So what's next for DX?

[theRBK]

Why would someone who wants a DX-sensor PnS go for the Sony? It is not a PnS but an exact equivalent of a conventional DSLR!

OK, DP-1 is a different proposition. FOV 28mm f/4. Weighs 250g. Now we're talking. And the allure of the Foveon sensor...

But, it would be nice if it were a Nikon. But I am definitely tempted by the DP-1.

agreed, the Sony R1 is huge... it was an interesting camera in its day in its own way cause it fitted a superzoom type lens on a DX sensor PNS... its a very niche camera I guess... the DP-1 form factor would be more agreeable for me too...

and now that Oly is introducing their cut size mini4/3 system, I think/hope the industry would get more interesting and creative in their use of DSLR sized sensors... there's still hope for an affordable digital rangefinder... there are rumours of Nikon making one but nothing substantiated ;p

 

[diediealsomustdive]

... there's still hope for an affordable digital rangefinder... there are rumours of Nikon making one but nothing substantiated ;p

Until then my thoughts are on a D60 as the walk about camera, with maybe a 20mm or 24mm lens.

 

[lsisaxon]

agreed, the Sony R1 is huge... it was an interesting camera in its day in its own way cause it fitted a superzoom type lens on a DX sensor PNS... its a very niche camera I guess... the DP-1 form factor would be more agreeable for me too...

and now that Oly is introducing their cut size mini4/3 system, I think/hope the industry would get more interesting and creative in their use of DSLR sized sensors... there's still hope for an affordable digital rangefinder... there are rumours of Nikon making one but nothing substantiated ;p

I think the main stumbling block is still the need to use distagon design (which means it won't be as compact anymore) vs biogon design which is commonly used in film compacts unless the AA filter of the sensor is custom made for the lens. Then the economics may hold things back.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

I think the main stumbling block is still the need to use distagon design (which means it won't be as compact anymore) vs biogon design which is commonly used in film compacts unless the AA filter of the sensor is custom made for the lens. Then the economics may hold things back.

Wow. You're the real guru...

 

[theRBK]

I think the main stumbling block is still the need to use distagon design (which means it won't be as compact anymore) vs biogon design which is commonly used in film compacts unless the AA filter of the sensor is custom made for the lens. Then the economics may hold things back.

as I understand it, the Distagon® design, or rather the retrofocus design (I think those two names are Zeiss trademarks ;p), are necessary for SLRs so that the lens can clear the mirror box... but without the mirror box, wouldn't it be possible to use non-retrofocus designs already... modern AA filters are only a sliver and shouldn't impact the use of non-retrofocus designs what...

 

[lsisaxon]

as I understand it, the Distagon® design, or rather the retrofocus design (I think those two names are Zeiss trademarks ;p), are necessary for SLRs so that the lens can clear the mirror box... but without the mirror box, wouldn't it be possible to use non-retrofocus designs already... modern AA filters are only a sliver and shouldn't impact the use of non-retrofocus designs what...

From what I gather, it's the angle of the rays falling on the sensor. If it strikes the AA filter (some diffraction optics) at an angle it's not designed for, the filter characteristics will be quite different and that's the main cause if the corner CA and blurness we experience in DSLRs which did not manifest as badly on film.

Yup, Oly and Pana are already doing away with the mirrorbox by introducing electronic VF. We'll see how those perform. I'm interested to know as well.. ;p

 

[theRBK]

I thought the main reason for light fall off was due to the depth of the light wells of the imaging chip, which could not as effectively capture light that hits it from a sharp angle...

in any case, Leica demonstrated the use of progressively aimed microlenses so as to maximize light capture near the edges (see this article)... but that uses a 1.3 crop sensor, and should be easier for a smaller 1.5 DX sensor... on the other hand, Leica did not use an AA filter for the M8...

I think this is gonna be an interesting run up to Photokina...

 

[lsisaxon]

I thought the main reason for light fall off was due to the depth of the light wells of the imaging chip, which could not as effectively capture light that hits it from a sharp angle...

in any case, Leica demonstrated the use of progressively aimed microlenses so as to maximize light capture near the edges (see this article)... but that uses a 1.3 crop sensor, and should be easier for a smaller 1.5 DX sensor... on the other hand, Leica did not use an AA filter for the M8...

I think this is gonna be an interesting run up to Photokina...

One way to do it would be to eliminate the AA filter or incorporate it into the lens.. I wonder if that would work.. :think: Hmm.. then those lenses would be only for a fixed resolution and leave no room for future increase in sensor resolution. Then again, if it were a fixed lens device, it is a viable solution!!

Yes, microlenses would be more for countering the light falloff but will not do much for corner CA and blurring due to the AA filter.

Oh.. Oly/Pana calling it Micro 4/3 (there's a thread on it in 4/3 subforum).

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Just poked around the Sigma forum and found photos taken by DP-1 posted.

In a word - Good. In fact pretty impressive.

But the cost - roughly 1.5 grand. :bigeyes: :thumbsd:

That's a lot of $. :bheart:

And if that's the case with Nikon DX PnS, I'll settle for D40/40x/60 plus a fixed lens from my dry cabi. Have to manual focus, though.

 

[theRBK]

Yes, microlenses would be more for countering the light falloff but will not do much for corner CA and blurring due to the AA filter.

non-retrofocus lenses should by their simpler construction introduce less CA and other monochromatic aberration so that might help reduce what aberration hits the sensor... the rest of the way will I guess be dependent on signal processing... or as Leica did it, take out the AA and use signal processing to control moire...

That's a lot of $. :bheart:

And if that's the case with Nikon DX PnS, I'll settle for D40/40x/60 plus a fixed lens from my dry cabi. Have to manual focus, though.

there are times when a silent, compact camera are useful...

 

[lsisaxon]

non-retrofocus lenses should by their simpler construction introduce less CA and other monochromatic aberration so that might help reduce what aberration hits the sensor... the rest of the way will I guess be dependent on signal processing... or as Leica did it, take out the AA and use signal processing to control moire...
there are times when a silent, compact camera are useful...

Yup.. the problem is the rays striking the AA filter obliquely which causes the CA due to the diffraction optics which is wavelength dependent. Not the lens itself causing the CA. Leica's approach will certainly help.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

there are times when a silent, compact camera are useful...

But I like a more "compact" price as well...

D40/40x/60 here I come...

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Just bought my D60...

Gotta shot more!

 

[Zenten]

non-retrofocus lenses should by their simpler construction introduce less CA and other monochromatic aberration so that might help reduce what aberration hits the sensor... the rest of the way will I guess be dependent on signal processing... or as Leica did it, take out the AA and use signal processing to control moire...
there are times when a silent, compact camera are useful...

Ever thought of taking out the AA filter .......read so much about it .. but don't know where to do it here and also the cost of doing it. :think:

 

[jfoo]

Just bought my D60...

Gotta shot more!

good attitude :thumbsup: :bsmilie:

 

[theRBK]

Ever thought of taking out the AA filter .......read so much about it .. but don't know where to do it here and also the cost of doing it. :think:

here's a review from someone who removed the AA filter of a D200 and compared it with a regular D200... on the other hand, the site is one that offers the removal service so read into it as much as you want... ;p