever happened to the refractive optics
> >system that Nikon integrated with their E3/E3s digital SLR bodies? Was
> >there something inherently wrong with that system? Seems like a solution
to
> >the problems of focal length multipliers..... Again, I'm no expert and
> >please correct me if I'm wrong on this front. Why can't manufacturers
today
> >implement something similar in the newer bodies? Or is it just an excuse
> >for a second line of digital only lenses? Thanks much.
>
> So far, nobody has been able to invent a *practical* way to repeal the
laws of
> optics.
>
> In the meanwhile, the digital sensor size remains a stumbling block in the
> design of better digital cameras. The sensor can be kept at its 1.5 or 1.6
> factor smaller than a 35mm frame, and those can be fabricated in normal
> semiconductor fabs using normal lithography methods for normal costs. If
you
> want the sensor to be full 35mm frame size, then you have to go to unusual
> lithography methods, and the costs go up tremendously. Canon or Nikon
might do
> that for a few professional model cameras that they can charge many
thousands
> of dollars for. However, if they want to mass-market cameras, the sensor
cost
> must go down, and that means keeping the sensor smaller than the 35mm
frame
> size.
>
> ---Bob Gross---

"Aidan" <David_J_Griffiths at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
news: news.com...
> This may be a stupid question, and I'm fully prepared to admit my
ignorance
> on the subject of optics and sensors and the in depth workings of
> each....but what is keeping us stuck with a 1.5x (or 1.4 or 1.6, whatever)
> multiplier in digital SLRs?

The $8,000 price tag on the Canon 1Ds is keeping me from full frame. Don't
know anything about the Nikon system you mentioned.


Mark

My apologies, the optical system implemented in the E3/E3s was called Nikon
Reduction Optical System (ROS). Don't know where diffractive came into my
head.....must be time for bed.



"Aidan" <David_J_Griffiths at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
news: news.com...
> This may be a stupid question, and I'm fully prepared to admit my
ignorance
> on the subject of optics and sensors and the in depth workings of
> each....but what is keeping us stuck with a 1.5x (or 1.4 or 1.6, whatever)
> multiplier in digital SLRs? Whatever happened to the refractive optics
> system that Nikon integrated with their E3/E3s digital SLR bodies? Was
> there something inherently wrong with that system? Seems like a solution
to
> the problems of focal length multipliers..... Again, I'm no expert and
> please correct me if I'm wrong on this front. Why can't manufacturers
today
> implement something similar in the newer bodies? Or is it just an excuse
> for a second line of digital only lenses? Thanks much.
>
> Aidan
>
>

For anyone interested I finally found an illustration of the system I've
been discussing. I've posted it online for anyone who would like to have a
gander. All you experts out there let me know the fatal flaw that is
keeping this out of modern digital SLRs.

http://aidan81.tripod.com/e3image1.jpg


"Aidan" <David_J_Griffiths at yahoo dot com> wrote in message
news: news.com...
> This may be a stupid question, and I'm fully prepared to admit my
ignorance
> on the subject of optics and sensors and the in depth workings of
> each....but what is keeping us stuck with a 1.5x (or 1.4 or 1.6, whatever)
> multiplier in digital SLRs? Whatever happened to the refractive optics
> system that Nikon integrated with their E3/E3s digital SLR bodies? Was
> there something inherently wrong with that system? Seems like a solution
to
> the problems of focal length multipliers..... Again, I'm no expert and
> please correct me if I'm wrong on this front. Why can't manufacturers
today
> implement something similar in the newer bodies? Or is it just an excuse
> for a second line of digital only lenses? Thanks much.
>
> Aidan
>
>

In article <GM5eb.2454$>,
"jean" <look_for@my_email.org> wrote:

> I always tought making things smaller was a lot more difficult than making
> them bigger, why is it so with image sensors?

well, there are so many things that are difficult to make bigger
buildings, bridges, LCD screens, airplanes, space stations, and yes,
among other things, penises (or what's the plural of penis?). anyway, as
you can propably tell, there is no single day that I don't get a spam ad
for some sort of penis enlargment drug or device. but this is really OT
now...

Hi Aidan

Thanks for bringing this info on Nikon's
"Reduction Optical System" as used in the E3
cameras. I was unaware of that early solution.

> All you experts out there let me know the fatal flaw that is
> keeping this out of modern digital SLRs.

I'm guessing that cost is one possible factor.

Another might be optical issues that didn't show up in
a 1 megapixel camera but would show up in a 6+ megapixel
camera.

Anyways ... thanks for bringing this up .... too bad Nikon
engineers aren't encouraged to post in such venues as this ...

Stan

"Aidan" <David_J_Griffiths at yahoo dot com> wrote:

> This may be a stupid question, and I'm fully prepared to admit my ignorance
> on the subject of optics and sensors and the in depth workings of
> each....but what is keeping us stuck with a 1.5x (or 1.4 or 1.6, whatever)
> multiplier in digital SLRs? Whatever happened to the refractive optics
> system that Nikon integrated with their E3/E3s digital SLR bodies? Was
> there something inherently wrong with that system? Seems like a solution to
> the problems of focal length multipliers..... Again, I'm no expert and
> please correct me if I'm wrong on this front. Why can't manufacturers today
> implement something similar in the newer bodies? Or is it just an excuse
> for a second line of digital only lenses? Thanks much.

DSLR's have only been marketed for a few years.. Nikon, and Canon haven't had
a chance to completely redesign their whole lens linup Even if they did
have time, the market is still VERY small.. Not yet worth the effort.

It may happen.. Both Canon and Nikon have produced lenses specifically for
DSLR use.. (The EF-S 18-55 kit lens for the Digital Rebel and the 12-24 IF-ED
from Nikon).

If DSLR popularity continues, I'm sure we'll see more specific 'no crop' lenses
to fit the sensor size.

But consider.. What if the cost of making larger sensors drops through mass
production and new innoviations in manufacturing.. The specific small sensor
lenses will mean that if manufacturers produce a larger sensor (close to or at
full frame size), all their lenses made specifically for smaller sensors will
be useless.. Developing an extensive line of such lenses might doom us to APS
sized sensors for a long time to come..

It's a fast moving and still uncertain markket.. I don't really blame the big
guns for dragging their heels a bit..