Capturing the Decisive Moment Digitally

#1 Avi Flax

I like the vision!

It reminds me of the RED video camera as described here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/archive/index.php/t-41360.html

and here:

http://www.red.com/

I wonder if, if that effort succeeds, it might encourage the grassroots
design and production of a still camera similar to this DMD.

My DMD would also include robust video capabilities. I don't think that
would conflict with any of the listed priorities - unless of course it was seen as "feature creep," distracting focus from the essentials.

3:14 pm - Friday, February 3, 2006

#2 GARY POGODA

Mike, if you're waiting for an APS-C size image sensor in a "small, light,
carry-anywhere digicam", forget about it. I would throw the humongous
Sony R1 right back atcha, as proof.

What you really want is a 1/1.8" CMOS Image Sensor. That would give
you DSLR comparable noise and dynamic range specs. The only thing it
would not give you is comparable bokeh.

If you should change your mind about a prime lens, and would also like
a high zoom lens with your digicam, then your looking at a 1/2.5" CIS.

4:22 pm - Friday, February 3, 2006

#3 nick in japan

Gary, I dismiss the thinking that the APS sized sensor cannot be used in a compact camera, or the camcorders that will all be the rage soon. Collapsing/folding lens development is here, I'm afraid that IF a compact camera gets any better, it will upset the balance they have created with cheap relating to lesser image quality. What would happen if compact cameras produced quality equal to DSLRs?
The author got it almost right, zoom quality now challenges prime quality, no need to sacrifice anymore,gotta have a zoom tool, and that acessory shoe vs flash is good, gotta be "hot" tho, eliminating the weany flash, yet allowing a small powerful slip-in one is a great idea, better than goung to a digital slave that I tested with disappointing results!

3:53 am - Saturday, February 4, 2006

#4 GARY POGODA

Nick, any compact digital camera that "truly" replaces a DSLR will be
even more expensive than the equivalent DSLR.

The reason why compact cameras can be made cheaper than DSLRs
is because they typically utilize smaller CCDs, combined with smaller
diameter lenses. If there were a way to fit an APS-C size sensor with
a larger diameter lens into a compact camera (currently there is not),
the manufacturing costs would be no less than for manufacturing the
same items in a larger DSLR, and would likely cost even more due to
the additional expense of the technology required to accomplish such
a feat.

Your argument would have more merit for the compact digital camera
that comes "close" to replacing a DSLR (i.e., still uses the smaller CCD
and lens, but with results that rival a DSLR).

5:13 pm - Saturday, February 4, 2006

#5 nick in japan

I believe that the 2/3rd's sensor is a viable alternative, LX sensor is very near it's size. A 2/3rd size sensor of CMOS , Nikon quality would create a pro-level compact that would make the mirror slappers and their removable lens makers a thing of the past. I also believe the R-1 could have been made MUCH smaller. APS size may be cost prohibitive, not impossible. Camcorders are in the same consiracy, what would happen if a DVD camcorder employed a 2/3rd's or APS sensor? It, too, would upset the apple cart, everyone would want one and pro- level cameras would suffer, big-time.

12:15 am - Sunday, February 5, 2006

#6 GARY POGODA

The LX1 sensor is the same height as a 1/1.8" CCD, and just a little
bit wider, to get its 16:9 aspect ratio, which is still quite a bit smaller
than a 2/3" CCD. Yet, look at the actual depth dimension of the LX1.
As you are painfully aware, it is 2.0" deep, but Mike wants a camera
with a 1.4" depth.

I doubt they'll be able to get a 2/3" CCD into that size for quite some
time, and I also doubt they will try. The trend for compacts seems to
be going in the opposite direction, towards 1/2.5" CCDs.

If they can package a 1/2.5" CMOS Image Sensor, with a 10x optical
zoom, in an ultra-compact size, while offering simulated bokeh which
rivals APS image sensors, all at a digicam price, look out DSLRs !!!

1:08 am - Sunday, February 5, 2006

#7 nick in japan

We ARE on the same page about this, think big, 1/2.5 should never be something that anyone accepts! The body of the LX-1 is 1" and they got the 1/1.65" sensor in with a quality lens system that protrudes more than we want, but the trade off is OK, I was/am disturbed not that they did it, but because they lied about it.
The apertures in most compacts are comparable to medium format film and digital cameras that pros rely on, and I'll bet that lpm specs are pretty close too, which means that creating, and managing bokeh with existing lenses is fine and creating it is no problem in the digital world, no need for ultra fast lenses!
The new ultra sensitive sensors being developed is gonna change alot of things too, everything being relative.
Which is closer to 1/1.65", 1/2.5" or 2/3"?

9:03 am - Sunday, February 5, 2006

#8 GARY POGODA

We are on the same page except for the fact that the reason the LX1
lens protrudes another inch out of its 1" body is because it needs the
extra depth for its wide angle sensor. When Mike states he wants his
camera body to have a 1.4" depth, he means with the lens collapsed
into the body. The LX1 would have needed a body with a 2" depth for
the lens to collapse into the body.

Assuming that the LX1 CCD is a 1/1.8" CCD with a few more columns
of pixels at each end to give the 16:9 aspect ratio, its height (5.32mm)
is closer to a 1/2.5" CCD (4.29mm) than to a 2/3" CCD (6.60mm), but
its width would be about halfway between the two.

5:21 pm - Sunday, February 5, 2006

#9 nick in japan

Thank you for the statistics, Gary!
I think with the folding lens systems that are now responsible for thin bodies, the problem is solved, zooms with .8" bodies have been spied. Maintaining critical alignments is probably the major headache.

9:11 pm - Sunday, February 5, 2006

#10 GARY POGODA

Nick, I challenge you to find one zoom camera with a 0.8" body AND
a larger than 1/2.5" CCD.

9:28 pm - Sunday, February 5, 2006

#11 nick in japan

I can't! The sensor size is a problem, Fuji and Canon both have .7" thick cameras. We just gotta keep pushing them for the bigger sensors, or even, as last resort, 1/2.5" CMOS. In reality you are correct, camcorders even have smaller sensors.
A 2" thick compact would be OK with me with the things we want, I'm not hung up on 1", not at all. I would MUCH rather spend the day with our S6 around my neck than the LX-1 when we are talking about comfort, but it is just getting use to it. Funny thing, when I wear the S6, I forget it is there, the LX is noticable because of weight and size, there in is the obvious difference.
Soon, Gary, SOON!

11:22 pm - Sunday, February 5, 2006

#12 GARY POGODA

Now you're talking. A 1/2.5" CMOS. Why didn't I think of that?

BTW, in the week my wife has been using the G3, the lens cap has
fallen off at least 50 times and the mode dial has jumped off of Auto
at least 10 times. I finally put some masking tape on the inside edge
of the lens cap to snug the fit, and I put some foam tape against the
serrated edge of the mode dial to hold it in place. So far so good.

4:03 am - Monday, February 6, 2006

#13 nick in japan

Your 1/2.5" CMOS will be better than what we have now, but marginally I suspect, not enought to challenge the big boys with CMOS. Interpolation works to a limited amount. Anyway, thanks for the info!
G3 tweaks sound good, brains AND common sense, whatta guy!!!

4:46 am - Monday, February 6, 2006

#14 GARY POGODA

When it comes to tweaks, you are the master.

6:49 am - Monday, February 6, 2006

#15 nick in japan

If you would look at what I sent you, you could see some of what I like to do. I just finished a 5 picture composite today that you may like!

8:01 am - Monday, February 6, 2006

#16 Jonathan

Has everyone (Gary) forgotten that only a few years ago "compact" cameras used 35mm film and you could get some pretty small ones. I have an old Olympus Mju to prove it.

When APS film came out (remeber APS was a film first and not a dimension) compact cameras became even smaller. Several Canon Ixus's went through my hands and they were tiny.

So why on earth couldn't you use an APS-C size sensor or even a FF sensor in a compact camera?

You'd lose the amazing macro abilities of current digicams and you may need a bit of extra juice from your battery (using li-polymer would take care of that) and you "may" need to add an extra bit of depth over and above the current tiny digicam's but we're only talking 0.1 - 0.2 of an inch or so.

I feel like I've entered the twilight zone when people seem to have completely fogotten about film cameras. If a manufacturer wanted to they could easily incorporate a decent size sensor in a digicam, the only reason they don't is cost. Maybe if Leica had done this with their exorbitant digicams people would have actually bought them and they wouldn't be in the financial dire straits they're in now, but that's for another day.

Good luck to Mike Johnston in his DMD

6:51 pm - Thursday, February 23, 2006

#17 GARY POGODA

If memory serves me correctly (and my doctor tells me that I have the
mental faculties of men twice my age), the APS film cameras, of which
you speak, ALL used terribly slow lenses in order to achieve anywhere
near "compact" size.

8:13 pm - Thursday, February 23, 2006

#18 nick in japan

There was very little enthusiasm direcred towards APS, and, from the git-go, the public response was terribly mis-calculated. The efforts of lens development was neglected. The fact remains, quality lenses can be had in pocketable cameras, the "consiracy" I have spoken of, is the real reason that pocket cameras are "kept in their place" DSLR and aftermarket sales would suffer big-time. R&D investments are a large capital investment, I really think we will see APS CMOS soon in our shirt pockets, think positive son!!!

9:34 pm - Thursday, February 23, 2006

#19 GARY POGODA

Nick, thinking positive is good advice, and I am thinking positive when
I predict that CMOS technology will soon yield a low-noise, high-zoom
ultra-compact.

5:23 am - Friday, February 24, 2006

#20 nick in japan

I think that once that happens, the flood gates will open and the public will respond with vigor! Sure will be nice, even with low X factors because cropping in Photoshop and interpolating will create the zoom-ins we need, very easily! Gotta have those noiseless, high pixel count images to work with tho. Thanks for the up-date, and we are anxious to get your confidential reports from PMA, bring a camera this trip, and stay out of the casinos,save your money for that first LNHZUC! Good Luck!

6:11 am - Friday, February 24, 2006