Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Improvement on digital camera

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudwalker
    1. Most dslr do not have a full framed sensor. The field of view crop factor makes wide angle shooting more expensive with wider angle lense.

    2. Generally more expensive compare to film cameras, in terms of camera body, storage, and ...?

    3. Requires certain amount of knowledge on computer.

    4. Sensitive sensor, difficult to clean if got dust, which easily happen when u need to change lenses during shooting in certain environment.

    5. Lens manufacturers produes lenses that not compatible with each other. If u want to switch from canon to nikon, u got to throw away all ur canon lenses and buy nikon lenses.
    1. The full frame sensor. Everyone (myself included) believed that it was a matter of time - maybe years? - before all the digicams went 35mm full frame. Judging from the way things are developing - EF-S mount, DX lenses, 4/3 system, etc - it seems that manufacturers are seriously considering alternatives. R&D into affordable full frame (24x36mm) sensors might take a back seat for a long time, perhaps semi-permanently. Another reason is that most photogs really don't need that kind of resolution.

    2. Present dSLR bodies are certainly more costly than their film counterparts. Note that for heavy volume shooting, digital requires logistics that film does not;
    when i went shooting overseas, i had to bring along 4GB of CF cards, an XDrive, a laptop (with bag!), two chargers, cleaning alcohol, cotton buds, compressed air. i would also have been crippled if i went without electricity for more than 3 days. When i shot film, just carry camera, lenses, lotsa film and one or two small spare batteries. Film was actually more convenient, and i think more reliable in extreme dust or temperatures.

    3. More processing. This is becoming more 'consumer-oriented'. Labs are now offering touch-up on digital prints, even if straight from the camera, just like film days. Many consumer digicams do (IMHO) excessive sharpening and contrast adjustment, so that the pic looks good out of the camera. The trouble comes when these folks move up to higher end stuff designed more control and start whining about the pics not looking good, etc. But even the dSLR are moving 'downwards' - the 300D reportedly gives better looking pics than the 10D, straight from camera. (But of course.)

    4. Sensor cleaning. Agree. Headache. Big headache.
    (The E1 purportedly has some sonic sensor cleaning thing. Ok, the dirt/dust drops down. In front of the sensor, behind the mirror. And then? It'll just pick it up again on the next few shots, right? If you're shooting heavily in a dusty area, still have to lug along all the sensor cleaning stuff. Point being: sensor dust still a headache.)

    5. Lens compatibility btw manufacturers. Not a digital issue. Perhaps we should worry a bit more about digital/film compatibility. If those anticipated full frame sensors don't come up in, say, 10 years, are we going to carry 1.6x and 1.5x FOV crop camera bodies for 10 years? If the industry moves away from FF, then - well, it'll be messy.

    Other possible improvements:

    6. Dynamic range. Currently about the same as film. If they can bring up the (usable) range to about 20 stops, it would be wonderful. Always get irritated by those backlight window shots - either the person super dark or the background look like heaven - almost pure white light.

    7. About to go longer without external electricty. For a comparison, my EOS 3 did about 50rolls on a small 2CR5. (Not too sure about the figure... was a long time ago.)
    Last edited by ST1100; 3rd November 2003 at 01:43 PM.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YuHsuan
    Contax RTS III, AF by moving the film rather than the lens element. Downside is that it makes the camera really bulky.

    Is it superior? I dunno. When Contax released the RTS III, it wanted a AF camera that is compatible with its manual focus Zeiss lenses.

    Coming back to the improvements, I would like to see Minolta's new AS (anti-shake) feature or some kind of IS system for the CCD in a full-fledge DSLR.
    OT: If I'm not wrong the RTS III was a manual camera with the fancy vacuum system for film plane flatness.

    The Contax AX is the one with film plane focusing that works with manual lenses.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Central Singaproe
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    OT: If I'm not wrong the RTS III was a manual camera with the fancy vacuum system for film plane flatness.

    The Contax AX is the one with film plane focusing that works with manual lenses.
    THe AX is the right model. I stand corrected.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    OT: If I'm not wrong the RTS III was a manual camera with the fancy vacuum system for film plane flatness.

    The Contax AX is the one with film plane focusing that works with manual lenses.

    So the implementation of film plane AF was meant for compatibility with manual Carl Zeiss lenses. Was there really any advantage over the lens AF that all (if not most) manufacturers use today?

    If film plane AF were implemented in DSLRs, I wonder how long the CCD sensor will last. Cos u are moving the sensor hundreds if not millions of times per second (especially in sports photohgraphy) and electronics being highly sensitive (and especially so today with millions or tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of tiny transistors) would degrade will all that vibrationm juddering and shuddering. I think it might be "impossible" come up with a highly sensitive CCD that is robust enough to withstand kind of movement when coupled to the AF sensors. Impossible maybe in terms of the technical aspect or cost or practicability. All this assuming that film/CCD plane AF has some advantages over the usual method.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •