«

Since we've now established that lenses are not challenged (good
lenses, when stopped down) by the current high pixel count, 36mp from
the Nikon D800, it would seem that going to 100mp isn't a bad idea, if
you wanted a camera where you didn't need huge DR or noise control.
It's pretty certain that medium format will be there shortly so a FF
camera with 100mp wouldn't be stretching the bounds of reality that
much. In fact, like I said years ago, Nikon (or someone) should
consider an increase in size of the FF sensor for a flagship camera.
They'll need something that betters the D800. The camera wouldn't be
for sports, or low-light (unless exposures were long), just for studio
and landscape-type work, daylight shots of extreme resolution. The
need to stop down any lens to meet the resolution requirement would
negate any use for low-light work anyway, except for tripod-mounted
long exposures. The camera would ideally be mirrorless.
Using Nikon's 3:2 ratio, the pixel count would be about 12,500 x
8000. Resolution woud be (linear) 65% more than the D800. For some
reason, when websites talk about resolution and cameras, they focus on
the horizontal measure. If pixel size was shrunk by the same 65%,
then 100M would fit on a FF sensor. To maintain D800 pixel sizes, the
sensor would need to be enlarged to 38mm x 59mm. Not small, would
require, obviously, a new lens line, but so what. If Leica and Pentax
can afford it, so could Nikon and realistically, who has a better
chance of selliing these things? Additionally, it would provide Nikon
(or Canon) with an excuse to maintain prices levels in the high 4-
figures (or low five?) where there must be huge price pressure on the
D3x and D4 because of the D800.
It's likely, given the improvement in performance of m4/3rds that a
pixel size of those cameras could be done by Nikon for a FF. Such a
FF would have a pixel count of 63mp. That corresponds to upping the
size of the 18mp GH2 sensor to FF, while maintaining its current pixel
density. Lets pretend that the current m4/3rds sensor isn't the best
sensor, pixel size to pixel size on the market, which it is. Lets
further assume that Nikon is currently producing the best sensors.
Then, it isn't hard to envision them putting 100mp onto a FF sensor
and getting good results from it.

RichA <> wrote:
>In fact, like I said years ago, Nikon (or someone) should
>consider an increase in size of the FF sensor for a flagship camera.
>They'll need something that betters the D800. The camera wouldn't be
>for sports, or low-light (unless exposures were long), just for studio
>and landscape-type work, daylight shots of extreme resolution.


That camera already exists. It is the Leica S2.
http://s.leica-camera.com/

On Apr 4, 3:02*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In fact, like I said years ago, Nikon (or someone) should
> >consider an increase in size of the FF sensor for a flagship camera.
> >They'll need something that betters the D800. *The camera wouldn't be
> >for sports, or low-light (unless exposures were long), just for studio
> >and landscape-type work, daylight shots of extreme resolution.
>
> That camera already exists. *It is the Leica S2.http://s.leica-camera.com/

Yes, it's nice, but about 3x more costly than it needs to be. $2000
for a sapphire LCD cover? Less ostentation, more pixels.

On 04/04/2012 20:52, RichA wrote:
> On Apr 4, 3:02 pm, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In fact, like I said years ago, Nikon (or someone) should
>>> consider an increase in size of the FF sensor for a flagship camera.
>>> They'll need something that betters the D800. The camera wouldn't be
>>> for sports, or low-light (unless exposures were long), just for studio
>>> and landscape-type work, daylight shots of extreme resolution.
>>
>> That camera already exists. It is the Leica S2.http://s.leica-camera.com/
>
> Yes, it's nice, but about 3x more costly than it needs to be. $2000
> for a sapphire LCD cover? Less ostentation, more pixels.

Sapphire glass looks just like Silica glass, but is apparently 5 times
tougher and allegedly one needs a diamond to scratch it. Nice to have if
you can afford it.

Personally I'd prefer to get my sapphire glass in the form of a Swiss
watch...

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

On Apr 6, 8:05*am, Joe Kotroczo <kotro...@mac.com> wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 20:52, RichA wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 3:02 pm, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> *wrote:
> >> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> *wrote:
> >>> In fact, like I said years ago, Nikon (or someone) should
> >>> consider an increase in size of the FF sensor for a flagship camera.
> >>> They'll need something that betters the D800. *The camera wouldn't be
> >>> for sports, or low-light (unless exposures were long), just for studio
> >>> and landscape-type work, daylight shots of extreme resolution.
>
> >> That camera already exists. *It is the Leica S2.http://s.leica-camera.com/
>
> > Yes, it's nice, but about 3x more costly than it needs to be. *$2000
> > for a sapphire LCD cover? *Less ostentation, more pixels.
>
> Sapphire glass looks just like Silica glass, but is apparently 5 times
> tougher and allegedly one needs a diamond to scratch it. Nice to have if
> you can afford it.
>
> Personally I'd prefer to get my sapphire glass in the form of a Swiss
> watch...
>

Well, there's always Gorilla Glass the Corning product they use on
iPads. The one good thing Apple has done was to convince Corning to
restart making the 1960's stuff for them.

In article <2012040712594270933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > See my other comment. Could it be LTI's glass is for the body (back)
> > and Corning's for the display? Could LTI be making GG under license?
>
> The back of which product? I would imagine Apple would want the back of
> the iPhone to be as durable as the face.

the back is much easier to replace than the front, so it may not need
it to be as strong. also, if the back cracks the phone is still usable.
if the front cracks, not so much.

In article <2012040713423180278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > The back of the iPhone 4/4S is glass. Not necessarily the same as
> > the LCD cover glass.
> >
> > http://iphonerepairs.net/resources/i...er_cracked.png
>
> Yup! I knew that. My remark which you edited, and I reinserted, implied
> the question, why would Apple use two different materials, when the
> back needed to be as durable as the face?

it doesn't.

> ..and I agree, both the face and the back of the iPhone seem to be
> vulnerable to dropping on hard surfaces. It is a pity that it is
> foolish to not have some sort of protective case for the iPhone. I use
> a case which provides a fair amount of protection, but I am still
> considering one of the Otter Box offerings.
> <
> http://www.otterbox.com/iPhone-4-/-4...efault,pd.html
> >
>
> So much for elegance of design.

there are more elegant cases than the otterbox.

In article <_>, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

> My son needs to get a water/shockproof one. He's destroyed two iPhones
> to date.

lifeproof looks promising. they suggest you submerge it without a phone
in it to test it, then put the phone in it.

In article <2012040714515651816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > there are more elegant cases than the otterbox.
>
> Agreed there are some quite elegant case offerings, some of which cost
> as much, or more than the iPhone its self.
> < http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/09/449588/ >

no price listed, but i doubt it's as much as £5,000,000, for either
ipad or iphone:
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...e-5-000-000-iP
ad-2-crusted-dinosaur-bones-gold--actually-bought-one.html>

> ...and then there is this, a line of cases which are a little less
> exclusive/expensive;
> < http://www.elementcase.com/Default.asp >

it's metal and interferes with the antenna. it also is just around the
sides. it has nothing to protect the glass.

> However we are talking about cases which provide a high degree of
> protection, so there is Otter Box and the Griffin Survivor.
> < http://www.griffintechnology.com/armored >

lifeproof, seidio, ivyskin and some others have full coverage cases.
some water resistant and others just protect against dings.

there's even one with a rollaway door for the front:
<http://www.case-mate.com/iPhone-4-Ca...4-4S-Tank-Case
s.asp>

On Apr 7, 1:57*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-07 10:39:43 -0700, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > In article <ceca2833-6efd-41fc-941d-
> > 8e308e586...@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
>
> >> Well, there's always Gorilla Glass the Corning product they use on
> >> iPads. *The one good thing Apple has done was to convince Corning to
> >> restart making the 1960's stuff for them.
>
> > Strange, because the iphone does not use Gorilla glass, while the
> > Samsung Galaxy S2 does.
>
> Even stranger.
> Corning only lists the 1st generation iPhone as an Apple device using
> "Gorilla Glass". No other iPhones, or iPods, and no iPads.
> I guess Rich failed on fact checking once more.
>
> <http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/products-with-gorilla/full-product...>
> < p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_devices_with_Gorilla_Glass >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

I only saw it mentioned on one of those worship programs about Jobs.
I guess Aople didn't stick with it. Maybe Corning wouldn't license
the production to the Chinese...