Lotusm50 wrote:
I don't think this is significant problem. They just have to design a different lens. Existing film and cine lenses may not be appropriate, so produce a new design that is appropriate to the application. It can be done. Case in point: The Sony R1 with an APS-c sensor has a very high performance lens whose rear element is only 2.1mm from the sensor assembly.
you probably dont think it significant but your supposition that the Zeiss design from R1 would succeed is quite wrong. That lens cant collapse into the body because it is short a distance from the sensor.
To reiterate the real problem, the collapsible lens is the whole reason that it suffers to F4 as the moving elements take away valuable diameter. To add to the design problems is the fact that the register when operating is still apparently quite short. I suspect the geometry is more similar to a pancake design with collapsible virtues.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I think this is an overblown concern. Such a compact could be MORE profitable for them. They are cheaper to build (no mirror box, prism, or interchangeable lens mount) and could sell for as much as a DSLR. Further, it is not a substitute for the DSLR. And those people who might buy such a camera instead of a DSLR are not the ones who are going to be buying a lot of accessories, lenses, etc. So you are not going to have those add-on sales from those customers anyway. Without real competition in this particular market niche, pricing power and lower costs combined with most buyers seeing as a supplement to their DSLR, most likely would lead to increased revenue and profits for the manufacturer. ...Show more →
Perhaps, but there is no research i know of into this, the one camera that attempted it, coincidentally the R1, was removed from sale after Sony introduced detail of its dSLR deal. But that was a comparative monster and probably bigger than the dSLR that replaced it.
To me, for Sigma this is a gamble and it is a brave move as they will be first into this category of compact APS C. If it holds its ground perhaps other manufacturers will see the need to develop their own compacts but I dont hold a lot of hope for most excepting Panasonic/Leica who in any event are less geared to dSLRs.
And as laudable and interesting as you make it seem now, no doubt you will return as one of your other selves to discredit DP1 sometime later as you have before.
I'm in the process of evaluating the Ricoh GX100. The handling is excellent. As to the question of noise reduction/detail loss - I use RAW. It takes about 6 seconds to write which is too long (SanDisk Ultra II). I will try the SanDisk Extreme III and see if that helps.
Image quality was surprisingly good at ISO 200 with slight noise reduction for 8.5 x 11 prints.
This camera is very small which is what I want for urban/candid shots. It will be limited st higher ISO (as is any small sensor camera).
I'm in the process of evaluating the Ricoh GX100. The handling is excellent. As to the question of noise reduction/detail loss - I use RAW. It takes about 6 seconds to write which is too long (SanDisk Ultra II). I will try the SanDisk Extreme III and see if that helps.
Image quality was surprisingly good at ISO 200 with slight noise reduction for 8.5 x 11 prints.
This camera is very small which is what I want for urban/candid shots. It will be limited st higher ISO (as is any small sensor camera).
Lotusm50 wrote:
I don't think this is significant problem. They just have to design a different lens. Existing film and cine lenses may not be appropriate, so produce a new design that is appropriate to the application. It can be done. Case in point: The Sony R1 with an APS-c sensor has a very high performance lens whose rear element is only 2.1mm from the sensor assembly.
Yes, but the R1 is not a good example as it was way too large - at that size I might as well just carry a DSLR with one or two lenses. It left the realm of the compact and that is what doomed it.
I think this is an overblown concern. Such a compact could be MORE profitable for them. They are cheaper to build (no mirror box, prism, or interchangeable lens mount) and could sell for as much as a DSLR. Further, it is not a substitute for the DSLR. And those people who might buy such a camera instead of a DSLR are not the ones who are going to be buying a lot of accessories, lenses, etc. So you are not going to have those add-on sales from those customers anyway. Without real competition in this particular market niche, pricing power and lower costs combined with most buyers seeing as a supplement to their DSLR, most likely would lead to increased revenue and profits for the manufacturer. ...Show more →
I think I agree with you here (if I understood what you were saying), the DP-1 I see primarily as an adjunct system to the DSLR - that is to say, many of the buyers would be people that already own DSLR's and want to have that level of quality on hand for those times when the cannot have a DSLR handy. Indeed if the image quality is good it's almost like buying a second body with a prime lens affixed, and eliminates the need for one whole focal length of lens!
Martin wrote:
I'm in the process of evaluating the Ricoh GX100. The handling is excellent. As to the question of noise reduction/detail loss - I use RAW. It takes about 6 seconds to write which is too long (SanDisk Ultra II). I will try the SanDisk Extreme III and see if that helps.
RAW is not a cure-all though, there's only so much even advanced processing can do with a small noisy sensor.
kgelner wrote:
Yes, but the R1 is not a good example as it was way too large - at that size I might as well just carry a DSLR with one or two lenses. It left the realm of the compact and that is what doomed it.
Rob Riley wrote:
you probably dont think it significant but your supposition that the Zeiss design from R1 would succeed is quite wrong. That lens cant collapse into the body because it is short a distance from the sensor.
That's not the point I am making. I am not suggesting the R1's lens be used for such a camera. The point is that such a lens -- one that sits close to the sensor -- CAN be designed, and has been designed even though it didn't exist before. The R1's lens is big because it has a big zoom range, and has manual mechanical linkages. All of this is unnecessary in the compact digicam we are talking about. There is no doubt that a quality 35mm (equiv) fixed-focal length lens can be designed that sits close to the sensor. I'm not saying that the resulting lens will be small such that it folds into a 20mm thin, credit card-sized camera body. It won't, but I, and many looking at this type of camera, don't need it to. As many have pointed out, they would be thrilled with a Contax T2 or Leica CM--sized digicam with an APS-c sensor -- and such a camera IS quite possible.
You are confusing short registers with focals close to the film plane.
the fact as you state it, that the Zeiss lens sits 2.1mm from the sensor in its operating state gives zip room to collapse the lens into the camera. That is the issue with the type of lens you prescribe.
The Sigma as it appears could probably be carried in the pocket, much as say the Leica D-Lux series. Any other proposition such as Contax T2 or Leica CM may well be worthy cameras, however not particularly compact in my view, and are therefore a different being full size type.
Rob Riley wrote:
apparently my answer wasn't lucid enough for you
You are confusing short registers with focals close to the film plane.
the fact as you state it, that the Zeiss lens sits 2.1mm from the sensor in its operating state gives zip room to collapse the lens into the camera. That is the issue with the type of lens you prescribe.
I think you are missing the fact that when a lens collapses, it doesn't necessarily all collapse together. The elements move relative to each other, eliminating space between the elements (groups). That's how the space is saved. The whole lens doesn't have to move en masse. Take a look at some of the compact cameras out there. When the camera is turned on and the lens is extended, the lens becomes longer as each of the elements or groups of elements move into their position for use. It doesn't need space behind the rear element if it close, as that element (or group) doesn't have to move for storage when the camera is turned off. Further whether it is a "short register" or elements close to the film plane, it doesn't matter (but the 2 are, in many cases, related). It's all how the maker decides to move the lens and its elements between storage and use.
Finally, I didn't bring up the lens register issues. You did by saying, "such a concept is greatly dependent on the short register of the lens". That is only the case, if the lens is design NOT to collapse. Further, existing short register lenses for film and cine that you cited, are not a constraint on the design of such a camera, as the camera/lens maker can design a lens to meet the application -- such as they did with the R1 (short register and rear element close to the sensor plane).
In short, just so it is clear and to sum up, for a fixed-lens, compact digital camera there are basically 2 lens approaches possible:
1) A collapse-able lens design can be used to save space, or
2) a non-collapse-able lens can be designed so that the can be lens situated as far back in to the body of the camera as possible to save space and make the camera as compact as possible.
The DP-1 lens does collapse when you turn the camera off, and is totally a custom design for the DP-1. As such it seems unlikely it could be improved upon greatly to make it even more compact.
Very interesting, but it's really odd that he ignores (or at least does not mention) the DP-1 at all since it meets a number of his critera (like APS sesnor, RAW, and even the fixed 18mm (non tri-focal option) lens. Heck, it even offers an attachment point for a lens hood and that means some way to mount a filter.
Sure it's not out yet, but the very fact that Sigma has annunced it warrants mention in an article of this sort. Thom may be too hung up on the whole Bayer thing though since that is part of his specifications... He has not liked Foveon technology in the past.
second hand comment suggests
he's interested in DP1, but its a jury out sort of thing
he mentions DP1 on the sidebar of that article
Thom Hogan:
What about the Sigma?
Nine months ago Sigma announced the development of the DP1, a compact camera that uses a large, high-quality sensor (1.7x Foveon). It was clear from the original announcement that they didn't have all the details of the camera right. To their credit, they seem to have done a bit of rethink of some of the specifications, which may be why it's taking so long to make it to market. Personally, I'm hoping they get the eventual product right and I can just simplify this article to: "other camera companies, see what Sigma did."
The major problem of DP1 is that it is produced by Sigma. Sigma does not have the brand image to sell high end camera. And to be honest, the style of DP1 does not look like a high end camera.
Back to the film era, if T2 is branded by Sigma instead of Contax and has Sigma lens instead of Zeiss, I seriously doubt that it will be successful.
I would bet that the choir for this type of camera is small compared to the general public choir looking for something that is "good enough." However, there is a market for a small, high quality camera. I'm surprised by how posts I read of people who buy the Leica M8 because it is small and light (and high quality) - some people's "everyday" camera.
I have the Leica D-Lux 3 and I've been pretty happy with it. In daylight it's great! In lower light it slows down. It's not perfect, but the lens is good.
