So, it is not the lens, it is the sensor..
Dec 2, 2015 08:29:28 #
burkphoto wrote:
The HUGE amount of money it takes to make marginal differences in quality at the limits of our perception is disgusting. As my late mother used to say, "There are starving kids in far corners of the globe, and you're worried about WHAT???"
Kind of like the mega dollars it takes to go a tenth or two of a second faster in a drag race car. Yet there are always those who have the funds and the determination to go where no one else has gone. And the technology trickles down and becomes more affordable to the less well funded racers. This past season alone we had door cars hit 230mph in the 1/8th mile and 275mph in the 1/4 mile. That is crazy fast for door cars!
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC
Dec 2, 2015 08:29:57 #
Pablo8 wrote:
Years ago ( 35mm film only days) a camera was brought out, with a curved film gate. Just a one-off. No other manufacturer copied the design/ alternative arrangement. The idea just died a death!!
Yeah, like recent 3D TV and 1950s 3D cameras, curved-screen TVs, and that awesome Quad surround sound in the '70s.
Every now and then, someone resurrects a stupid idea or a gimmick and enough people fall for it that they can take the money and run. Dealers can't give away those expensive curved 4K TV screens. No one's spouse wants a curved screen on the wall over the fireplace!
My brother-in-law bought a 3D TV a few years ago. After the first month or so, they quit watching anything in 3D and threw the glasses away. I think he's still paying for the damned thing. (Do broadcasters even produce any shows in 3D?)
Dec 2, 2015 08:35:36 #
Notorious T.O.D. wrote:
Kind of like the mega dollars it takes to go a tenth or two of a second faster in a drag race car. Yet there are always those who have the funds and the determination to go where no one else has gone. And the technology trickles down and becomes more affordable to the less well funded racers. This past season alone we had door cars hit 230mph in the 1/8th mile and 275mph in the 1/4 mile. That is crazy fast for door cars!
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC
Yeah, when we lived there, I used to hear the noise five miles away at my house in Autumnwood, nearby in Charlotte, when the drag races went on. It was pretty annoying when I was on my deck, watching birds.
Marginal improvements don't impress me. Quantum jump breakthroughs and paradigm shifts do. I still want those flying solar-powered cars they promised us back in 1960.
Dec 2, 2015 08:42:16 #
Agreed! and curved sensors are being worked on seriously by at least one manufacturer.
Dec 2, 2015 08:49:07 #
burkphoto wrote:
...Marginal improvements don't impress me. Quantum jump breakthroughs and paradigm shifts do. I still want those flying solar-powered cars they promised us back in 1960.
You think traffic is bad in two dimensions? Wait until you have to watch out for the crazy drivers in three! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaKmT54qjAQ
Where do you land your car in the city?
How do you commute on a foggy day?
Dec 2, 2015 08:53:42 #
[quote=Rongnongno]Well, been doing research on lenses and sensors as per my last post.
Numerous web sites confirm the sensor/lens matching combination in order to get the best result...
This thread is not about that, not really. It is more about how close we are from maxing out a lens resolution with newer sensors.
Well, we are not close at all. On a FF camera the sensor need to reach... 250MP!!!
Of course, we all know Canon has been using a 250mp sensor on their current crop of L lenses with incredible results. The lenses have no problem at all in seeing people waving at miles away.
Numerous web sites confirm the sensor/lens matching combination in order to get the best result...
This thread is not about that, not really. It is more about how close we are from maxing out a lens resolution with newer sensors.
Well, we are not close at all. On a FF camera the sensor need to reach... 250MP!!!
Of course, we all know Canon has been using a 250mp sensor on their current crop of L lenses with incredible results. The lenses have no problem at all in seeing people waving at miles away.
Dec 2, 2015 09:08:32 #
Architect1776 wrote:
... Well, we are not close at all. On a FF camera the sensor need to reach... 250MP!!!
Of course, we all know Canon has been using a 250mp sensor on their current crop of L lenses with incredible results. The lenses have no problem at all in seeing people waving at miles away.
Of course, we all know Canon has been using a 250mp sensor on their current crop of L lenses with incredible results. The lenses have no problem at all in seeing people waving at miles away.
We don't all know that and I have never seen any credible reports that current lenses are anywhere near that good. Ron's unsubstantiated claim sounds like a gross exaggeration.
Even Canon's own image in your own post does not hold up. Compare the sharpness in the center of the image with how the lights get blurry at the edges and lower corners.
Dec 2, 2015 09:36:19 #
Dec 2, 2015 09:44:29 #
Dec 2, 2015 10:27:15 #
When Nikon released its first 55mm macro lens, it claimed that the film to capture the detail that the lens was capable of providing had not yet been invented. We may now wonder whether the sensors are 'failing' photography in a similar fashion or whether there is even a comparison between film and sensors in the spirit of this discussion.
Dec 2, 2015 11:16:38 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
You think traffic is bad in two dimensions? Wait until you have to watch out for the crazy drivers in three! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaKmT54qjAQ
Where do you land your car in the city?
How do you commute on a foggy day?
Where do you land your car in the city?
How do you commute on a foggy day?
Okay, so my wish for flying cars is figurative fantasy! (I do think that future navigation systems will be able to handle air traffic saturation automatically, but we ARE a LOONNNNNGGG way from that. We have to get through the driverless car transition, first. Then we need a safe source of fusion-powered flight propulsion... ;-))
I did not mean for my wish for flying cars to be taken literally, precisely because we know it's impractical. Hell, we can't even get decent legislation regarding drones, yet!
The example wasn't clear enough, but I meant to point us in another direction We should concentrate on changing the ways we live in meaningfully disruptive ways, not JUST making things better at the margins. Marginal developments are important, but pale in comparison with (r)evolutions such as:
Horses and Buggies > Cars
Wired Land Line Phones > Cell Phones > Smart Phones
Mechanical Swiss Watches > Quartz Swatch Watches > Smart Watches
Film capture > Digital capture
We keep splitting hairs over the development of better sensors, better lenses, etc., when really, what I hope we WANT is better PHOTOGRAPHS. Far more circumstances and issues affect the production of good photos than equipment evolution.
Dec 2, 2015 11:18:46 #
billnikon wrote:
And yet photo's will continue to be judged on their artistic merits and not ANYTHING else.
As they should be. I'll state once more my reply to a not dissimilar thread a few days ago.
There is an old saying in photography: "Anyone can learn how to use a camera, but you can't teach someone how to see."
A little off topic, and somewhat belated, but Happy Thanksgiving to all. Everyone has problems, but I never have to look far to see someone whose problems are far greater than my own. I have family and friends that care about me. Money can't buy that. I know that I am a truly fortunate man.
Dec 2, 2015 11:24:15 #
ssymeono wrote:
When Nikon released its first 55mm macro lens, it claimed that the film to capture the detail that the lens was capable of providing had not yet been invented. We may now wonder whether the sensors are 'failing' photography in a similar fashion or whether there is even a comparison between film and sensors in the spirit of this discussion.
I own that first 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor. I also own its successor, the 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor. I used both with film for years, back in the 1980s. You could DEFINITELY see the difference between the two lenses when copying flat, printed materials onto Ektachrome 64 Tungsten film. The f/2.8 lens was much contrastier and sharper, corner to corner, at its optimum aperture of f/6.3.
Dec 2, 2015 11:28:58 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Well, been doing research on lenses and sensors as... (show quote)
If 250mp is ever achieved it may be that rather just higher resolution, moving beyond RGB could be of more benefit. The color spectrum is continuous, not discrete. Higher end color printers have already done that so some extent.
Dec 2, 2015 11:39:58 #
What I love on UHH is the systematic dismissal of technical information.
I agree that you can give anything to a bad photographer and you will get crap. If you give crap to a good photographer you will get a surprise.
I will also agree that if you match the quality of the equipment with the know how of a great photographer and you pass on to another level of photography.
The trouble you have to understand is that you can be a photographer AND be interested in what is going on in a camera at all levels.
The systemic reject of any information related to the inner working of anything shows a lack of curiosity if nothing else.
Well, I am curious. I studied the inner working of an engine just because same as the stars motion and many other things. It started as a kid when I destroyed watches in order to understand them. I do not destroy anything anymore, I know better than taking anything apart, too costly.
Curiosity is what killed the cat some will say. Well curiosity is also what drives progress. Understanding leads to more questions that themselves lead to discoveries. Discoveries can be applied in real life. This is why we have life long tinkerers.
Photography is the same in so many ways. Many stay stuck behind a gizmo (a camera) and do not realize what the gizmo is capable of and how to exploit these capabilities to become even more creative. PP suffers the same way. Short cuts all over yet when you see what folks create using PP you can wonder what you are missing by refusing to research on your own what you can do better or differently. You will be surprised.
So, dismiss any information given if you like, it is your prerogative. Just do not expect to be respected for your posted simplistic opinions.
It is not the camera, it the guy behind the camera. RIGHT.
I agree that you can give anything to a bad photographer and you will get crap. If you give crap to a good photographer you will get a surprise.
I will also agree that if you match the quality of the equipment with the know how of a great photographer and you pass on to another level of photography.
The trouble you have to understand is that you can be a photographer AND be interested in what is going on in a camera at all levels.
The systemic reject of any information related to the inner working of anything shows a lack of curiosity if nothing else.
Well, I am curious. I studied the inner working of an engine just because same as the stars motion and many other things. It started as a kid when I destroyed watches in order to understand them. I do not destroy anything anymore, I know better than taking anything apart, too costly.
Curiosity is what killed the cat some will say. Well curiosity is also what drives progress. Understanding leads to more questions that themselves lead to discoveries. Discoveries can be applied in real life. This is why we have life long tinkerers.
Photography is the same in so many ways. Many stay stuck behind a gizmo (a camera) and do not realize what the gizmo is capable of and how to exploit these capabilities to become even more creative. PP suffers the same way. Short cuts all over yet when you see what folks create using PP you can wonder what you are missing by refusing to research on your own what you can do better or differently. You will be surprised.
So, dismiss any information given if you like, it is your prerogative. Just do not expect to be respected for your posted simplistic opinions.
It is not the camera, it the guy behind the camera. RIGHT.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.