Full Frame - What's the problem?
Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? CN III -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
--- Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? I imagine current full frame lenses designed for film might not do well with full frame digital, especially the corners of wide angles? Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
Alan Chan wrote: --- Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? I imagine current full frame lenses designed for film might not do well with full frame digital, especially the corners of wide angles? This issue has been discussed *a lot* on this list an other places, hasn't it? And yes, as far as I understand, the corners/border areas is a problem; electronic sensors (or the ones currently used, anyway) are more sensitive to the angle of incident of the light, than traditional film is. But, they still probably *could* use the MF sensors. The real issue is the price, I think. Again, this has been discussed a lot. Some argue that its always going to be prohibitively expensive - for the price range of 35mm SLRs - to produce 35mm sensors, and that digital chips have become more affordable over the years mainly because they have become smaller, so we really want components like the CMOS/CCD sensor to be as small as possible - or something like that. I don't quite agree with that reasoning; I think we have also seen that large components have become less expensive over the years, and that the improvements in production techniques that allow smaller units/higher integration, have actually also made it easier to produce larger ones. However, I think it's fair to say that the price of (for instance) the sensor is always going to go up as its size increases. - Toralf
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III wrote: Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? The larger the sensor the lower the production yield and hence the higher the cost. Currently it's only possible to produce full-frame sensors in camera bodies that are priced for the professional market. Pentax have chosen to make their first large-sensor camera a medium format body rather than a 35mm one because they have judged that the people who will buy such a camera (from Pentax) are more likely to have an existing investment in MF lenses than 35mm ones. S
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
The size of the lens mount factors into the equation. The large sensor works on the 645 because it has a large lens mount. Ditto the Canon. Paul On Jun 1, 2005, at 3:17 AM, Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III wrote: Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? CN III -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Paul Stenquist wrote: The size of the lens mount factors into the equation. The large sensor works on the 645 because it has a large lens mount. Ditto the Canon. So, is a FF sensor bigger in actual dimensions than film? Why the difference? Kostas (depth, that brings it closer to the lens even if there is no pressure plate?)
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
Wednesday, June 1, 2005, 12:57:43 PM, Kostas wrote: KK On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Paul Stenquist wrote: The size of the lens mount factors into the equation. The large sensor works on the 645 because it has a large lens mount. Ditto the Canon. KK So, is a FF sensor bigger in actual dimensions than film? Why the KK difference? Optics. The wider the lens mount, the more freedom have the optical designers. And as digital sensors do need optics that have more coincident rays than say a film Leica, larger lens mount means benefits in that. Personally, I would like a FF sensor just because there currently are no superfast lenses in APS format. Like Nikon's excellent 1.4/28mm or Canon's 1.4/24mm lenses, which quite loose their purpose on 1.5/1.6 crop cameras... Once we get f/1 16mm lenses for APS, that could change. Good light! fra
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
Cornelius wrote: ? Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? Cost and problem with performance at the corners due to the angle the light fall at the sensors edges. Canon may have slight advantage here due to the larger diametre of the lens mount. Pentax have released full frame lenses (FA-D) to fix this potential problem. Pål
RE: Full Frame - What's the problem?
I don't think the size of the lens mount matters at all, it's the size of the len's image circle that matters with regards to sensor size, not the diameter of the lens mount. jco -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:40 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Full Frame - What's the problem? The size of the lens mount factors into the equation. The large sensor works on the 645 because it has a large lens mount. Ditto the Canon. Paul On Jun 1, 2005, at 3:17 AM, Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III wrote: Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? CN III -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
Since there are full-frame 35mm sensors and they work well in 35mm type bodies the obvious answer is simply cost. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III wrote: Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? CN III -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 5/31/2005
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
You guys headshake are full of it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Frantisek wrote: Wednesday, June 1, 2005, 12:57:43 PM, Kostas wrote: KK On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Paul Stenquist wrote: The size of the lens mount factors into the equation. The large sensor works on the 645 because it has a large lens mount. Ditto the Canon. KK So, is a FF sensor bigger in actual dimensions than film? Why the KK difference? Optics. The wider the lens mount, the more freedom have the optical designers. And as digital sensors do need optics that have more coincident rays than say a film Leica, larger lens mount means benefits in that. Personally, I would like a FF sensor just because there currently are no superfast lenses in APS format. Like Nikon's excellent 1.4/28mm or Canon's 1.4/24mm lenses, which quite loose their purpose on 1.5/1.6 crop cameras... Once we get f/1 16mm lenses for APS, that could change. Good light! fra -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 5/31/2005
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
Wednesday, June 1, 2005, 4:38:56 PM, Graywolf wrote: G You guys headshake are full of it. G graywolf Huh? Curmudgeony again? sigh Good light! fra
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:17:49AM +0200, Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III wrote: Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? It's not difficult - just expensive. An APS-C sensor costs perhaps $500. A so-called full frame sensor, of about twice the area, doesn't cost $1000 - it's more like $2500. And the larger sensor for the MF digital is perhaps closer to $6000. Nobody in their right mind is going to put a $6000 sensor in a camera, and then mask it down so it acts like a $2500 sensor.
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Full Frame - What's the problem? I don't think the size of the lens mount matters at all, it's the size of the len's image circle that matters with regards to sensor size, not the diameter of the lens mount. The conventional theory (and i don't know if there is anything to it or not) is that the very oblique angle the light has to take when it exits the lens towards the edge of the full frame sensor causes a sort of vignetting, caused by the actual sensor being somewhat below the surface of the chip. The idea then, is to make the exit angle less extreme by increasing the diameter of the rear lens element. A larger lens mount facilitates this. Image circle size really doesn't enter into it, as long as there is enough to cover the sensor. William Robb
RE: Full Frame - What's the problem?
So we can expect an announcement from Pentax soon... -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Nobody in their right mind is going to put a $6000 sensor in a camera, and then mask it down so it acts like a $2500 sensor.
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
True. The price of an IC goes up pretty much by the square of the area. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Francis wrote: On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:17:49AM +0200, Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III wrote: Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? It's not difficult - just expensive. An APS-C sensor costs perhaps $500. A so-called full frame sensor, of about twice the area, doesn't cost $1000 - it's more like $2500. And the larger sensor for the MF digital is perhaps closer to $6000. Nobody in their right mind is going to put a $6000 sensor in a camera, and then mask it down so it acts like a $2500 sensor. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 6/1/2005
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
the cost of the sensor. Herb - Original Message - From: Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 3:17 AM Subject: Full Frame - What's the problem? Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked?
