>3. Maybe the same people who would pay $1000 for a shift lens? I already have the SMC 3.5/28mm shift lens. I very rarely use it. I do the corrections in PS in stead. I do admit that the the distortion is greater compared top the opticallly corrected image.
I guess used shift lenses will get cheaper, since most people is OK with using PS. People who MUST have high quality shift options will buy a shift lens - to go with the next 4 generations of what ever camera brand they are using. I bought the "D" a year ago. In 10 years time I will be using my DSLR number three or four. The shift lens, I got ten years ago (it cost a small fortune - about the same as the "D" body, remains the same regardless of what my camera body happens to be - PZ-1p, MZ-S, D, ... Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. september 2005 18:05 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Sensors That Shift? I don't think you have thought that through, Jens. 1. The shifting sensor does not loose pixels as shifting in PS does. 2. As for the viewfinder all that takes is a full-frame viewfinder with a moving mask. 3. Maybe the same people who would pay $1000 for a shift lens? On the other hand shortly it will probably be just as cheap to buy a full-frame camera and crop the image for shift as it would be to buy a special APS shift body. So I guess the issue is moot. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Jens Bladt wrote: >I don't really thinks so. >Fist of all, shifitng can be done in Photshop quite easily. >Secondly because the sensor image isn't visible until the frame is already >exposed. >This means you'll be guessing whow much shiftig is needed. Even if you had a >"shiftable" vievfinder the image would be to small to adequately preadjust >correctly anyway. >I guess a shift lens and later Photoshop is the most affordableway to go >right now. >Who would pay 300-500 USD moore for the body, if it had a shift opportunity, >that only a few people would actually use? >Regards >Jens Bladt > > >Jens Bladt >Arkitekt MAA >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: Glen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sendt: 22. september 2005 09:18 >Til: [email protected] >Emne: Sensors That Shift? > > >Since the current sensors are smaller than 24 x 36 mm, could a camera be >built in such a way that it could shift the sensor up and down, and from >side to side? This would have a similar use as a shift lens would have. Of >course, you would have to use lenses made to cover the full 24 x 36 format. >The current DA lenses wouldn't work with a moveable sensor. > >I think this might be a cool feature for some people, especially for those >who photograph architecture. > >There is also one other potential use for a moveable sensor. When >photographing stationary objects and using a tripod, the sensor could be >used to take more than one image of the subject. Each image would be taken >with the sensor shifted a sub-pixel distance vertically and horizontally >between images. Let's say that instead of a single image, we capture 9 >images, arranged in a grid pattern centered around what would have been the >normal single image. We then use this grid of 9 images to create a >higher-resolution image than a single image capture would have produced. >This should be a way to quadruple the amount of effective pixels, while >using the same sensor. Unfortunately, it would only work for situations >where the camera and subject were kept stationary with respect to each >other. Still, I bet a lot of photographers would benefit from such a boost >in resolution under such circumstances. Also, you could possibly develop >some enhanced noise reduction techniques by analyzing the extra exposures >and tossing out any pixels which seemed abnormally bright. > >Would this idea of shifting the sensor in sub-pixel amounts actually help >yield higher resolutions? My intuition tells me that it would give images >with higher effective resolution than the single images we currently have, >but perhaps not quite as nice as a sensor with a truly quadrupled pixel >count. However, it should be a lot cheaper to build than a sensor with a >quadrupled pixel count. ;) > >Of course, the sub-pixel shift was thought up as a way to boost effective >resolution, while maintaining full compatibility with DA lenses. If the >sub-pixel shift idea doesn't work, I have a second idea for increasing the >total resolution of the captured image. Once again, it only works for >stationary subjects. For each image, make 4 captures. Shift the position of >the sensor to the top-left corner of the 24x36mm frame for the 1st capture, >then to the top-right corner, then the bottom-right, and finally to the >bottom-left corner of the 24x36mm frame. This way, you have covered the >full 24x36mm frame in 4 tiles. Then, seamlessly stitch these tiles together >in software to create a single full-frame image with much more than our >normal 6.1 megapixels. Of course you lose the compatibility with DA lenses, >and would have to use lenses designed to cover the full 24x36mm frame. I'm >not sure how many extra megapixels you would gain from simply extending the >effective sensor coverage to 24x36 mm. Maybe someone on the list knows how >to calculate this? > > >take care, >Glen > > > > >
