Riley Posted February 10, 2007 Share #101 Posted February 10, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) and not to completely hammer you Simon & Marco but... as an example, the Olympus 11-22mm wide lens tested at photozone.de Olympus Digital Zuiko 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 - Photozone Test Report / Review "The lens performed excellent in the lab. In terms of resolution it's quite safe to state that the lens exceeds the sensor resolution of the E-300 (8 mega pixels) at least at the 11mm setting." so the limits are indeed at the sensor, where 8Mp = 8Mp no matter the size of the sensor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Hi Riley, Take a look here DMR discontinued?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bob Ross Posted February 10, 2007 Share #102 Posted February 10, 2007 Thanks Ruben, I'm sure there are others that will work in this scenerio, I'm not the engineering type to figure that out but the idea on it is pretty interesting on what would work for a oversize sensor. Maybe something to explore Hi Guy, There may be others not listed by Kodak yet. One for example is the 10 MP KAI-10100, a 4/3rds sensor in the Oly E-400/410. As I recall it is of the deep pixel well architecure, like the one in the M8. This gives a better saturation signal than the older ones listed. Kodak doesn't tend to post specs on sensors where the cameras aren't yet released. My favorite speculation on this is a 1.3 FOV sensor made up of two of the KAI-10100 sensors joined on the long side, pixel size 4.75µm, 20MP and with a better saturation signal than the 16MP mentioned. Time will tell if I read Kodak's development pattern in the tea leaves correctly... Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 10, 2007 Share #103 Posted February 10, 2007 and not to completely hammer you Simon & Marco but... as an example, the Olympus 11-22mm wide lens tested at photozone.de Olympus Digital Zuiko 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 - Photozone Test Report / Review Rob ... your love over 4/3 is obsessive ... Ok, so let's check the Photozone.de test results ... a 11-22 Oly is good right? on a E-300 its resolution peaks at 11mm f/4 with a number of 1744 LW/PH. 11mm is 22mm equiv on a 35mm FF ... now let's take a look at Nikon's lowly kit lens 18-55 DX - guess what, at 18mm which is a 27mm equiv. on 35FF ... the coke can easily trumps the Oly at f/3.5 with a number of 2251.5 LW/PH ... you can't defeat physics, bigger is better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 10, 2007 Share #104 Posted February 10, 2007 So Bob stitch two sensors together, that is a nice idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 10, 2007 Share #105 Posted February 10, 2007 There may be others not listed by Kodak yet. You're right, Bob ... most of the DSLR sensors were custom-made and highly integrated with peripheral electronics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4season Posted February 10, 2007 Share #106 Posted February 10, 2007 Loved the image quality, but I wasn't going to get a new DMR+R9 anytime soon, mostly because of the price, but size and weight were also factors. So Leica is not losing a sale here. OTOH, I might just be ready to buy a sleeker R10 late in 2008: 1.33x and 10 megapixels are fine as long as those are 10M really good pixels. As for FF and more pixels, that's nice if there are no side effects, but I seem to recall that Kodak did that with the DCS 14n several years ago, and that was a really controversial camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 10, 2007 Share #107 Posted February 10, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) But we need to remember the 14n was not a Kodak sensor either and they had all kinds of issues and delays. Folks forget that there Profesional division builds the M8 and DMR sensors along with Phase One Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted February 10, 2007 Share #108 Posted February 10, 2007 Rob ... your love over 4/3 is obsessive ... Ok, so let's check the Photozone.de test results ... a 11-22 Oly is good right? on a E-300 its resolution peaks at 11mm f/4 with a number of 1744 LW/PH. 11mm is 22mm equiv on a 35mm FF ... now let's take a look at Nikon's lowly kit lens 18-55 DX - guess what, at 18mm which is a 27mm equiv. on 35FF ... the coke can easily trumps the Oly at f/3.5 with a number of 2251.5 LW/PH ... you can't defeat physics, bigger is better. yeah a great lens for photographing fish bowls and stuff Marketing: This lens can see round corners Meaning: The corners are round Marketing: Yes at F3.5 its fast Meaning: Bigger is better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bono0272 Posted February 10, 2007 Share #109 Posted February 10, 2007 Loved the image quality, but I wasn't going to get a new DMR+R9 anytime soon, mostly because of the price, but size and weight were also factors. So Leica is not losing a sale here. OTOH, I might just be ready to buy a sleeker R10 late in 2008: 1.33x and 10 megapixels are fine as long as those are 10M really good pixels. As for FF and more pixels, that's nice if there are no side effects, but I seem to recall that Kodak did that with the DCS 14n several years ago, and that was a really controversial camera. I believe the biggest temptation from the R10 should be a FF (if it will be a FF), all the other new features are less important to the DMR users. Why do the DMR users have to spend another 5-6K to get a R10 for just the focus comfirmation or light weight but still a 1.33X? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 10, 2007 Share #110 Posted February 10, 2007 I believe the biggest temptation from the R10 should be a FF (if it will be a FF), all the other new features are less important to the DMR users. Why do the DMR users have to spend another 5-6K to get a R10 for just the focus comfirmation or light weight but still a 1.33X? Agreed. Full frame, (even 12-14) meg, and Focus Confirmation would do it for me. 12 meg in a full frame sensor has larger pixels and could lend itself to better tonal gradations, less shadow noise, and maybe higher ISO performance. Other wise I'm just fine with the DMR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted February 10, 2007 Share #111 Posted February 10, 2007 The DMR was only a crop because some room is necessary for electrical connections within the FF space, and to allow the sensor to occupy the film plane. There is no such restraint for a full digital replacement. The lessons learned in M8, re lenses on the sensor, will ensure a better quality FF with less vignetting issues and more consistent sharpness center to edge. Truly I think theyre crazy if they dont do this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 10, 2007 Share #112 Posted February 10, 2007 The DMR was only a crop because some room is necessary for electrical connections within the FF space, and to allow the sensor to occupy the film plane. There is no such restraint for a full digital replacement. The lessons learned in M8, re lenses on the sensor, will ensure a better quality FF with less vignetting issues and more consistent sharpness center to edge. Truly I think theyre crazy if they dont do this I agree Riley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 10, 2007 Share #113 Posted February 10, 2007 Yes without the film rail issue anything can be done now since it is a body designed around the sensor instead of the other way around. I seriously believe it will be FF or bigger. I would be happy with 30 x36 just a little bigger and pick up some more Mpx. Since I have the M8 at 10 , would love to have the option of 16 or so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted February 10, 2007 Share #114 Posted February 10, 2007 well with Canon rumored to be bringing out a 22Mp maybe they're better off seeking out low noise and applying whats been learned with a weak AA as it stands, it seems like noise and Mp are a trade but given a M8 spec to duplicate sensor is 27 x 18mm = 486 sqmm FF is 36 x 24 = 864 sqmm so its 56% of FF, or FF is 1.777 x M8 thats a potential 18.3Mp with the M8 density now i really shouldnt say this but given 28" x 40" prints from M8, how far could you go ? 36" x 63" ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbedsted1234 Posted February 10, 2007 Share #115 Posted February 10, 2007 Except this isn't the kind of sensor which would be used in a replacement R.... Mark, Yes of course I stand corrected:( /T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 10, 2007 Share #116 Posted February 10, 2007 Why not? it is in the same series as the two used in the M8 and DMR! If you define “series” as “any CCD made by Kodak”, then yes, it is the same series. Otherwise, these sensors are totally different beasts. For one thing, the KAI-16000 is an interline transfer CCD, whereas the M8’s KAI-10500 is a full-frame transfer CCD – quite a different design. Furthermore, the KAI-16000 needs active cooling by Peltier elements or fans – just take a look at the cameras using this sensor: Redlake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10dreamer Posted February 11, 2007 Share #117 Posted February 11, 2007 What I don't understand is - What does Leica have to gain by being so secretive with their intentions (real factual intentions) for the R10. Obviously, people that support them (like many people in here) will move on unless there is a replacement for the R9/DMR. The digital world is here and it isn't going away! Leica should be upfront and proactive in their communication. It just makes good business sense to keep its customer base informed and with a positive sense of the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 11, 2007 Share #118 Posted February 11, 2007 What I don't understand is - What does Leica have to gain by being so secretive with their intentions (real factual intentions) for the R10. You might just as well try to get Canon to unveil their upcoming 22 MP DSLR before its time – they have decided to announce their new models at a certain date and will keep quiet until then. People will always be curious, and will always need to be more patient – that’s life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted February 11, 2007 Share #119 Posted February 11, 2007 well Gary, other manufacturer cruise these forums too, then Leica could lose competitive advantage. Right there is enough reason.. also, why release stuff about unfinished/undecided designs, while there may be intentions to do something, it sometimes doesn't work out, or it may even be better than planned All manufacturers play it this way, some actively go out of there way to plant false information. Out at dpreview there was someone who spotted the new Olympus camera name E-410 posted on an australian/olympus site, mentioning a part for E-410. The very next day the page was gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.