• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Medium Format in "The Future"

There is a lot of speculation the of chimeras: "chimeraon In Greek mythology, or, as in Latin, Chimaera is a monstrous creature made of the parts of multiple animals." (wikipedia) that may be announced at Photokina.

This are creatures like he ZD that may appear in the USA, this monstrous creature has the head (Delsa) of a MF and a body smaller than a Canon. Interesting.

What about a rumored Hasselblad with a square sensor and new line of lenses that may have no shutter system at all but would "expose" by signaling the sensor when to accept the next 1/125th of a second. Such a beast would not only be made of parts of multiple animals, but may be a new species all together.

In my opinion technology will change completely the way cameras may look in the near future.

So help me speculate..

-- The "R" as in Reflex will be a thing of the past, like film. No smoke and mirrors needed in "The Future". If electronic viewfinders are not yet totally accepted now (the are in point and shoots) they will be soon.

-- Retrofocus. If there is no mirror box lenses don't have to have a retrofocus formula and will be much smaller. (The example is a Leica M lens compared to the equivalent Canon)

-- Foveon type. This will make the sensor smaller and more efficient, and the color truer.

-- Shutters will not be leaf type or film plane but virtual exposure via signaling the sensor, so sync speeds may go up (don't know, may be) and cameras will be smaller and with much less moving parts (or almost no moving parts). -- Mirror up type --

Is this the revival of medium format, or is the era of Nikon/Canon and smaller??
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Leonardo,

The natural switch on switch off rate of some CMOS sensors is about 20,000 cycles per second. No shutters are needed.

How few photons can each photosite detect?

Then, how many photons do you need to capture to get over the noise of the circuitry?

Can you switch off cells before they fill up.

Can you estimate light flux to a cell by looking at the first and second derivatives over time and if constant/predicatable, stop the light collection when a sufficient number of photons have been collected to give an accurate measurement.

When this can be done, we have arrived at intelligent sensors.

They are indeed here on the planet, but not yet to be had by any of us!

Asher
 
Asher,

The poesy of science. You know so much and express it so well.

The advantage of such shutter less system would be flash synchronized at higher speeds but also the sensor could shoot as a movie camera 24 frames per second, with no moving mechanisms.

What about the mirror box, do you think that we will need that?

An before that. This year, what is the scenario in medium format photography post Photokina?

-- Is Canon coming with one more escalation in the pixel arms race at 24mp ? or they will realize that it would give them too little more actual resolution for the effort and expense?

-- Will Nikon ever get to 16mp?

-- Hasselblad will probably show some concept prototype with a square sensor and new optics, or not?

-- Rollei has a one peace idea also, is this the come back of Rollei and a fashion machine?

-- What will happen to Bettelight, the market share seams to be under the pressure of the backs and one peace medium format, and even from the Canon at 16mp ... even more at 24mp

-- Will Mamiya come back to life and is it going to take 2 more years for a ZD 22mp back to reach the USA?

just thinking... leonardo
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Leonardo,

What I wrote is, I believe where we'll be with Canon sooner or later.

Locally addressed photosites with no mechanical shutter and mathematically conceived purpose driven photocell shutters either in several weeks or withing then next 5 years. It is unimportant who gets their first atl east for Canon.

If a small company implements it poorly ahead of the crowd it might spell their death as with the Contax ND.

If Hasselblad does it well, they'll have bragging rights for a short while,

Asher
 
leonardobarreto.com said:
-- The "R" as in Reflex will be a thing of the past, like film. No smoke and mirrors needed in "The Future". If electronic viewfinders are not yet totally accepted now (the are in point and shoots) they will be soon.

Blaphsemy. ;o) Why would one sacrifice the reflex? I could not shoot the beautiful ones without it. Optics give me more resolution and as close to instaneous feedback as I can get. Perhaps in 20 years, but current technology cannot touch what I can craft with an SLR. Seeing through the lens gives me something that just cannot be done with a digital preview unless I am willing to sacrifice control of composition and focus due to circuit delay and lower resolution respectively.


This is not say I would not like a MF digital system, but that is not a practical way to chase in situ insects (the beautiful little ones).

A pellical mirror to reduce shutter delay would be nice, but that also involves a dimmer viewfinder. A digital pellical mirror where a circuit turns the mirror layer on and off to allow exposure would be awesome and that same circuit could serve as the shutter minimizing mirror blackout.

But using a slowly refreshed LCD viewfinder or a rangefinder just does not work at moderate magification with the beautiful little ones. And hence the reflex mirror should last a while as a reflex mirror is a known and inexpensive technology to produce compared to 20 GHz refresh rate LCDs.

my $0.02,

Sean :eek:)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Stunning image, Sean!

What was the set up?

I wonder how those hairs affect the aerodynamics. It would seem that resistance would be increased!

It might be that the insect hairs constitutes a cooling system and pseudo-balloon. So heat would be dissipated and the warmer air trapped between the hairs would give the insect body greater buoyency.

Anyway, it shows the wonder of nature! All this and they don't have to go to school to do their work and the yellow flower does not need Lancome either!

Asher
 
Asher Kelman said:
Stunning image, Sean!
Thank you Asher! :eek:)
Asher Kelman said:
What was the set up?
XT, 100/2.8 Macro USM, and 550 EX. Looking at the EXIF I would say it was a full manual shot with daylight fill. It was without question an action shot as I stalk the little ones rather than waiting most of the time. Nonetheless, due to mirror blackout time caused by mirror movement and shutter delay a dash of pray and spray is needed. Intriguingly a EOS 1D mk II would not help here as the flash must keep up and the XT can shoot faster than the flash can fire. A 1DS mk * might help, but the full frame sensor decreases the effective working distance and hence DoF in a situation where DoF is critical.
Asher Kelman said:
I wonder how those hairs affect the aerodynamics. It would seem that resistance would be increased!


From my limited understanding (I study the beautiful little ones to get better and more* photos) bees fly by sheer effort of flapping their wings rather than pure aerodynamic lift like a Cesna.

From a wider perspective, hairs are excellent pollinators which yields more food/fuel to eat which helps them fly. Also, I have read that some species are insulated by their hairs helping them retain heat which gives them more fuel/efficiency from a thermodynamic perspective which makes using more muscle easier just as more food yields more calories to burn.

You can get a basic answer at:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/physics/PHY4.HTM

Asher Kelman said:
It might be that the insect hairs constitutes a cooling system and pseudo-balloon. So heat would be dissipated and the warmer air trapped between the hairs would give the insect body greater buoyency.
As noted I would supect that the small thermally induced bouyancy differnce matters less than simply retaining heat. But I could be wrong. All I really know is that they fascinate me nearly endlessly.

But I strongly suspect the cooling assumption versus the warming power is wrong.
Asher Kelman said:
Anyway, it shows the wonder of nature! All this and they don't have to go to school to do their work and the yellow flower does not need Lancome either!

Ah, but they are rather peculiar about where they dine so while they may not worry over wrinkles, the wrong spices are an issue tho them like oregano** is with me.

enjoy,

Sean (who loves the little ones even if they occassionally freak him out)


* By more I mean I study what species of plants attract them and encourage their growth to attract more subjects to shoot.

** Oregano is an awfully bitter herb that is best avoided in cuisine as it obliterates the subtle flavors of things like thyme, rosemary, basil, and etcetera. I personally feel the only appropriate and socially acceptable thing to do with every "italian herbs/spices" blend I have ever seen is to dump it into a compost and recycle the bottle. I consider using oregano to be on par with using an entire green bell pepper***.

*** Green bell peppers are nasty bitter fruits and are not conducive to most good cooking. Taking a jalepeno and removing the inner lining and seeds yields a sweet and slightly spicy fruit that is much gentler on the pallette than green bell peppers as the green bell peppers are too bitter. And when the red chiles are in season I am truly happy as they are spicy but incredibly sweet without any bitter overtones when gutted.
 
All of this stuff is available, but better technology doesn't always win (VHS vs. Beta, MacOS Classic vs BeOS, Windows vs. everything, etc.). This is no different in photography... Foveon seems effectively dead, even though it's far superior to Bayer. Call me crazy, but if you want to increase resolution without increasing proximity-based noise, eliminating that extra 300% of wasted space seems like a great place to start. It would yield a 4x increase in pixels, which is a doubling of print size. That would be an actually meaningful improvement, unlike the paltry increase you get from going from, say, 8 to 10 megapixels; something I fail to see why I should get all that excited about.

While digital has inarguably had a truly massive impact on all aspects of photography, I don't see what's so great about it... yet. The problem isn't so much the technology at this point, it's the business decisions behind its [non- and mis-]use. For example, it's been clearly established that digital photos needs to be "exposed to the right" (and has been quite clear to anyone who does programmatic image processing from the very beginning), yet generation after generation of cameras are still metering for film... and then give you luminance-only histograms and LCDs that are utterly useless for judging exposure. With that set-up, you still don't know what you have until you get to a computer... just like film! Instant feedback, yes; instant ACCURATE feedback, no! That's fixable, oblivious, and a complete rip-off. (I'm aware that the higher-end models have RGB histograms, but as far as I'm concerned, knowing what you have with digital is about 1/3 of the whole point. It shouldn't be possible, IMO, to spend $1500 on a body and NOT get that capability.)

I think it's important to remember that the goal of camera manufacturers in general is not to deliver the best devices possible at the time, but to sell cameras. IMO, digital kit isn't even close to being "diffraction limited".



(Green bell peppers are under-ripe, hence their oddness and tenacity of flavor.)
 
Thank you Nicolai for getting my thread out of the kitchen. -- oregano is ok, Coriander (Coriandrum sativum), also commonly called cilantro in North America, is an annual herb in the family Apiaceae.(wikipedia) is the bad one -- and in to the "future" of medium format.

I agree that there are some really bad design machines that are accepted and purchased by the consumer..
Exhibit a) Pontiac Aztec
Exhibit b) http://www.horsemanusa.com/digital/LD.html

And then there are the products that are too good (and expensive) for what they do like this http://alpa.ch/en/products/pictures/_l/ALPA-digitar24xl-3.jpg

... but, since this is a Quick Reply, I agree that most "digital" cameras are retrofitted technology from the film era. For example, My Mamiya 645 AFD has the power to wind a 120 roll of film precisely, something that will never be used after I put a digital back. This are a lot of moving parts that not needed any more. So in a sense this are not water nor land animals, but amphibians...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Problem Leonardo, is that Alpa, Gottschalt and other fine cameras are not produced in any numbers, nor is that the vision of the manufacters.

Alpa does not seem to be really interested in selling a lot, but rather making what they do perfect.

There seems to be a disconnect!

Asher
 
Leonardo,

leonardobarreto.com said:
I agree that there are some really bad design machines that are accepted and purchased by the consumer..
Exhibit a) Pontiac Aztec
Exhibit b) http://www.horsemanusa.com/digital/LD.html

I'm genuinely curious: what's wrong with those two items?
headscratch.gif


Did you have a chance to drive the first and shoot with the second?

I personally know a couple of people who own Aztec, and they both love it. It signalled the wave of the crossovers (SUV body on a sedan frame). It could be an ugly duckling compared to nowadays Lexus or Infinity, but it has its merits for a fraction of their price...

I do not know anybody with "exhibit b", but it looks like a nice product.. Combinations of dSLR and a view camera.. Very esoteric, yes, but people get away with gigapixel cameras and much more specialized gear (Lightsphere, if we start bringing odd-looking gear examples:) ...

So, again, I am curious what's wrong with those two?
ne_nau.gif
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nikolai Sklobovsky said:
I'm genuinely curious: what's wrong with those two items?
headscratch.gif


Did you have a chance to drive the first and shoot with the second?

I personally know a couple of people who own Aztec, and they both love it. It signalled the wave of the crossovers (SUV body on a sedan frame). It could be an ugly duckling compared to nowadays Lexus or Infinity, but it has its merits for a fraction of their price...

I do not know anybody with "exhibit b", but it looks like a nice product.. Combinations of dSLR and a view camera.. Very esoteric, yes, but people get away with gigapixel cameras and much more specialized gear (Lightsphere, if we start bringing odd-looking gear examples:) ...

So, again, I am curious what's wrong with those two?
ne_nau.gif

Hi Nikolas,

These little pests jumped from Layback Cafe! Keep them out of here!

SUV's on regular frames have problems in that the design were for lower center of gravititt and they are plain more unstable.

All the devices that link a digital camera on to a version of a LF camera are limited in WA lenses. Maybe the're OK for product photography. Who knows? However, for landscape or architecture I have heard as of yet none sing it's praises.

Once one is going to set up a LF camera, then even a used DB would seem to be better!

Asher
 
Hi Asher,

Asher Kelman said:
Hi Nikolas,
These little pests jumped from Layback Cafe! Keep them out of here!
What, you don't like my smilies ;-)?

Asher Kelman said:
SUV's on regular frames have problems in that the design were for lower center of gravititt and they are plain more unstable.
Yet both you and me are driving one. Never had a unstability problem...
Hence, my question stands: what's wrong with the Aztec?

Asher Kelman said:
All the devices that link a digital camera on to a version of a LF camera are limited in WA lenses. Maybe the're OK for product photography. Who knows? However, for landscape or architecture I have heard as of yet none sing it's praises.
Once one is going to set up a LF camera, then even a used DB would seem to be better!
Asher

I'm myself inexperienced in all these MF/LF things, but I like to learn from the gurus..
That's why I'm asking - what is wrong with the device?
I know it may look like a lensbaby on steroids, but if people still use pinhole cameras, I don't really see a big crime in this apparatus..

Cheers!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
A pinhole camera is used because of its unique lack of focal plane and simplicity which gives a special look to imaging. The pictures provide a new window to reality.

Similarly, LensBabies add interesting effects. The're not meant to be accurate and they or not! They're whimsical. A serious photographer might use it creatively. However, it is not a serious tool for controlling plane of focus. For that, a tilt/shift lens is needed. The best available for Canon is probably the 90mm T/S which is of course manual focus.

Digital cameras mounted on the back of customized LF cameras or look-alikes, can't use the DSLR lenses and the range of lenses usable is so far very limited. I really don't know what their purpose is. I'm sure there are narrow uses, but I've not yet seen anything that gives them a major role in professional photography.

To go to all the bother of setting up a tripod and mounting the DSLR on the back of the camera, why bother?

There are issues such as the rigidity of all this and whether it is this really better than using a Canon T/S 90mm lens instead. I'd do that and start saving for a Digital back and a used LF camera with an adapter.

For fun, I don't want to spend much money!

Pinhole is almost free and a LensBaby is about 10 times that!

Asher
 
Asher said it first and better. But since you asked,

-- The Canon on the back is made for high speed shooting, well under utilized as a digitalback
-- This particular design of view camera is no even yaw free
-- No use in architectural photography where wide angles are used because the mirror cage would interfere
-- The tilt shift problem can be solved with a zoerk http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_pshift.htm or a Harblei http://www.kievcamera.com/hartblei.shtml --
-- As Asher and others said a Digital Back on a regular MF view camera would work much better
-- and finaly, if you have used a view camera once in your life time you know that this is not an elegant machine.

Regarding the Aztec, I don't really know, but it just doesn't look good somehow. Probably because when you are driving behind one you can see that is front weal traction with a bar so low to the ground that reveals that at best it is a mini-van pretending to be something else.

Of course this two products are probably purchased happily, same as all the products that Microsoft sells, but that IS my point
 
more on the Aztec

--- GM product boss Bob Lutz has quipped, "We'd fire the guy who greenlighted the Aztek if we could find anyone willing to admit it"

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/07/_in_the_summer.html


This is Aztecs entry in the Wikipedia ...

"The Pontiac Aztek, introduced late in the 2001 model year (launch alongside competitors the Hyundai Santa Fe and Toyota Highlander) and produced through the 2005 model year, was a mid-size crossover SUV produced by the General Motors marque Pontiac. The vehicle is most noteworthy for its polarizing exterior styling which is a source of extensive ridicule from both the public and the press."

This another article in the press...

Pontiac Aztek goes quietly, without eulogies

By Bruce McCall
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

December 25, 2004

Having accomplished the goal of provoking nonstop hilarity in the world's styling ateliers, the Pontiac Aztek – Road Kill magazine's sport futility vehicle of the year – will soon be even more invisible than it is now.

It will, in fact, be dead.
Quietly and without eulogies, General Motors is sending the bizarre minivan-based, tent-equipped Aztek to its final rusting place between the Yugo and the Fiat X1/9.

Pontiac dealers will not be wearing black armbands, though. They are clearing space for the Aztek's replacement, the Torrent, a utility wagon with less chance of becoming a punch line.

Among the general public, Aztek awareness is such that months and perhaps years might pass before the masses notice the void.

But owners are invited to call the Aztek help center for grief counseling – or, if that proves as superfluous as early focus groups indicate, answers to the questions that a motorist might ask when his vehicle suddenly goes the way of the Titanic:

Here is some more on the internet about the history of this product...

The Aztek represented all that is wrong with GM's design process, that official said. The concept car actually did something few GM designs do: arrive before a trend -- this time, the crossover SUV that combines the attributes of a truck and a passenger car. And GM had high hopes to sell 50,000 to 70,000 Azteks a year, establishing Pontiac on the cutting edge.
Then came production, the executive said. The penny-pinchers demanded that costs be kept low by putting the concept car on an existing minivan platform. That destroyed the original proportions and produced the vehicle's bizarre, pushed-up back end. But the designers kept telling themselves it was good enough. "By the time it was done, it came out as this horrible, least-common-denominator vehicle where everyone said, 'How could you put that on the road?'" the official said.

Sales never reached the 30,000 level needed to make money on the Aztek, so it abruptly went out of production last year. The tongue-in-cheek hosts of National Public Radio's "Car Talk" named it the ugliest car of 2005. "It looks the way Montezuma's revenge feels," one listener quipped. .... http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000321.html
 
Top