Prev: Aftermarket lens makers continue to cater solely to Canon and Nikon
Next: Aftermarket lens makers continue to cater solely to Canon and Nikon
From: RichA on 11 Aug 2010 17:56
1. Fixed ISO values of 100, 200, 400. Most if not all have already
done this and offer interim values as a choice and even finer values
in semi-auto modes like intelligent ISO, etc. How about a continuous
motion dial that would allow you to set exposure via the ISO and leave
the shutter speed and aperture of the lens fixed? A kind of manual
intelligent ISO
2. Maximum apertures on lenses that follow the old formula, f1.4,
f2.8, f4.0 etc. No reason why they can't offer interim values, it
might even work into a marketing tool like having a sensor with 10%
more pixels. For instance, a continuous aperture zoom from 18-55 at
f3.5. Cheaper than an f2.8 and lighter, but not dog-slow like an
f3.5-5.6, which is what we see nowadays.
3. Sensor sizes. There is and has been no need to stick to fixed
sizes with digital sensors. There is no reason a company couldn't
release a larger than FF sensor, and still keep the camera
manageable. A 50% increase in sensor area would allow for a nice
resolution jump, or better noise control, depending on the pixel count
and although it would mean a new lens group, Leica did it, so how
tough could it be?
P.S. Nikon is very likely to release a sub-4/3rds sensor size in an
interchangeable lens camera in the next few months.
From: Me on 11 Aug 2010 18:45
RichA wrote:
> 1. Fixed ISO values of 100, 200, 400. Most if not all have already
> done this and offer interim values as a choice and even finer values
> in semi-auto modes like intelligent ISO, etc. How about a continuous
> motion dial that would allow you to set exposure via the ISO and leave
> the shutter speed and aperture of the lens fixed? A kind of manual
> intelligent ISO

What the f$ck for? Fractions less than 1/3 stop don't matter. Your
Nikon has Auto ISO - just set it to manual exposure with auto ISO on,
and it already does what you suggest as a "new" feature in an auto mode,
or switch auto-ISO off and press the ISO button and use the command dial
button to set exposure via ISO manually.
> 2. Maximum apertures on lenses that follow the old formula, f1.4,
> f2.8, f4.0 etc. No reason why they can't offer interim values, it
> might even work into a marketing tool like having a sensor with 10%
> more pixels. For instance, a continuous aperture zoom from 18-55 at
> f3.5. Cheaper than an f2.8 and lighter, but not dog-slow like an
> f3.5-5.6, which is what we see nowadays.
There's a 16-35 F4 Nikkor, and several Canon f4 fixed aperture zooms.
Why not f3.5? Well, why not f3.75428698465. Stated maximum apertures
are usually nominal not exact anyway.

> 3. Sensor sizes. There is and has been no need to stick to fixed
> sizes with digital sensors.
Well there's been a very good reason really. APS-C for sensor cost
reasons, with now a large range of OEM and third party lenses designed
for that format, and 35mm using old and newly released 35mm format lenses.
> There is no reason a company couldn't
> release a larger than FF sensor, and still keep the camera
> manageable. A 50% increase in sensor area would allow for a nice
> resolution jump, or better noise control, depending on the pixel count
> and although it would mean a new lens group, Leica did it, so how
> tough could it be?
A 50% increase in sensor /area/ makes SFA difference to anything, but
creates a niche orphaned (for general use) product, like APS-H.
There's plenty of good reasons IMO to stick to a few standard formats in
interchangeable lens cameras.
> P.S. Nikon is very likely to release a sub-4/3rds sensor size in an
> interchangeable lens camera in the next few months.
According to ... ?
From: Bruce on 12 Aug 2010 03:32
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:56:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

<singularly idiotic ideas snipped>

>3. Sensor sizes. There is and has been no need to stick to fixed
>sizes with digital sensors. There is no reason a company couldn't
>release a larger than FF sensor, and still keep the camera
>manageable. A 50% increase in sensor area would allow for a nice
>resolution jump, or better noise control, depending on the pixel count
>and although it would mean a new lens group, Leica did it, so how
>tough could it be?


It has been very tough indeed for Leica, with sales of the Leica S2
and its lenses falling way below expectations. I don't think any
other manufacturer would want to follow Leica down that route.

Hasselblad, Mamiya and Pentax had the right idea, using legacy medium
format systems to launch larger-than-35mm digital SLRs. Leica didn't
have a legacy system, so they chose do something completely different.
It does not appear to have been a good choice.


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Aftermarket lens makers continue to cater solely to Canon and Nikon
Next: Aftermarket lens makers continue to cater solely to Canon and Nikon