Well I would want a wee bit more, FF sensor, a good display, good ergonomics, and possibly a EFV with a fast refresh & focus peaking, now that will get some attention.
mikethevilla wrote:
Even at $2k (heck maybe $3k) I'll bet they would sell more than they could make. Have you SEEN the demand for the x100? People are going insane! Slap FF in there, pick a lens mount and there will be rioting outside of BHphoto in no time.
Not to be too argumentative, is the X100 in high demand because it's tremendously popular, or is it because there's not that many being produced and it fits a niche? What kind of numbers are they selling?
Full frame sensors have, by and large, remained in the territory of higher-end enthusiasts (those generally found on photo fora). See Doug's comments about the A850--a slightly hamstrung FF and it sold terribly. The MFT/NEX types seem to met with success because they're inexpensive enough for the PnS upgrader to buy and have a great form factor.
The 7D sells well because it's an enthusiast camera that does everything well -- Sports to video to landscape. A small form factor mirrorless FF sensor is quite a specialized camera--I'd call it the equivalent to a medium format rangefinder. And that ignores a lot of the technical challenges associated with large digital sensors and small form factors.
Anyhow, I'd love to see one sold, but see it staying firmly in APS-C territory. I do really like your enthusiasm though (seriously)
Haha well I think at any price it would remain a "higher-end enthusiast" camera. A travel or second camera for the professional (either in practice or gearaholicism) photogs.
Out of all of the photographers I've talked to (which has been a lot), every single one describes it as their "dream camera". I would imagine many others would feel similar.
As for the x100, I have no clue as to the actual numbers being produced (couldn't find them), but I will say that on Flickr, the biggest X100 group has about 2,500 members with a few other X100 groups in the 1,000ish range. The largest groups I could find for any of the Olympus or Panasonic mF/T were in the 800, and the biggest NEX was a little over 4,000.
douglasf13 wrote:
Sony was still making CCD DSLRs a year ago, so their complete use of CMOS is relatively recent. Either way, I don't believe there to be an incident angle light ray advantage to CCD. See this: Link
Sorry, I missed your reply, but thanks for linking to a similar discussion where you point out that you don't believe there is an issue either.
With the exception of back-lit CMOS (which we haven't seen even in APS-C form yet) here is the issue.
I'm sure I've posted this several times before but people just seem so intent on repeatedly saying they can't wait for a full frame cmos mirrorless camera. If it happens without back-lit cmos you can look forward to bigger than DSLR sized lenses since they have to be recomputed to be telecentric, either that or suffer vastly inferior IQ.
Of course, I'll eat my hat when they bring one out without a back-lit CMOS sensor that disproves all current logic. I'm pretty sure my head will stay warm for a while to come
Thrice, who is the source of that picture? It's a little oversimplified. Unlike CMOS, CCDs require anti-blooming gates that also significantly reduce the QE of the sensor. In fact, there are backside illuminated CCDs available, as well, because the avoidance of sending light through the gate electrodes and metal oxide substrate improves CCD QE quite a bit.
Either way, the microlenses are still responsible for straightening out the light, regardless of how many more elements it has to pass through before hitting the photo sites, and I don't see either technology having and advantage in that regard. Of course, Joakim can correct me if I'm wrong.
Secondly, every SEM of a front-side CMOS has the electronics buried to a decent degree.
There's no doubt that an equivalent design rules CCD has greater fill factor, well depth and QE, but those differences are much more notable in the very small pixel regime (cell phone imagers and P&S cameras). BSI is still a ways away from being valid for bigger chips.
The biggest problem in discussing CMOS vs. CCD in FF, or even APS-C formats is that CCD sensors are 2-3 generations behind the state of the art, which almost nullifies any image quality advantage CCD may have.
Thom Hogan http://www.bythom.com/
I continue to get small bits of information on the upcoming Nikon mirrorless camera. I'm pretty certain of the 1" (~2.7x) sensor at this point, and since I can't find anyone else making one that makes sense for the camera, I continue to wonder if this will be another Nikon designed sensor. That certainly would be an interesting development. As I noted last week, you don't have to get very far forward from the D3100 sensor to get something that could be 10-12mp and highly credible at 2.7x.
I've now been told by three different sources it will launch before CES, probably in late September, and it'll launch with three lenses (wide angle prime, kit zoom, telephoto zoom). The lenses are reportedly "quite small" in nature, along the lines of fat C-mount lenses. ...Show more →
I guessing the lenses will be:
wide angle prime, 35mm equiv.
kit zoom, 24-85 equiv.
telephoto zoom. 85-300 equiv.
I more or less agree with meh, but if it has better than P&S image quality, weather sealing, and comes with fast glass(35/1.2 equiv as an example), it could be kinda cool.
Thrice, who is the source of that picture? It's a little oversimplified. Unlike CMOS, CCDs require anti-blooming gates that also significantly reduce the QE of the sensor. In fact, there are backside illuminated CCDs available, as well, because the avoidance of sending light through the gate electrodes and metal oxide substrate improves CCD QE quite a bit.
Either way, the microlenses are still responsible for straightening out the light, regardless of how many more elements it has to pass through before hitting the photo sites, and I don't see either technology having and advantage in that regard. Of course, Joakim can correct me if I'm wrong. ...Show more →
The microlenses are there mostly to ensure that you get incident light to hit the preferred spots on the sensor surface. The incident angle at the sensor surface proper (after the microlens interaction) isn't really a major concern. After the light hits the sensor surface, it bends fairly "straight down" into the substrate by default, because of the very high refractive index of the material used here
There can be more refractive difference between high-index glass and silicon than there is between air and high-index glass.
..............
The technology with the most maturity will have an advantage. In normal photosensors, that would be CMOS right now. The main bulk of all research is made in this area - not on CCD's.
As one example:
There are compact-class (not "even" BSI-type!) sensors with 2µm CMOS cells with a lot less angle sensitivity, less crosstalk, and higher per-area efficiency than the 6.8µm KAF CCD cell used in cameras like the Leica M9. So it isn't really a "CCD vs CMOS" issue. It's a technology application issue.
Backlit starts to make sense at 1.7-1.4µm cell sizes. Not until then does backlit return more than what it costs to implement.
I seriously doubt a large format (>10mm) sensor built with BSI technology being massproduced with "normal" cameras in mind for quite a long time yet. It's possible, but hardly economically feasible. I know of some specialty sensors in surveillance/military use that use 16mm backlit CMOS, but then we're talking per-unit costs that's easily into 6 figures (USD). For the camera module only, no side electronics, no lenses.
I'm guessing next gen sensors (APS+ sizes) will use 130, maybe even 80nm fab processes, which will solve some of the efficiency (active surface area percentage) issues, but maybe increase crosstalk issues - which at present is a very, very low concern in a correctly designed sensor.
lol... This'll be an interesting compact system, I bet - but we'll see how it does image quality wise soon. I'm betting it'll be a solid picture, but nothing ground-breaking.
My money is on micro4/3 holding down the advanced amateur compact camera market with its larger current lens lineup (7-14/4, 12/2, 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 45/2.8 Micro, 45/1.8, tons of kit lenses and variable aperture zooms, multiple do-it-all zooms with image stabilization, super telephoto on the cheap, etc) and comparable size and presumably comparable cost (Nikon ain't cheap).
Some imaging companies are able to use FSI (front side illuminated) up to 1.1um pixel pitch with light guides. True that 1.4-1.7um pitch 'generally' makes sense for BSI.
What I would like to see is a curved image sensor instead of a flat sensor. Sometimes I wonder if this helps a lot more with corner sharpness than with exotic lens designs. I guess one needs curved pixel surface area (heck even increase QE because of a larger surface area) instead of orthogonal pixels at the edges
theSuede wrote:
Backlit starts to make sense at 1.7-1.4µm cell sizes. Not until then does backlit return more than what it costs to implement.
I think Nikon is making a huge mistake here. They're apparently believing that mirror-less cameras in the first hand will replace more expensive compact cameras (a market where Nikon is weak today). But the truth is, mirror-less are stealing DSLR sales (the market which Nikon depends upon). Rapidly. You cannot compete on that market with a 2.7x crop factor, period.
And besides, how much smaller is this compared to a NEX or a Pen?
I do think Nikon will sell plenty of these, but from the wrong customer base. They'll loose the more serious amateurs to Sony and those are the customers that you want to get into your eco-system as they buy peripherals such as lenses, flashes etc. I.e, the market that used to buy DSLR's. That's Nikons bread and butter and shouldn't be ignored.
On the other hand, Nikon is of course compensating by offering it in pink ...
(seriously)
I more or less agree with meh, but if it has better than P&S image quality, weather sealing, and comes with fast glass(35/1.2 equiv as an example), it could be kinda cool.