Camera Thread- Attn Ebbs, PC, etc....

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by goof2

True, but a full frame sensor with about the same pixel density as the 12MP APS-C sensor my current body has would be around 30MP.

Both Canon and Nikon have been moving full frame down their respective camera lines. They both already have full frame camera bodies in the sub $2,500 range. The nature of the typical customer for DSLRs is to look at the MP count from generation to generation. If this trend continues the lower end cameras will have to move full frame to effectively use the increased pixels consumers will want. A Canon 7D is already at 18MP. If Canon wants to improve that I suspect they will have to move to a full frame sensor.

Nikon's D700 is their ENTRY (if you can call it entry at that level) Full Frame camera... it was (last time I checked) $2,800. Did I miss one? what's Canons?
Yeah Canon's 7D is at 18... their Flag ship the EOS-1Ds Mark III is 21... I just doubt they'll be getting much bigger... or at least... the growth will slow quite a bit.
and they're not going to push top of the line features down until they can find new features to take their place and justify (if prices like that can really be justified) the price.

one example is HD video. but they went a different way with this. rather than stuff the FX frame in to a cheaper camera... where most consumers wouldn't appreciate them... they put the HD Video in... a gadget that does entertain the random rich consumer.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by eBBs15

Nikon's D700 is their ENTRY (if you can call it entry at that level) Full Frame camera... it was (last time I checked) $2,800. Did I miss one? what's Canons?
Yeah Canon's 7D is at 18... their Flag ship the EOS-1Ds Mark III is 21... I just doubt they'll be getting much bigger... or at least... the growth will slow quite a bit.
and they're not going to push top of the line features down until they can find new features to take their place and justify (if prices like that can really be justified) the price.

one example is HD video. but they went a different way with this. rather than stuff the FX frame in to a cheaper camera... where most consumers wouldn't appreciate them... they put the HD Video in... a gadget that does entertain the random rich consumer.

The D700 is currently just under $2,400 at B&H and Canon has the 5D Mark II with a 21MP full frame sensor which is $2,500.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

That's a very good question. The ultimate resolution depends on the total light taken in and the quality of the optics. Less light, less to work with.

Being able to take advantage of the wider field of view with a full frame sensor I would think there is more light being taken in. Using your earlier example of the best lens in your case (I'm assuming Olympus) not being able to resolve more than 20-22MP, I would think (but do not know) that would be an indication of the glass but only as a function of the light it can place on the sensor. Say you are the same lens on a full format sensor, which has roughly 4 times the area as a four thirds sensor, I would think the additional light from a wider FOV would increase the resolution the lens is capable of putting on the sensor.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Being able to take advantage of the wider field of view with a full frame sensor I would think there is more light being taken in. Using your earlier example of the best lens in your case (I'm assuming Olympus) not being able to resolve more than 20-22MP, I would think (but do not know) that would be an indication of the glass but only as a function of the light it can place on the sensor. Say you are the same lens on a full format sensor, which has roughly 4 times the area as a four thirds sensor, I would think the additional light from a wider FOV would increase the resolution the lens is capable of putting on the sensor.

The lens I'm talking about is the "Top Pro" model Olympus/Zuiko 35-100 F2.0. You won't find many lenses out there, that can match it.

Possibly, but not necessarily. One of the issues is what angle the light strikes the sensor. When Olympus created the Four-Thirds standard, this was one of their considerations. They weren't trapped by a 35mm film standard, but instead built it from the ground, up. Canon and Nikon based their digital efforts on their original 35mm platforms.

The wider the element, the steeper the angle that light hits the sensor from the outside. That creates a whole pile of physics issues, that need to be dealt with. For example if the light wells in the sensor are deep, then you'll find considerable drop-off in levels from the outer edge. Diffraction also becomes a significant limiting factor, the more that you have to bend the light.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The lens I'm talking about is the "Top Pro" model Olympus/Zuiko 35-100 F2.0. You won't find many lenses out there, that can match it.

Possibly, but not necessarily. One of the issues is what angle the light strikes the sensor. When Olympus created the Four-Thirds standard, this was one of their considerations. They weren't trapped by a 35mm film standard, but instead built it from the ground, up. Canon and Nikon based their digital efforts on their original 35mm platforms.

The wider the element, the steeper the angle that light hits the sensor from the outside. That creates a whole pile of physics issues, that need to be dealt with. For example if the light wells in the sensor are deep, then you'll find considerable drop-off in levels from the outer edge. Diffraction also becomes a significant limiting factor, the more that you have to bend the light.

I wouldn't think it would be a direct ratio based on sensor size but it seems logical to me that there would be some improvement. With all the stuff going on in a lens I couldn't guess what that improvement would be though. Again, this is just based on my thoughts with nothing to back it up. My understanding of the inner workings of a DSLR is not far beyond just enough to know there aren't little fairies looking out the lens and drawing what they see on the sensor.

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by goof2

I wouldn't think it would be a direct ratio based on sensor size but it seems logical to me that there would be some improvement. With all the stuff going on in a lens I couldn't guess what that improvement would be though. Again, this is just based on my thoughts with nothing to back it up. My understanding of the inner workings of a DSLR is not far beyond just enough to know there aren't little fairies looking out the lens and drawing what they see on the sensor.

that's funny shit!





everyone knows they're Gnomes

[Papa_Complex]

It had me looking for a picture of the Flinstone Polaroid camera. You know, the one with the bird, with a chisel

[goof2]

Originally Posted by eBBs15

that's funny shit!





everyone knows they're Gnomes

I thought all the caps that came with my camera and lenses were to keep dust out. Now I know they are to keep the gnomes in. Thanks for enlightening me.

[Mr Lefty]

Originally Posted by goof2

I thought all the caps that came with my camera and lenses were to keep dust out. Now I know they are to keep the gnomes in. Thanks for enlightening me.

that's my purpose on this earth... to enlighten others to the existence and usefulness of Gnomes...



That and invent hands free toilet paper... but I'm a little behind schedule on that one... damn Gnomes are no help in that regard

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by eBBs15

that's my purpose on this earth... to enlighten others to the existence and usefulness of Gnomes...



That and invent hands free toilet paper... but I'm a little behind schedule on that one... damn Gnomes are no help in that regard

It's called the Bodet... aka pulsating showerhead on a hose...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet