Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do full frame sensors make sense for you?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:01:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
angles?
-Rich
June 2, 2005 12:29:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:mtis911debvblgcl3b346ekh3dnk737ahj@4ax.com...
> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?
> -Rich

I use the great DA Pentax 14mm f:2.8 (IF) ED on my *ist D body. It closely
matches my SMC Pentax-M 20mm f:4 in FOV.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:18:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?

I don't particularly want full-frame. I can go as wide as I care to
with a 1.5x crop, and I like the crop effect. And reality utterly
fails to bear out the theories of "larger sensors have less noise"
and such. Not to mention the lack of edge falloff, chromatic
aberration, and etc. The only real advantage I see in full-frame
would be the ability to achieve less depth of field.

Having said that, we'll probably end up there sooner or later.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Related resources
June 2, 2005 7:05:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:119sr3djn0h3e14@corp.supernews.com...
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> > Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> > afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> > Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> > the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> > angles?
>
> I don't particularly want full-frame. I can go as wide as I care to
> with a 1.5x crop, and I like the crop effect. And reality utterly
> fails to bear out the theories of "larger sensors have less noise"
> and such. Not to mention the lack of edge falloff, chromatic
> aberration, and etc. The only real advantage I see in full-frame
> would be the ability to achieve less depth of field.

Cropping is something I would like to have as an option. Here is the reason
behind my dis-like of the FOV crop sensors:

The whole idea of "full-frame" and FOV crop should really be meaningless.
Who is to say that medium format is not "full-frame" and that 35mm is a
"cropped" version. The reason that the FOV crop notion exists, is that the
SLR lenses are designed to take advanatage of the 35mm geometry. All the top
lenses have focal lengths designed around this geometry:

16-35 f2.8 - supposed to be ultra-wide
24-70 f2.8 - suppoesd to be wide to "normal"
50mm - supposed to be "normal"

On my 20D these lenses do not really make sense (except the 16-35, but
again, I will not be getting ultra wide here and only a 2X zoom for a high
price).

So, all the top-of-the-line lenses are still designed with this in mind.
There has been a slew of "for-digital" lenses, but frankly these are not up
to scratch. Their are cheap plasticky consumer lenses that provide
satisfactory results. I would be much happier if Canon decided to release:

- 10-22 f2.8L
- 15-50 f2.8L
- 30mm f1.4L
- The tele lenses can stay as they are, but could be refined to use less
glass due to smaller image cirlce required, so my 70-200f2.8LIS does not
need to weigh so much.

This would show me that Canon are serious about these "1.6x" sensors being
the future. So two things need to happen to make me happy:

1) Begin to "end-of-life" the 35mm format and introduce the "hypothetical"
lenses. Release "pro" bodies which have the 1.6x FOV crop
or
2) Evolve the prosumer (20D) cameras to use a FF sensor

I really dont care which, except that 2 above has the potential for lower
noise and the DOF we are used to from film (alas, at the potential for
higher prices).

>
> Having said that, we'll probably end up there sooner or later.

I hope you're right - but I fear that you may be wrong.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 11:49:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?
> -Rich

I would prefer that DSLRs broke out of the "35mm" mould and went to a
smaller, lighter system such as 4/3 might become.

David
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:28:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?

The thing that doesn't make sense is having these huge lenses which are
designed for a full sensor. For that reason alone, it's inevitable there
will be a push for affordable full size sensors. I would want one for
low noise but I'd also want to keep my D70 for telephoto.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 1:09:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 17:01, RichA wrote:

> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?

As more and more lens manufacturers supply the demand for lenses
specifically for digital SLRs and its smaller than 35mm format sensor,
the need for full frame sensors to "match" traditional 35mm film
lenses' FOV will decline. Your DSLR system will become just another
image format with its own dedicated complement of lenses just like with
6x7 or 4x5.

In fact, that's exactly the way my DSLR system is setup, although I
didn't really plan it that way. I use Canon for digital with, so far,
only "digital camera" lenses, but my 35mm film system bought long
before there was digital is Nikon. Two systems, two lens setups, just
like I have with my Hasselblad and 4x5 systems.

And I'm sure you're wondering why I didn't go Nikon for digital since I
have Nikon optics? All my Nikon stuff is very old (27 years), manual
focus AI lenses. So, there were lens compatibility issues. Plus, and
this is the main reason I went Canon: IMO Canon's CMOS type sensor
produces smoother, less "grainy" images at all ISOs than Nikon's. And
my primary criteria for any camera system I've ever bought has always
been image quality.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
June 2, 2005 2:09:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:mtis911debvblgcl3b346ekh3dnk737ahj@4ax.com...
> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?
> -Rich

There is no 'extra reach', it's just a cropped full frame. You just enlarge
it more.
I look forward to full frame with justifyable (to me) prices, and my lens
will do what they say on the box ie 20mm=20mm.

next..
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:18:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:01:06 -0400, RichA wrote:

> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach" afforded by
> less than full frame sensors a positive benefit? Or, do you dislike having
> to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do the job formerly done by less
> expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide angles?
> -Rich

Yes. Yes.

I am in a position where I can do either job using the tools at my
disposal. I treat my Nikon digital as a different system to my Nikon film
but with some overlap.

Works for me.

--
?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:15:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <mtis911debvblgcl3b346ekh3dnk737ahj@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
>afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
>Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
>the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
>angles?

'Full frame' sensors start to make sense when people can afford more than
one sensor.

At the moment, the 1.5x/1.6x crop sensors are probably best in line with
what 35mm film used to be: a practical and affordable format.

The advantage of full frame 35mm sensors over 1.5x crop sensors is that
you can have:
1) more pixels. Which is good for big enlargements, or
2) (in theory) better sensitivity if you keep the number of pixel the same
as in the cropped format, or
3) better colors (you can afford filters that are less efficient).

Bigger sensors make sense if you need one of those three features.

Once sensor technology is stable enough that almost no progress is to be
expected, camera manufacturers are likely to produce sensors with different
trade-offs that are dedicated to specific markets (low-light, large crop
factor, high resolutions, accurate colors, etc.)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
June 2, 2005 4:19:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?
> -Rich
yes yes
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 5:33:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> RichA wrote:
>
>> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
>> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit? Or, do
>> you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do the
>> job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
>> angles?
>
>
> The thing that doesn't make sense is having these huge lenses which
> are designed for a full sensor. For that reason alone, it's
> inevitable there will be a push for affordable full size sensors. I
> would want one for low noise but I'd also want to keep my D70 for
> telephoto.

There's a lot of a validity in the notion of lenses tailored to sensor
size, and Oly had the balls to push that a step further with the 4/3 format.

Oddly, lenses like their 300 f/2.8 are larger than 35mm frame 300
f/2.8's, so they did not take advantage of the smaller optics required
for a smaller image circle. A bit mysterious (and expensive), but still
a lot cheaper and a stop faster than a 600mm f/4 in full frame
(equivalent FOV).

It is unlikely that we will soon see full framed sensors that we
amateurs can afford (or at least justify to the SO).

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 5:46:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:mtis911debvblgcl3b346ekh3dnk737ahj@4ax.com...
> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?
> -Rich

I love the idea of full frame digitals, but apparently the manufacturers
don't. The smaller image sensor is becoming the standard, but we'll see
what happens when prices on sensors fall. By them it may be too late.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 8:09:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:p eibtuh99ns4a9ang07rs863a1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <mtis911debvblgcl3b346ekh3dnk737ahj@4ax.com>,
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
>>afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
>>Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
>>the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
>>angles?
>
> 'Full frame' sensors start to make sense when people can afford more than
> one sensor.
>
> At the moment, the 1.5x/1.6x crop sensors are probably best in line with
> what 35mm film used to be: a practical and affordable format.
>
> The advantage of full frame 35mm sensors over 1.5x crop sensors is that
> you can have:
> 1) more pixels. Which is good for big enlargements, or
> 2) (in theory) better sensitivity if you keep the number of pixel the same
> as in the cropped format, or
> 3) better colors (you can afford filters that are less efficient).
>
> Bigger sensors make sense if you need one of those three features.
>
> Once sensor technology is stable enough that almost no progress is to be
> expected, camera manufacturers are likely to produce sensors with
> different
> trade-offs that are dedicated to specific markets (low-light, large crop
> factor, high resolutions, accurate colors, etc.)

I agree with most of what you are saying. The major problem is
cost/efficiency. Full-frame sensors, at least so far, are not less noisy
than crop sensors in our current DSLRs. In some cases at higher ISO settings
they have shown more noise. Until mass manufacturing and a bit more r&d I
don't think we will be seeing a lot of full-frame CMOS/CCD offerings, at
least in the prosumer market.

Ed
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:00:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Of course full frame sensors make sense! Imagine a full frame sensor with
the pixel density of a D2X, or a 20D; maybe 20-24 mega-pixels. All of your
wide-angle lenses would be true wide-angle lenses. Huge prints from the
full frame would be possible w/o any up sampling required. And, at the same
time, crops, for example, of wildlife images would still bring a very large
number of pixels into play. I expect that such a camera is not really too
far away.
Chuck
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 10:00:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:VRyne.43800$G8.27585@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> RichA wrote:
>> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
>> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
>> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
>> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
>> angles?
>> -Rich
>
> I would prefer that DSLRs broke out of the "35mm" mould and went to a
> smaller, lighter system such as 4/3 might become.
>
> David
>
I would agree, except for two points. Cameras have already reached to point
that some of us, myself included, are not comfortable holding them because
of their small size. And there still is a dearth of wide angle lenses
available, for the 4/3 of the Olympus to equal a 16mm on a full frame sensor
would require an 8mm lens, for a 14mm, a 7mm would be required. The latter
may be a bit esoteric, but Canon, and others, make 16- or17-35 f2.8 zooms.
So an 8-17 would be needed. Maybe they'll get there someday, but it seems
to be taking a while...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 11:25:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:01:06 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?

I like short-ish focal lengths, so in principle, there's no reason
I wouldn't use a full-frame DSLR. On the other hand, the style of
photography I've been pursuing does not emphasize technical image
quality, so I wouldn't derive that much benefit from one.

http://narcissus.net/may/

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 11:35:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <mbGne.1256$qO2.589@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
Ed Medlin <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>I agree with most of what you are saying. The major problem is
>cost/efficiency. Full-frame sensors, at least so far, are not less noisy
>than crop sensors in our current DSLRs. In some cases at higher ISO settings
>they have shown more noise.

As far as I can tell, 'full frame' is used mostly to get more pixels. If
you compare the 8 Mpixel 1D mk2 with a crop of 1.3 with the 16 Mpixel 1Ds mk2,
then the 1Ds has smaller sensor elements (18% less surface area).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 12:00:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:o aoq7f74bqidpjlronrsgos2v2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <mbGne.1256$qO2.589@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> Ed Medlin <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>>I agree with most of what you are saying. The major problem is
>>cost/efficiency. Full-frame sensors, at least so far, are not less noisy
>>than crop sensors in our current DSLRs. In some cases at higher ISO
>>settings
>>they have shown more noise.
>
> As far as I can tell, 'full frame' is used mostly to get more pixels. If
> you compare the 8 Mpixel 1D mk2 with a crop of 1.3 with the 16 Mpixel 1Ds
> mk2,
> then the 1Ds has smaller sensor elements (18% less surface area).

Don't forget that a smaller sensor means a smaller camera, that makes sense
for most of us.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 2:55:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d7nftr$qet$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

[ ... ]

>There's a lot of a validity in the notion of lenses tailored to sensor
>size, and Oly had the balls to push that a step further with the 4/3 format.
>
>Oddly, lenses like their 300 f/2.8 are larger than 35mm frame 300
>f/2.8's, so they did not take advantage of the smaller optics required
>for a smaller image circle. A bit mysterious (and expensive), but still
>a lot cheaper and a stop faster than a 600mm f/4 in full frame
>(equivalent FOV).

Well ... for a given focal length and a given maximum aperture
the physical diameter of the aperture is defined by the ratio of focal
length to aperture, so that, at least, is the same size.

Telephotos can (and are) made shorter by slapping a negative
lens behind the main cluster -- to allow the lens to focus closer. But
the more complex the cluster of elements, the more likely things like
chromatic abberation will require even *more* elements to neutralize
that problem.

And wide angles are the same in reverse. There, the physical
focal length before the negative lens defines the aperture, and the
negative glass beyond that *must* be larger than that aperture.

And additional glass is required to minimize curvature of the
focal plain of that short lens, and to even illumination from center to
corners of the image. In those two -- the problem is somewhat reduced
by the cropped sensor, so perhaps a reduction in weight and element
count (if not size) is possible from that.

So -- for a given focal length and aperture, I would not expect
too much size reduction.

If, however, you start producing a series of lenses tailored to
the cropped sensor, then you get some benefit from size reduction, as a
"normal" lens for a 1.5 crop factor (such as my D70), is 33.33mm,
instead of 50mm -- and the physical aperture is smaller to maintain the
f1.4 maximum aperture to match my 50mm. (and that one, at least, is not
wide enough to require the inverted telephoto design.

However -- I tend to prefer the effective 75mm of my 50mm, as I
have always liked longer lenses for most of my shooting.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 3:14:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> writes:

> Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
> afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
> Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
> the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
> angles?

The extra reach is certainly a positive benefit. Although my lens
collection was relatively well-optimized for film, so it fits less
well now in digital.

However, I think buying one additional ultra-wide is not a big price
to pay for the benefits of digital. Just roll it into the price. (I
haven't yet). The *big* problem I see is that the ultra-zooms are
*slow*. My 24mm f2 and 20mm f2.8 film lenses were really pretty
fast. Dropping down a full stop, or even somewhat more, for the
ultra-wide lenses is somewhat annoying. Though of course you can use
slower shutter speeds with the wider ones, and higher ISOs with
digital than with film.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 4:58:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <6zJne.898$F7.288@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
>news:o aoq7f74bqidpjlronrsgos2v2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
>> In article <mbGne.1256$qO2.589@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Ed Medlin <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>>>I agree with most of what you are saying. The major problem is
>>>cost/efficiency. Full-frame sensors, at least so far, are not less noisy
>>>than crop sensors in our current DSLRs. In some cases at higher ISO
>>>settings
>>>they have shown more noise.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, 'full frame' is used mostly to get more pixels. If
>> you compare the 8 Mpixel 1D mk2 with a crop of 1.3 with the 16 Mpixel 1Ds
>> mk2,
>> then the 1Ds has smaller sensor elements (18% less surface area).
>
>Don't forget that a smaller sensor means a smaller camera, that makes sense
>for most of us.

That depends on the lens. My FE2 is too small for my 180/2.8. With 300/4.5
it starts to get tricky even with an F3/MD4 combination when using portrait
orientation.

However, put the 300/4.5 on a D1, and the camera provides enough grip and
the whole thing is well balanced enough that shooting at 1/125 becomes
realistic.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 7:09:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:busjr9pub9n0odiup7sdv92uq2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <6zJne.898$F7.288@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
>>news:o aoq7f74bqidpjlronrsgos2v2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
>>> In article <mbGne.1256$qO2.589@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> Ed Medlin <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>>>>I agree with most of what you are saying. The major problem is
>>>>cost/efficiency. Full-frame sensors, at least so far, are not less noisy
>>>>than crop sensors in our current DSLRs. In some cases at higher ISO
>>>>settings
>>>>they have shown more noise.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, 'full frame' is used mostly to get more pixels. If
>>> you compare the 8 Mpixel 1D mk2 with a crop of 1.3 with the 16 Mpixel
>>> 1Ds
>>> mk2,
>>> then the 1Ds has smaller sensor elements (18% less surface area).
>>
>>Don't forget that a smaller sensor means a smaller camera, that makes
>>sense
>>for most of us.
>
> That depends on the lens. My FE2 is too small for my 180/2.8. With 300/4.5
> it starts to get tricky even with an F3/MD4 combination when using
> portrait
> orientation.
>
> However, put the 300/4.5 on a D1, and the camera provides enough grip and
> the whole thing is well balanced enough that shooting at 1/125 becomes
> realistic.

For many buying the 1.5/1.6 sensor cameras we will not buy the big expensive
lenses, nor will we pay for a D1, that said the DS or XT is happy with a
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, a larger lens but suits this size camera.
June 3, 2005 7:21:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:vRPne.1173$F7.736@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>
> For many buying the 1.5/1.6 sensor cameras we will not buy the big
expensive
> lenses, nor will we pay for a D1, that said the DS or XT is happy with a
> Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, a larger lens but suits this size camera.
>

I dont think that is completely true. Buying the big glass is far less money
than buying the big sensor. I have the 20D (1.6x) and own 2 top-of-line L
zooms. This is still more palatable than buying a 1D Mkii or the 1Ds. Just
for the price of the 1D MkII, I can buy

20D
70-200f2.8LIS
16-35f2.8L

That list grows even more for the 1Ds. So I think that people with 20D and
Rebel XT do buy the good glass. Glass is where most of the image quality
comes from. Now paying $8K for a camera is quite a tall order, when that $8K
can be used for sweet glass or other hobbies, interests, needs..

My point is that big glass buying is quite seperate from big body buying.
People like to put money where they get the most return.

Musty.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 10:59:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
[]
>> I would prefer that DSLRs broke out of the "35mm" mould and went to a
>> smaller, lighter system such as 4/3 might become.
>>
>> David
>>
> I would agree, except for two points. Cameras have already reached
> to point that some of us, myself included, are not comfortable
> holding them because of their small size. And there still is a
> dearth of wide angle lenses available, for the 4/3 of the Olympus to
> equal a 16mm on a full frame sensor would require an 8mm lens, for a
> 14mm, a 7mm would be required. The latter may be a bit esoteric, but
> Canon, and others, make 16- or17-35 f2.8 zooms. So an 8-17 would be
> needed. Maybe they'll get there someday, but it seems to be taking a
> while...

Yes, that's why I said "might become" - I don't think they are there yet,
either. I don't think that making an 8 - 17mm zoom for a 4/3 camera
should be any more difficult in principle than making a 16 - 34mm zoom for
a full-frame 35mm camera, unless the 4/3 system designers have hindered
themselves in some way. But if you need that lens today and it's not
available - it rules out the system, doesn't it?

My present camera weighs just 12oz and I would not want it any bigger, but
I know that some prefer bigger cameras. For them, the add-on battery grip
seems the best approach!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:14:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
>afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?
>Or, do you dislike having to have extreme wide angles (11-18mm) to do
>the job formerly done by less expensive SLR "normal" 20-28mm wide
>angles?

The 2/3 x sensor (D70) is fine by me. I like the reach on the tele-
and was never much for anything wider than 30mm on the old 35mm format
anyway. So far, I like the quality even at high ISO. The greatest
benefit I see of the larger sensor (c.f. point&shoot) is the ability
to have shallow depth of field. It's shallow enough for me, at low
f numbers.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:52:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> In article <d7nftr$qet$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>>There's a lot of a validity in the notion of lenses tailored to sensor
>>size, and Oly had the balls to push that a step further with the 4/3 format.
>>
>>Oddly, lenses like their 300 f/2.8 are larger than 35mm frame 300
>>f/2.8's, so they did not take advantage of the smaller optics required
>>for a smaller image circle. A bit mysterious (and expensive), but still
>>a lot cheaper and a stop faster than a 600mm f/4 in full frame
>>(equivalent FOV).
>
>
> Well ... for a given focal length and a given maximum aperture
> the physical diameter of the aperture is defined by the ratio of focal
> length to aperture, so that, at least, is the same size.

Good point. However, given the smaller output image requirement, the
diameter of the overall lens could have been smaller and less costly
while preserving the aperture. Instead, this lens is larger than those
of Canon, Nikon and Minolta for that FL in full frame...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 5:35:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:52:32 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
>> In article <d7nftr$qet$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>
>>>There's a lot of a validity in the notion of lenses tailored to sensor
>>>size, and Oly had the balls to push that a step further with the 4/3 format.
>>>
>>>Oddly, lenses like their 300 f/2.8 are larger than 35mm frame 300
>>>f/2.8's, so they did not take advantage of the smaller optics required
>>>for a smaller image circle. A bit mysterious (and expensive), but still
>>>a lot cheaper and a stop faster than a 600mm f/4 in full frame
>>>(equivalent FOV).
>>
>>
>> Well ... for a given focal length and a given maximum aperture
>> the physical diameter of the aperture is defined by the ratio of focal
>> length to aperture, so that, at least, is the same size.
>
>Good point. However, given the smaller output image requirement, the
>diameter of the overall lens could have been smaller and less costly
>while preserving the aperture. Instead, this lens is larger than those
>of Canon, Nikon and Minolta for that FL in full frame...
>
>Cheers,
>Alan

It's possible the Canon and Nikons are compromised designs.
Has anyone ever tried to compare them to the Olympus in terms
of quality? It's also possible Olympus used an inferior design
that needed more internal components. Using aspherizing on a lens
element can eliminate the need for some other elements.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:12:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:3dTne.44344$G8.3815@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> My present camera weighs just 12oz and I would not want it any bigger, but
> I know that some prefer bigger cameras. For them, the add-on battery grip
> seems the best approach!
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
Which I have on my 20D...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
June 4, 2005 12:50:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yes, with a macro coupling ring.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:29:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <mtis911debvblgcl3b346ekh3dnk737ahj@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Given that many people use telephotos, is the extra "reach"
>afforded by less than full frame sensors a positive benefit?

A smaller sensor only increases "reach" when the pixel pitch is finer,
and the lens/AA filter combo are capable of resolving the difference.
Otherwise, it is nothing more than a crop. A crop in and of itself is
not a magnification; magnification requires magnified display, and
magnification does not equal reach (except, perhaps, when viewed in
something like a viewfinder, or any medium that effectively downsamples
the image).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:49:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <peibtuh99ns4a9ang07rs863a1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:

>Once sensor technology is stable enough that almost no progress is to be
>expected, camera manufacturers are likely to produce sensors with different
>trade-offs that are dedicated to specific markets (low-light, large crop
>factor, high resolutions, accurate colors, etc.)

I would certainly want a body that took my EOS lenses that had a sensor
like the ones in the better ZLRs. A 1/5x crop factor that gave modest
noise at ISO 400 would be preferable, I think, to using my DSLRs with
stacked TCs at ISO 1600 or higher EIs.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:49:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <peibtuh99ns4a9ang07rs863a1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
> philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:
>
>
>>Once sensor technology is stable enough that almost no progress is to be
>>expected, camera manufacturers are likely to produce sensors with different
>>trade-offs that are dedicated to specific markets (low-light, large crop
>>factor, high resolutions, accurate colors, etc.)
>
>
> I would certainly want a body that took my EOS lenses that had a sensor
> like the ones in the better ZLRs. A 1/5x crop factor that gave modest
> noise at ISO 400 would be preferable, I think, to using my DSLRs with
> stacked TCs at ISO 1600 or higher EIs.


Could a person screw SLR lenses on the front of a P&S with an adapter?
Maybe some crazy telephoto or macro possibilities.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:53:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <mbGne.1256$qO2.589@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
"Ed Medlin" <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:

>Full-frame sensors, at least so far, are not less noisy
>than crop sensors in our current DSLRs.

That's because they put more pixels in them, keeping the pixel pitch
down. A "full-frame" 4MP DSLR with current sensor technology would go
way beyond what we're seeing now, in terms of noise. The near-fullframe
Canon 1D is 4MP, but it is older sensor technology.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:34:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:35:33 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <peibtuh99ns4a9ang07rs863a1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
>> philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Once sensor technology is stable enough that almost no progress is to be
>>>expected, camera manufacturers are likely to produce sensors with different
>>>trade-offs that are dedicated to specific markets (low-light, large crop
>>>factor, high resolutions, accurate colors, etc.)
>>
>>
>> I would certainly want a body that took my EOS lenses that had a sensor
>> like the ones in the better ZLRs. A 1/5x crop factor that gave modest
>> noise at ISO 400 would be preferable, I think, to using my DSLRs with
>> stacked TCs at ISO 1600 or higher EIs.
>
>
>Could a person screw SLR lenses on the front of a P&S with an adapter?
>Maybe some crazy telephoto or macro possibilities.

Wanna see an extreme example? Check out the f-ration at 400mm.
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/e10/tcon-300.html
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:46:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 4 Jun 2005 08:50:31 -0700, "MadHatter"
<greeneggsandham00@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Yes, with a macro coupling ring.

You open a real can of optical "worms" when you
start cobbling lenses on lenses. The prosumers
make it very difficult as they have large lenses
and full illumination (with whatever combination
you can think up) requires a huge add-on lens.
I've got a Raynox tele adapter 1.85x for my C8080
but it (despite a 80mm wide front element) is only
usable at full telemode on my 8080. What you get is
the corners going progressively darker while at
wide mode, you end up with nothing but an illuminated circle about
1/3 of of the frame in size.
Also using (which is what your ring adapter would get
you) a normal SLR lens in front of camera lens would probably
get you a very close focusing macro lens but you wouldn't be
able to focus at any distance. Any positive lens put on the
front of a positive lens decreases the focal length
so a 100mm coupled to a 50mm would get you....
a really short f.l. lens. Thats how those cheap screw-on macro
lenses work.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 9:50:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <SpqdncdSy8raVzzfRVn-tQ@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Could a person screw SLR lenses on the front of a P&S with an adapter?
>Maybe some crazy telephoto or macro possibilities.

There are such adapters; teleconverters that screw on the front, but the
combined package tends to be heavy and bulky, and too much for the main
camera. I bought the Sony 1.7x TC for my F707, which was really a very
sharp adapter, and maintained f/2.4 by being wide, but it made the screw
that hold the filter threads in place come loose, and I had to take the
camera almost completely apart to fix it.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 9:51:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1117900231.582145.36070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MadHatter" <greeneggsandham00@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Yes, with a macro coupling ring.

Any benefit over doing the same with a DSLR?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:31:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>Could a person screw SLR lenses on the front of a P&S with an adapter?
>>Maybe some crazy telephoto or macro possibilities.
>
>
> Wanna see an extreme example? Check out the f-ration at 400mm.
> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/e10/tcon-300.html


That's pretty good but I was thinking of telephoto using an SLR lens on
a P&S, like putting a really good 400mm SLR lens on & getting basically
a telescope. I know you can attach P&S cams to microscopes and
telescopes and pretty sure they could be reversed for macro work.

Converting an old P&S with a broken lens & putting an SLR telephoto on
it would make it very powerful if the SLR lens was good quality because
of the tiny pixels and crop factor.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 2:03:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MNqdnWIVM6B6yD_fRVn-jA@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>>Could a person screw SLR lenses on the front of a P&S with an adapter?
>>>Maybe some crazy telephoto or macro possibilities.
>>
>>
>> Wanna see an extreme example? Check out the f-ration at 400mm.
>> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/e10/tcon-300.html
>
>
>That's pretty good but I was thinking of telephoto using an SLR lens on
>a P&S, like putting a really good 400mm SLR lens on & getting basically
>a telescope. I know you can attach P&S cams to microscopes and
>telescopes and pretty sure they could be reversed for macro work.

There are two ways to attach to telescopes or microscopes;

1) Mount the camera to look through the eyepiece. Set the
eyepiece for an image at infinity, and focus the camera lens to
infinity. Then focus with the normal focusing mechanism of the
telescope or microscope.

The major disadvantage is that little light gets through this.

2) Remove the eyepiece (assuming an interchangeable eyepiece telescope
most microscopes already qualify), and mount the camera onto the
tube where the eyepiece was. A relay lens may help it to focus
properly on the film/sensor without having to re-focus the
microscope or telescope. However, you can get more
magnification by seriously re-focusing, and mounting the camera
to the telescope or microscope with a long extension tube or a
bellows (but, you might get vignetting as a result.)

To put a SLR lens onto a P&S which still has its own lens, you
would have to add an eyepiece to the telephoto (these used to be sold to
allow people to use their telephoto lenses as telescopes. Essentially,
the eyepiece takes the virtual image which would have been a real image
on the film or sensor, and reformats it for the human eye. All told,
this is a very awkward way to take photos through a SLR telephoto with a
P&S camera. There are too many lens elements involved in re-re-formatting
the images, so resolution suffers.

>Converting an old P&S with a broken lens & putting an SLR telephoto on
>it would make it very powerful if the SLR lens was good quality because
>of the tiny pixels and crop factor.

Now -- starting with a P&S with a broken lens, you introduce
other problems:

1) There is no mechanism for coupling the SLR's diaphragm mechanism
to the P&S electronics, so you are stuck focusing and composing
at the aperture selected on the SLR lens -- or having to reach
past all of the original camera body to stop it down.

2) The metering system has no way to control the aperture, though
it may *think* that it does -- so you will have to go to manual
metering as well.

3) Certainly, no autofocus mechanism will work through this
linkage, unless you are in a position to nearly totally redesign
the camera.

So -- you will be in the position of doing everything manually.

4) You now have the sensor exposed to the world's dust, so you
probably will have to learn to clean a tiny sensor which is even
less designed for cleaning access than a DSLR's sensor is. (At
least the DSLR manufacturer provides *some* provisions for such
cleaning.

It might be an interesting experiment with an already otherwise
useless camera, but as a permanent piece of photographic equipment, I
have my doubts.

Also -- if the sensor is too small, and too high in resolution,
the lens may not be capable of providing sufficient image resolution to
take advantage of the tiny sensor. This is somewhat akin to putting a
lens for an 8x10 view camera onto a 35mm SLR, and expecting it to
provide as much resolution as the 35mm lens of the same focal length
provides. The large format lens is optimized for a different task --
covering the full 8x10 film plane with an image which looks good center
to edge. To do this, they may have to sacrifice the resolution at the
center compared to a telephoto designed for a 35mm camera.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 2:03:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
> To put a SLR lens onto a P&S which still has its own lens, you
> would have to add an eyepiece to the telephoto (these used to be sold to
> allow people to use their telephoto lenses as telescopes. Essentially,
> the eyepiece takes the virtual image which would have been a real image
> on the film or sensor, and reformats it for the human eye. All told,
> this is a very awkward way to take photos through a SLR telephoto with a
> P&S camera. There are too many lens elements involved in re-re-formatting
> the images, so resolution suffers.


LOL OK now I'm imagining duct-taping the P&S on the viewfinder of a DSLR
where you would normally put your eye!


Thanks much for the detailed explanations, I enjoyed and learned. It
sounds pretty much impractical.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 7:51:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:p 344a1pclp1j52hr649odaieslmcto6ise@4ax.com...
> On 4 Jun 2005 08:50:31 -0700, "MadHatter"
> <greeneggsandham00@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, with a macro coupling ring.
>
> You open a real can of optical "worms" when you
> start cobbling lenses on lenses.

It depends:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Araniella_cucurbitin...
Although not a worm, taken with an inverted 50mm lens on a P&S (G3)
camera.

Bart
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:19:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:31:17 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>>Could a person screw SLR lenses on the front of a P&S with an adapter?
>>>Maybe some crazy telephoto or macro possibilities.
>>
>>
>> Wanna see an extreme example? Check out the f-ration at 400mm.
>> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/e10/tcon-300.html
>
>
>That's pretty good but I was thinking of telephoto using an SLR lens on
>a P&S, like putting a really good 400mm SLR lens on & getting basically
>a telescope. I know you can attach P&S cams to microscopes and
>telescopes and pretty sure they could be reversed for macro work.
>
>Converting an old P&S with a broken lens & putting an SLR telephoto on
>it would make it very powerful if the SLR lens was good quality because
>of the tiny pixels and crop factor.

I was looking at the exploded view of my C8080. It could be converted
fairly easily to use interchageable OM SLR lenses. This should be
possible for any point and shoot that can physically handle an adapter
to be attached. I used to have an adapter (like the mounting the
camera bodies) for the OM lenses. But, if you want to use a lens
with the pre-existing lens, they you have to use another lens in
between them, otherwise, you'll get no image. For telescope and
microscope work, a P&S that still has it's lens needs an eyepiece used
between them.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:21:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 03:51:14 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:p 344a1pclp1j52hr649odaieslmcto6ise@4ax.com...
>> On 4 Jun 2005 08:50:31 -0700, "MadHatter"
>> <greeneggsandham00@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, with a macro coupling ring.
>>
>> You open a real can of optical "worms" when you
>> start cobbling lenses on lenses.
>
>It depends:
>http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Araniella_cucurbitin...
>Although not a worm, taken with an inverted 50mm lens on a P&S (G3)
>camera.
>
>Bart

That's a nice shot but how much more magnification or close
focus ability did it provide your camera with? Most P&S's
can get very close to a subject now.
An alternate question might be, how big was that horrible thing? :) 
-Rich
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:23:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 4 Jun 2005 22:03:19 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:

>In article <MNqdnWIVM6B6yD_fRVn-jA@speakeasy.net>,
>Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>>Could a person screw SLR lenses on the front of a P&S with an adapter?
>>>>Maybe some crazy telephoto or macro possibilities.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wanna see an extreme example? Check out the f-ration at 400mm.
>>> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/e10/tcon-300.html
>>
>>
>>That's pretty good but I was thinking of telephoto using an SLR lens on
>>a P&S, like putting a really good 400mm SLR lens on & getting basically
>>a telescope. I know you can attach P&S cams to microscopes and
>>telescopes and pretty sure they could be reversed for macro work.
>
> There are two ways to attach to telescopes or microscopes;
>
>1) Mount the camera to look through the eyepiece. Set the
> eyepiece for an image at infinity, and focus the camera lens to
> infinity. Then focus with the normal focusing mechanism of the
> telescope or microscope.
>
> The major disadvantage is that little light gets through this.
>
>2) Remove the eyepiece (assuming an interchangeable eyepiece telescope
> most microscopes already qualify), and mount the camera onto the
> tube where the eyepiece was. A relay lens may help it to focus
> properly on the film/sensor without having to re-focus the
> microscope or telescope. However, you can get more
> magnification by seriously re-focusing, and mounting the camera
> to the telescope or microscope with a long extension tube or a
> bellows (but, you might get vignetting as a result.)
>

You're second scenario won't work with a camera with a fixed lens.
You have to use an eyepiece for what is called afocal photography. If
you point your camera lens into the scope drawtube, focus tube,
without and eyepiece being there, you will image a white circle and
focusing won't be possible. An SLR can do this without it's lens
since the telescope objective (lens) functions as a telephoto.

> To put a SLR lens onto a P&S which still has its own lens, you
>would have to add an eyepiece to the telephoto (these used to be sold to
>allow people to use their telephoto lenses as telescopes. Essentially,
>the eyepiece takes the virtual image which would have been a real image
>on the film or sensor, and reformats it for the human eye. All told,
>this is a very awkward way to take photos through a SLR telephoto with a
>P&S camera. There are too many lens elements involved in re-re-formatting
>the images, so resolution suffers.
>
>>Converting an old P&S with a broken lens & putting an SLR telephoto on
>>it would make it very powerful if the SLR lens was good quality because
>>of the tiny pixels and crop factor.
>
> Now -- starting with a P&S with a broken lens, you introduce
>other problems:
>
>1) There is no mechanism for coupling the SLR's diaphragm mechanism
> to the P&S electronics, so you are stuck focusing and composing
> at the aperture selected on the SLR lens -- or having to reach
> past all of the original camera body to stop it down.
>
>2) The metering system has no way to control the aperture, though
> it may *think* that it does -- so you will have to go to manual
> metering as well.
>
>3) Certainly, no autofocus mechanism will work through this
> linkage, unless you are in a position to nearly totally redesign
> the camera.
>
> So -- you will be in the position of doing everything manually.
>
>4) You now have the sensor exposed to the world's dust, so you
> probably will have to learn to clean a tiny sensor which is even
> less designed for cleaning access than a DSLR's sensor is. (At
> least the DSLR manufacturer provides *some* provisions for such
> cleaning.
>
> It might be an interesting experiment with an already otherwise
>useless camera, but as a permanent piece of photographic equipment, I
>have my doubts.
>
> Also -- if the sensor is too small, and too high in resolution,
>the lens may not be capable of providing sufficient image resolution to
>take advantage of the tiny sensor. This is somewhat akin to putting a
>lens for an 8x10 view camera onto a 35mm SLR, and expecting it to
>provide as much resolution as the 35mm lens of the same focal length
>provides. The large format lens is optimized for a different task --
>covering the full 8x10 film plane with an image which looks good center
>to edge. To do this, they may have to sacrifice the resolution at the
>center compared to a telephoto designed for a 35mm camera.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 3:29:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <MNqdnWIVM6B6yD_fRVn-jA@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Converting an old P&S with a broken lens & putting an SLR telephoto on
>it would make it very powerful if the SLR lens was good quality because
>of the tiny pixels and crop factor.

Exactly. A lot of the better lenses for SLRs have usable contrast at 2
or 3x the resolution of the DSLR sensors, and the P&S pixel pitches are
right in that range. Much better than using teleconverters, I think,
because TCs lose light and therefore lose a lot of the benefit of the
larger, quieter sensors. The 4/3 system is a step in that direction,
but of course, it uses proprietary lenses, and I would prefer something
that goes a bit smaller. If the sensor used in the Sony F717, for
example, didn't have the video support circuitry, the sensel surfaces
could be bigger, and even quieter.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 7:05:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:tun5a150u0u05kc10p29pnmkt7cv920hip@4ax.com...
SNIP

> That's a nice shot but how much more magnification or close
> focus ability did it provide your camera with? Most P&S's
> can get very close to a subject now.
> An alternate question might be, how big was that horrible thing? :) 

Fortunately, it was only 5 millimetres, hanging from the doorknob. I
held an old 50mm SLR lens in front of the P&S camera (Canon G3, zoomed
in, Macro setting), in reversed orientation. That allowed to
close-focus to something like 2 centimetres between subject and lens
surface.
The linked image is a slightly down-sampled crop of the full image.
Measured from the original file, it resulted in something like a 1:3.3
magnification factor (so approx. 1/3rd of life size on sensor), thus a
close-up approching a macro.

Bart
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 8:25:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 15:05:13 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:tun5a150u0u05kc10p29pnmkt7cv920hip@4ax.com...
>SNIP
>
>> That's a nice shot but how much more magnification or close
>> focus ability did it provide your camera with? Most P&S's
>> can get very close to a subject now.
>> An alternate question might be, how big was that horrible thing? :) 
>
>Fortunately, it was only 5 millimetres, hanging from the doorknob. I
>held an old 50mm SLR lens in front of the P&S camera (Canon G3, zoomed
>in, Macro setting), in reversed orientation. That allowed to
>close-focus to something like 2 centimetres between subject and lens
>surface.
>The linked image is a slightly down-sampled crop of the full image.
>Measured from the original file, it resulted in something like a 1:3.3
>magnification factor (so approx. 1/3rd of life size on sensor), thus a
>close-up approching a macro.
>
>Bart

Great picture btw!
-Rich
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 1:29:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <7ZNne.71$Cr.8@fed1read07>, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

> I would agree, except for two points. Cameras have already reached to point
> that some of us, myself included, are not comfortable holding them because
> of their small size. And there still is a dearth of wide angle lenses
> available, for the 4/3 of the Olympus to equal a 16mm on a full frame sensor
> would require an 8mm lens, for a 14mm, a 7mm would be required. The latter
> may be a bit esoteric, but Canon, and others, make 16- or17-35 f2.8 zooms.
> So an 8-17 would be needed. Maybe they'll get there someday, but it seems
> to be taking a while...

??? The 7-14mm has been available now for quite a while.
http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/7-14_4...

Lourens
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 1:29:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:29:49 +0200, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>In article <7ZNne.71$Cr.8@fed1read07>, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>> I would agree, except for two points. Cameras have already reached to point
>> that some of us, myself included, are not comfortable holding them because
>> of their small size. And there still is a dearth of wide angle lenses
>> available, for the 4/3 of the Olympus to equal a 16mm on a full frame sensor
>> would require an 8mm lens, for a 14mm, a 7mm would be required. The latter
>> may be a bit esoteric, but Canon, and others, make 16- or17-35 f2.8 zooms.
>> So an 8-17 would be needed. Maybe they'll get there someday, but it seems
>> to be taking a while...
>
>??? The 7-14mm has been available now for quite a while.
>http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/7-14_4...
>
>Lourens

That thing has got to be at least $1500.00.
-Rich
!