35 mm size CCDs in Digital consumer SLRs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by DH, Sep 9, 2003.

  1. DH

    DH Guest

    Anyone have any insight as to when full size CCDs will be introduced
    into the "enthusiast" range (i.e. under approx. $2k) Digial SLRs? I am
    not excited about giving up the capability to take wide angle shots at a
    reasonable price.

    Are we talking a year or two, or five?
     
    DH, Sep 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hi DH

    This is anybody's guess.

    My guess: Spring 2006.

    Stan
     
    Stanley Krute, Sep 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "DH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Anyone have any insight as to when full size CCDs will be introduced
    > into the "enthusiast" range (i.e. under approx. $2k) Digial SLRs? I am
    > not excited about giving up the capability to take wide angle shots at a
    > reasonable price.
    >
    > Are we talking a year or two, or five?


    I was hoping this year and US$3,000, but Canon had other ideas. Maybe it'll
    be next year and US$2,500.

    The D1x was announced Feb 5, 2001, and the 10D Feb 27, 2003. That's a _TWO_
    year lag for the technology to move from Pro to Enthusiast prices.

    The 1Ds was announced Sept. 24, 2002, so I guess I was jumping the gun by a
    year: Sept 2004. Sigh.

    My bet, though, is that under $2k for an 11MP sensor is a long way off. Save
    your pennies, I am. (Besides, if you budget $2,500 and it's only $1,500,
    that's all the more glass you can buy<g>.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 9, 2003
    #3
  4. DH

    Eric Gisin Guest

    Never. That (24x36mm) is a lot of silicon, and fabrication costs do not drop
    dramatically and yields are low.

    The solution is to drop the sensor size and create lenses for it. I believe
    one camera uses APS format, which is probably 17x25mm, and would much cheaper.

    "DH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | Anyone have any insight as to when full size CCDs will be introduced
    | into the "enthusiast" range (i.e. under approx. $2k) Digial SLRs? I am
    | not excited about giving up the capability to take wide angle shots at a
    | reasonable price.
    |
    | Are we talking a year or two, or five?
     
    Eric Gisin, Sep 9, 2003
    #4
  5. DH

    Charlie Ih Guest

    How wide do you want? Remember that the widest Canon zoom lens
    (for 1Ds) and Nikon lense (for Kodak 14n, or Fujifilm S2 Pro) is 17 mm.
    (15 mm for Sigma). With Nikon D100, you can get 18 mm equivalent.

    If you use zoom lens for convenience, the overall effective
    total number of pixels for film camera is about 6 - 8 MP.
    The Nikon D100 has 6 MP which for most purpose is good enough.
    Its street price in US is about $1,700. So you have a choice
    to either waite or enjoy it now.

    Using the current lenses "optimized" for 35 mm cameras, even an 8 MP
    APS sensor probably won't buy you that much.


    In article <>,
    DH <> wrote:
    >Anyone have any insight as to when full size CCDs will be introduced
    >into the "enthusiast" range (i.e. under approx. $2k) Digial SLRs? I am
    >not excited about giving up the capability to take wide angle shots at a
    >reasonable price.
    >
    >Are we talking a year or two, or five?



    --
    Charles S. Ih
    302-831-8173, FAX 302-831-4316
     
    Charlie Ih, Sep 9, 2003
    #5
  6. > Anyone have any insight as to when full size CCDs will be introduced
    > into the "enthusiast" range (i.e. under approx. $2k) Digial SLRs? I am
    > not excited about giving up the capability to take wide angle shots at a
    > reasonable price.
    >
    > Are we talking a year or two, or five?



    A Danish philosopher once said: "It is hard to prophesy. Especially
    about the future."

    My gut feeling, based on the headiness of the past few years, is that
    we might get a nice surprise earlier than we may think. Maybe next
    year.

    I sure hope so. We must not forget that loss of wide-angle features is
    not the only downside to the smaller chips. There is also the smaller
    viewfinder image. Not to mention the quality loss because the lenses
    are not being used to the coverage that they were designed for.

    eolake

    --
    http://stobblehouse.com
     
    Eolake Stobblehouse, Sep 9, 2003
    #6
  7. (Charlie Ih) writes:

    > How wide do you want? Remember that the widest Canon zoom lens
    > (for 1Ds) and Nikon lense (for Kodak 14n, or Fujifilm S2 Pro) is 17 mm.
    > (15 mm for Sigma). With Nikon D100, you can get 18 mm equivalent.


    Don't overlook the 12-24mm DX lens for the nikon.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 9, 2003
    #7
  8. "Charlie Ih" <> wrote:

    > How wide do you want? Remember that the widest Canon zoom lens
    > (for 1Ds) and Nikon lense (for Kodak 14n, or Fujifilm S2 Pro) is 17 mm.
    > (15 mm for Sigma). With Nikon D100, you can get 18 mm equivalent.


    It's not just wide: wide shots often have a lot more detail in them: your
    subject appears further away, so you really need more pixels as well. And
    the Canon 17-40/4.0 is (according to Japanese reviews) much better than the
    Nikon 12-24, although the 12-24 looks great at 12mm in the downsampled
    examples I've seen.

    > If you use zoom lens for convenience, the overall effective
    > total number of pixels for film camera is about 6 - 8 MP.


    Exactly. In particular, the 1Ds looked a lot better than film for extreme
    wide angles in one comparison I saw<g>.

    > The Nikon D100 has 6 MP which for most purpose is good enough.


    Sigh. 50 years of subminiature photography has debased our photographic
    standards something fierce. There's hardly anyone alive today who knows what
    a good print looks like. Sigh.

    > Its street price in US is about $1,700. So you have a choice
    > to either waite or enjoy it now.


    This is a good point; if you don't have a camera you can't enjoy it, and
    even a 22mm lens (the widest I can get for my camera) is a lot of fun. But
    your number is wrong: it's $1700 + $1,000. The lens doesn't work if it's
    still sitting in the store. I'd be much happier if Canon came out with an
    EF-S 12mm f/3.5 lens for $500 for the 300D.

    Spending $2700 on a camera I'd be praying to replace next year is a bit
    much, and the 300D functions as a less conspicuous take anywhere camera once
    a reasonably priced version of the 1Ds appears.

    > Using the current lenses "optimized" for 35 mm cameras, even an 8 MP
    > APS sensor probably won't buy you that much.


    It probably would, although you'd need to shoot at f/5.6 to f/11 with primes
    to really take advantage of it. As you increase the pixel count, you see
    some improvement even with crappy lenses, due to the way MTFs combine. Note
    that the new 1/1.8" 5MP consumer cameras (e.g. C5050) cough up great
    resolution despite their infinitesimal pixels.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 10, 2003
    #8
  9. Dave Balcom <> writes:

    >I thought most D-SLR images benefitted from using the lenses 'sweet
    >spot' due to the magnification crop (related to edge sharpness
    >anyway)?


    It's a double-edged sword. By not using the edge of the field, there's
    less vignetting and the image quality is probably more uniform. But by
    requiring the image to be enlarged 1.6X more for the same size print,
    the centre of the field needs to perform that much better. So a lens
    that's of marginal (centre) sharpness for film may be unacceptable for
    use on a digital camera.

    In general, you're probably better off using a lens at the field size
    and magnification it's designed for.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Sep 10, 2003
    #9
  10. DH

    Dave Balcom Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:38:34 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
    Martindale) wrote:

    }In general, you're probably better off using a lens at the field size
    }and magnification it's designed for.

    That makes sense the way you explained it...

    Later,
    Dave
     
    Dave Balcom, Sep 10, 2003
    #10
  11. DH

    Guest

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 11:59:16 -0400, DH <> wrote:

    >Anyone have any insight as to when full size CCDs will be introduced
    >into the "enthusiast" range (i.e. under approx. $2k) Digial SLRs? I am
    >not excited about giving up the capability to take wide angle shots at a
    >reasonable price.
    >
    >Are we talking a year or two, or five?


    Ummmmm...we are talking last year. Excluding the pricing from your
    question, Contax is already making a full sized CCD with 6.3 mp's.
    it's called the N Digital & info is here:
    http://www.contaxcameras.com/nseries_press/index_nd.html
     
    , Sep 11, 2003
    #11
  12. DH

    JackD Guest

    > Ummmmm...we are talking last year. Excluding the pricing from your
    > question, Contax is already making a full sized CCD with 6.3 mp's.
    > it's called the N Digital & info is here:
    > http://www.contaxcameras.com/nseries_press/index_nd.html


    Excluding the pricing from the question makes it meaningless.

    Kind of like asking "when can I fly to the moon for vacation for under
    $10,000" and you answer "excluding pricing, in the 1970's"

    -Jack
     
    JackD, Sep 11, 2003
    #12
  13. DH

    J. B. Dalton Guest

    Dave Balcom wrote:

    > On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:12:17 +0100, Eolake Stobblehouse
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > }Not to mention the quality loss because the lenses
    > }are not being used to the coverage that they were designed for.
    >
    > I thought most D-SLR images benefitted from using the lenses 'sweet
    > spot' due to the magnification crop (related to edge sharpness
    > anyway)?


    Unfortunately, that is not the way most lenses are designed. Compromises
    are made, in normal 35mm lenses, to get the best average detail-contrast
    across the whole frame of the 35mm film. That often means the best
    resolution is about half way out from center and some resolution loss in
    center and edges. Now, a small censor that uses only the center does not
    get the best that could have been designed for *that* region in that
    size glass.

    To get technical, only Petzval curvature can be partially corrected for
    by focus. That, unfortunately makes other aberrations like coma,
    astigmatism, lateral and longitudinal chromatic, etc. a bit worse than
    if the focus was in the original design plane. There is no substitute
    for designing and fabricating to meet the needs of the exact format.

    JBD
     
    J. B. Dalton, Sep 13, 2003
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tony Whitaker

    Canon CMOS Sensors vs CCDs - A No-Brainer?

    Tony Whitaker, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    563
    eddie.m
    Sep 11, 2003
  2. Bendik Engebretsen

    Cleaning DSLR CCDs

    Bendik Engebretsen, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    385
    Robertwgross
    Oct 6, 2003
  3. Jack Yeazel

    Fuji S7000 and S2 Pro 6MP CCDs -Are They The Same?

    Jack Yeazel, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    447
    Jack Yeazel
    Nov 14, 2003
  4. Robert E. Williams

    Bayer Color Mask For CCDs

    Robert E. Williams, Nov 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,074
    Robert E. Williams
    Nov 29, 2003
  5. Luis ORTEGA

    are non digital lenses better for digital slrs?

    Luis ORTEGA, May 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    560
    Old Nick
    May 25, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page