FastFashnReloaded Posted March 10, 2009 Share #41 Posted March 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is exactly what I would like Leica to do for the M9 ( if they cannot resolve in any other way the exit angle of wide lenses ).A FF sensor that works as such with legacy >= 50mm lenses. A crop with legacy <= 35mm lenses. A FF sensor with new <= 35mm lenses. The M9 shouldn't NEED a whole array of new micro-lenses and expensive unobtanium optical path fixes to go with an FFS. Make the fixes to the image (any that you aren't fixing in the optical path) with software/firmware. Replace the obsolete electronics in the M8 with something a bit more... robust (and that means more memory onboard and faster processing). Heck, partner up with Sony or Panasonic to get the electronics right this time. With the processing power available now in a camera like the Alpha 900 you could fix a lot of deficiencies in the optical path on the spot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Hi FastFashnReloaded, Take a look here Olympus Declares 12 Megapixels is Enough. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rosuna Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share #42 Posted March 10, 2009 Replace the obsolete electronics in the M8 with something a bit more... robust (and that means more memory onboard and faster processing). Heck, partner up with Sony or Panasonic to get the electronics right this time. With the processing power available now in a camera like the Alpha 900 you could fix a lot of deficiencies in the optical path on the spot. Leica doesn't need Sony or Panasonic. They have developed the right platform for the S2, and it can be transposed to the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 10, 2009 Share #43 Posted March 10, 2009 ...Bunch of old stuck-in-the-muds...The M9 shouldn't NEED a whole array of new micro-lenses and expensive unobtanium optical path fixes to go with an FFS. Make the fixes to the image (any that you aren't fixing in the optical path) with software/firmware... Hi Dana, its the old stuck-in-the-muds here. I know you like 4/3 very much my friend but i do not agree with you. To me the future is not 4/3 but FF or APS as far as serious cameras are concerned but i may be wrong of course. Also microlenses are necessary IMO because vignetting you refer to causes not only light fall off but also losses of data in the corners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share #44 Posted March 10, 2009 I think the future is a variety of formats and systems... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted March 10, 2009 Share #45 Posted March 10, 2009 Not only has the Photoscala article been updated, but also their source article, Olympus declares 12 megapixels is enough | Underexposed - CNET News, from which it is clear that Mr Watanabe recognizes that sensor and processor improvements will be made, but that he feels the best direction may not be increasing pixel count beyond a certain limit. But I have a problem with the Photoscala article. Someone please straighten me out if I am wrong. 1) It looks to me as if Photoscala has needlessly inserted data from elsewhere (Beste Bildqualität mit 6 Megapixeln!) into the article on the Watanabe interview; and 2) I wonder if the 2007 data from Image Engineering's 6mpixel.org site still hold today? Haven't some of the contentions there been proved erroneous by Rubén and others? New update by photoscala: Olympus asked to point out in the article 'that Mr. Watanabe NEVER said anything regarding the existence of a sensible upper limitation of E-system or any other DSLR concept.' Seems to be the case that Mr. Watanabe, Oly and the Japanese camera industry did have some sleepness nights. Not surprising since they need more and more pixels to sell new cameras. to1) and 2) the 'chain' of explanation in the article is a bit weak, but they try to explain the following: - image engineering (6mpixel.org) says that 6 mpix for compact cameras are enough - this is roughly 3 µm (0,003 mm) pixel size - the excel sheet shows maximum output sizes at 300dpi for different sensor sizes and at their maximum 'uselful' megapixel numbers - Mr. oly 'says' 20 mpix maximum for FT, that means maximum A3 print size for FT (excel sheet) - photoscala says A3 is future proof since viewing distance increases with print size and the human eye's resolution is limited as well; e.g. A3 from 40cm distance looks as sharp as A4 from 30cm. to 2) technology improves, e.g. Sony's back illuminated sensors for compact cameras with increased effectice surface and therefore increased sensitivity or other technologies like Sony's ClearVid sensors that use a different color filter array with increased portion of green (green means brighter, brighter looks sharper) Therefore such numbers like 3 µm (aug, 31 2007) are probably out-dated in 2009. Lenses must be sharp enough of course. 3 µm means 160lp/mm according to photoscala. A tripod is needed for that anyway. Who shoots with compact cameras and a tripod? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.