full-frame CMOS non-DSLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by name, Nov 25, 2005.

  1. name

    name Guest

    Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.
    Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame (like
    the Canon 5D)
    versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?
     
    name, Nov 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. name

    Mark² Guest

    name wrote:
    > Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    > CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR
    > cameras. Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect
    > full-frame (like the Canon 5D)
    > versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?


    Approximately never.
     
    Mark², Nov 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. name

    Guest

    Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

    > name wrote:
    > > Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    > > CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR
    > > cameras. Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect
    > > full-frame (like the Canon 5D)
    > > versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?

    >
    > Approximately never.


    Never say never :)
    My best guess is that the only companies that would be crazy enough to
    make a full-35mm-frame non SLR camera would be either Leica (a digital
    M6) or Epson (an updated RD-1) and both possible cameras would be
    rangefinder cameras.
    I haven't the faintest idea when or if this would ever be built, but I
    suppose it realy depends on whether Sony makes a FF sensor or Kodak
    sells the sensor used in the Pro 14n to another manufacturer like Leica
    or Epson or maybe Cosina (the manufacturer of the latest "Voigtlaender
    Bessa" range of RF cameras) to put into their digital RF camera
    (assuming it ever happens).
     
    , Nov 25, 2005
    #3
  4. name

    Rich Guest

    On 25 Nov 2005 02:44:11 -0800, "name" <> wrote:

    >
    >Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    >CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.
    >Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame (like
    >the Canon 5D)
    >versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?


    No real point in doing it. The only thing it offers is the
    possibility for a higher pixel count and the ability to use ancient
    35mm lenses at their full angle.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Nov 25, 2005
    #4
  5. name

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "name" <> writes:
    > Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    > CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.


    Actually, lots and lots of non-DSLR's use CMOS sensors. Most cell
    phone cameras have CMOS sensors, for example. But they are generally
    considered lower quality than CCD sensors. Canon shocked everyone by
    using a CMOS sensor in the D30 (and later cameras, but it wasn't
    shocking in the later examples) and getting such good images from it.

    > Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame
    > (like the Canon 5D) versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?


    It's not terribly likely, except for some weird reason like being able
    to use Leica M lenses, as someone mentioned.
     
    Paul Rubin, Nov 25, 2005
    #5
  6. name

    Darrell Guest

    "name" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    > CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.
    > Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame (like
    > the Canon 5D)
    > versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?
    >

    I would save never, the Sony R1 is more expensive than half of the dSLR
    cameras on the market.
     
    Darrell, Nov 25, 2005
    #6
  7. name

    Skip M Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 25 Nov 2005 02:44:11 -0800, "name" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    >>CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.
    >>Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame (like
    >>the Canon 5D)
    >>versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?

    >
    > No real point in doing it. The only thing it offers is the
    > possibility for a higher pixel count and the ability to use ancient
    > 35mm lenses at their full angle.
    > -Rich

    Ancient, like the Canon 24-105 f4 IS USM that was introduced way back
    in...2005?
    Rich, your foolishness is exceeded only by your eagerness to demonstrate
    that foolishness.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 25, 2005
    #7
  8. name

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, Paul Rubin
    <http://> says...

    > Most cell
    > phone cameras have CMOS sensors, for example. But they are generally
    > considered lower quality than CCD sensors.


    Well, phone cameras are not "generally considered lower quality" - they
    are indeed lower quality.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E500 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/
     
    Alfred Molon, Nov 25, 2005
    #8
  9. name

    Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    >
    >> name wrote:
    >>> Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ
    >>> a CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR
    >>> cameras. Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect
    >>> full-frame (like the Canon 5D)
    >>> versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?

    >>
    >> Approximately never.

    >
    > Never say never :)


    Note the word, "approximately."
    :)

    > My best guess is that the only companies that would be crazy enough to
    > make a full-35mm-frame non SLR camera would be either Leica (a digital
    > M6) or Epson (an updated RD-1) and both possible cameras would be
    > rangefinder cameras.
    > I haven't the faintest idea when or if this would ever be built, but I
    > suppose it realy depends on whether Sony makes a FF sensor or Kodak
    > sells the sensor used in the Pro 14n to another manufacturer like
    > Leica or Epson or maybe Cosina (the manufacturer of the latest
    > "Voigtlaender Bessa" range of RF cameras) to put into their digital
    > RF camera (assuming it ever happens).
     
    Mark², Nov 25, 2005
    #9
  10. name

    PanHandler Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:DfChf.9795$dv.4725@fed1read02...

    > Approximately never.


    Even later than that.
     
    PanHandler, Nov 25, 2005
    #10
  11. name

    Father Kodak Guest

    On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:55:44 -0800, "Skip M" <>
    wrote:

    >"Rich" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On 25 Nov 2005 02:44:11 -0800, "name" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    >>>CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.
    >>>Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame (like
    >>>the Canon 5D)
    >>>versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?

    >>
    >> No real point in doing it. The only thing it offers is the
    >> possibility for a higher pixel count and the ability to use ancient
    >> 35mm lenses at their full angle.
    >> -Rich

    >Ancient, like the Canon 24-105 f4 IS USM that was introduced way back
    >in...2005?
    >Rich, your foolishness is exceeded only by your eagerness to demonstrate
    >that foolishness.


    Skip,

    Presumably Rich was on-topic for this thread, which is about non-DSLR
    cameras, that is rangefinders. In the last 20 or 30 years there
    hasn't been much of a market for interchangeable lens rangefinders,
    Leica excepted.

    Thus, with the possible qualifier of "Leica excepted" Rich's comment
    was on-target. For example, Nikon has made no moves to bring back
    their S series rangefinders, which were highly acclaimed in their
    time, the 1950s.

    Nor is anyone talking about a digital version of a Rolleiflex TLR.
    LOL.

    Perhaps you owe Rich an apology.


    Father Kodak.
     
    Father Kodak, Nov 25, 2005
    #11
  12. name

    Skip M Guest

    "Father Kodak" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:55:44 -0800, "Skip M" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Rich" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On 25 Nov 2005 02:44:11 -0800, "name" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    >>>>CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.
    >>>>Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame (like
    >>>>the Canon 5D)
    >>>>versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?
    >>>
    >>> No real point in doing it. The only thing it offers is the
    >>> possibility for a higher pixel count and the ability to use ancient
    >>> 35mm lenses at their full angle.
    >>> -Rich

    >>Ancient, like the Canon 24-105 f4 IS USM that was introduced way back
    >>in...2005?
    >>Rich, your foolishness is exceeded only by your eagerness to demonstrate
    >>that foolishness.

    >
    > Skip,
    >
    > Presumably Rich was on-topic for this thread, which is about non-DSLR
    > cameras, that is rangefinders. In the last 20 or 30 years there
    > hasn't been much of a market for interchangeable lens rangefinders,
    > Leica excepted.
    >
    > Thus, with the possible qualifier of "Leica excepted" Rich's comment
    > was on-target. For example, Nikon has made no moves to bring back
    > their S series rangefinders, which were highly acclaimed in their
    > time, the 1950s.
    >
    > Nor is anyone talking about a digital version of a Rolleiflex TLR.
    > LOL.
    >
    > Perhaps you owe Rich an apology.
    >
    >
    > Father Kodak.


    Oddly enough, you might be right. Sometimes, that knee jerk reaction just
    becomes a jerk...
    Although, Cosina has brought out a few new lenses for their line of
    Voigtlanders, too...
    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 25, 2005
    #12
  13. name

    uw_wayne Guest

    Ancient lenses are a good thing.
     
    uw_wayne, Nov 26, 2005
    #13
  14. name

    Rich Guest

    On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:55:44 -0800, "Skip M" <>
    wrote:

    >"Rich" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On 25 Nov 2005 02:44:11 -0800, "name" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    >>>CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.
    >>>Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame (like
    >>>the Canon 5D)
    >>>versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?

    >>
    >> No real point in doing it. The only thing it offers is the
    >> possibility for a higher pixel count and the ability to use ancient
    >> 35mm lenses at their full angle.
    >> -Rich

    >Ancient, like the Canon 24-105 f4 IS USM that was introduced way back
    >in...2005?
    >Rich, your foolishness is exceeded only by your eagerness to demonstrate
    >that foolishness.


    Are you seriously telling me Canon designed a lens for FILM SLRs in
    2005 and DIDN'T make it specifically for it's full-frame digitals?
    Are they insane, or do they just think their FF customers aren't worth
    doing it right?
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Nov 26, 2005
    #14
  15. name

    Rich Guest

    On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:17:39 -0500, "Darrell" <> wrote:

    >
    >"name" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to employ a
    >> CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in non-DSLR cameras.
    >> Would anyone be willing to predict when we can expect full-frame (like
    >> the Canon 5D)
    >> versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?
    >>

    >I would save never, the Sony R1 is more expensive than half of the dSLR
    >cameras on the market.
    >
    >


    That's debatable. I'd say it's cheaper than a Rebel XT and a GOOD
    Canon zoom lens, but then there is Nikon whose D50 is cheap and
    equipped with the 18-70mm kit zoom is a good combo for around the same
    price as the Sony. Facts are facts though; That Sony lens on any
    DSLR would mean a price north of $1000.00.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Nov 26, 2005
    #15
  16. name

    cjcampbell Guest

    Oh, heck. Why not go all the way and give us a camera with a full size
    large format CMOS sensor, say 4x5 or 5x7? Or even 20x24 Polaroid
    format? You know, a gigapixel camera, or even terapixel. Now, that
    would be interesting. We might need a few advances in memory storage,
    first. :)
     
    cjcampbell, Nov 26, 2005
    #16
  17. name

    Mark² Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:55:44 -0800, "Skip M" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On 25 Nov 2005 02:44:11 -0800, "name" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Sony recently released the first non-DSLR camera (DSC-R1) to
    >>>> employ a CMOS sensor, instead of the usual CCD sensor found in
    >>>> non-DSLR cameras. Would anyone be willing to predict when we can
    >>>> expect full-frame (like the Canon 5D)
    >>>> versions of such non-DSLR cameras being released?
    >>>
    >>> No real point in doing it. The only thing it offers is the
    >>> possibility for a higher pixel count and the ability to use ancient
    >>> 35mm lenses at their full angle.
    >>> -Rich

    >> Ancient, like the Canon 24-105 f4 IS USM that was introduced way back
    >> in...2005?
    >> Rich, your foolishness is exceeded only by your eagerness to
    >> demonstrate that foolishness.

    >
    > Are you seriously telling me Canon designed a lens for FILM SLRs in
    > 2005 and DIDN'T make it specifically for it's full-frame digitals?
    > Are they insane, or do they just think their FF customers aren't worth
    > doing it right?
    > -Rich


    I don't think you understood.
    They released the 24-105 f4 IS L, deliberately in concert with the 5D.
    It was most assuredly designed with that body in mind, though there is no
    reason to consider it a digital-specific lens...

    -Don't know what you mean by "aren't worth doing it right..."
    I just received that very 24-105 from Canon, and believe me--they got it
    right.
    It is an outstanding lens.
     
    Mark², Nov 26, 2005
    #17
  18. name

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <d7Shf.9882$dv.3428@fed1read02>,
    Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >Rich wrote:
    >>
    >> Are you seriously telling me Canon designed a lens for FILM SLRs in
    >> 2005 and DIDN'T make it specifically for it's full-frame digitals?
    >> Are they insane, or do they just think their FF customers aren't worth
    >> doing it right?
    >> -Rich

    >
    >I don't think you understood.
    >They released the 24-105 f4 IS L, deliberately in concert with the 5D.
    >It was most assuredly designed with that body in mind, though there is no
    >reason to consider it a digital-specific lens...
    >
    >-Don't know what you mean by "aren't worth doing it right..."


    There's a superstition about so-called "designed for digital" lenses, which
    some people seem to think have some magic property. You can spot these
    people - they tend to be obsessed about "incidence angle", and have never
    actually tried using an FF SLR (free hint - old East German wide angle
    lenses work just fine on a 5D thanks - better than most modern wide-angles).
    In reality, "designed for digital" is just a euphemism for "small image
    circle".
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 26, 2005
    #18
  19. name

    Rich Guest

    On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:26:54 GMT, Chris Brown
    <_uce_please.com> wrote:

    >In article <d7Shf.9882$dv.3428@fed1read02>,
    >Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>Rich wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Are you seriously telling me Canon designed a lens for FILM SLRs in
    >>> 2005 and DIDN'T make it specifically for it's full-frame digitals?
    >>> Are they insane, or do they just think their FF customers aren't worth
    >>> doing it right?
    >>> -Rich

    >>
    >>I don't think you understood.
    >>They released the 24-105 f4 IS L, deliberately in concert with the 5D.
    >>It was most assuredly designed with that body in mind, though there is no
    >>reason to consider it a digital-specific lens...
    >>
    >>-Don't know what you mean by "aren't worth doing it right..."

    >
    >There's a superstition about so-called "designed for digital" lenses, which
    >some people seem to think have some magic property. You can spot these
    >people - they tend to be obsessed about "incidence angle", and have never
    >actually tried using an FF SLR (free hint - old East German wide angle
    >lenses work just fine on a 5D thanks - better than most modern wide-angles).
    >In reality, "designed for digital" is just a euphemism for "small image
    >circle".


    Not when you have FF digital sensors. IMO, given the poor quality of
    "some" WA lenses when used with these sensors, the limiting factor may
    be the traditional lens mount being used, it might not be wide enough
    to accept a correctly-designed WA lens. If thats the case, it will
    likely be years before it's corrected.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Nov 26, 2005
    #19
  20. On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:52:28 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:26:54 GMT, Chris Brown
    ><_uce_please.com> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <d7Shf.9882$dv.3428@fed1read02>,
    >>Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>Rich wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you seriously telling me Canon designed a lens for FILM SLRs in
    >>>> 2005 and DIDN'T make it specifically for it's full-frame digitals?
    >>>> Are they insane, or do they just think their FF customers aren't worth
    >>>> doing it right?
    >>>> -Rich
    >>>
    >>>I don't think you understood.
    >>>They released the 24-105 f4 IS L, deliberately in concert with the 5D.
    >>>It was most assuredly designed with that body in mind, though there is no
    >>>reason to consider it a digital-specific lens...
    >>>
    >>>-Don't know what you mean by "aren't worth doing it right..."

    >>
    >>There's a superstition about so-called "designed for digital" lenses, which
    >>some people seem to think have some magic property. You can spot these
    >>people - they tend to be obsessed about "incidence angle", and have never
    >>actually tried using an FF SLR (free hint - old East German wide angle
    >>lenses work just fine on a 5D thanks - better than most modern wide-angles).
    >>In reality, "designed for digital" is just a euphemism for "small image
    >>circle".

    >
    >Not when you have FF digital sensors. IMO, given the poor quality of
    >"some" WA lenses when used with these sensors, the limiting factor may
    >be the traditional lens mount being used, it might not be wide enough
    >to accept a correctly-designed WA lens. If thats the case, it will
    >likely be years before it's corrected.


    Rich why don't you post some of your picture taken with your DSLR and
    "some" WA lenses which show this poor quality?

    Just show us where you have had this happen? Can't do it can you?


    *********************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Nov 26, 2005
    #20
    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. Charles Schuler

    Re: no full frame cheap dslr on horizon.

    Charles Schuler, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    411
    Dave Martindale
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. Uncle Nobby

    CMOS battery low wrong memory on CMOS battery

    Uncle Nobby, Nov 7, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    982
    Robert Baer
    Nov 8, 2006
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,405
    Patrick Boch
    Mar 18, 2005
  4. Steven M. Scharf
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    4,430
    Crownfield
    Apr 3, 2005
  5. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    876
    Anoni Moose
    Aug 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page