Slightly disappointed with D70 viewfinder

[Stacey]

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >
>> > You forget that MF puts more area into the same photo, so you have that
>> > many more pixels or grains devoted to the same detail in MF as in
> 35mm...
>>
>> My point was using say 400asa film from the 80's on medium format vs
> 400asa
>> film on 35mm today the 35mm stuff will look better.
>
> You must be on another planet. I've tried the modern ISO 400 films, and
> they are really really gross compared to, say, Reala.

Have you compared them to 400asa film from the 70's? Try READING the post.

Of course reala is better than ASA 400, where did I say anything about
that?


> Basically, they are
> unacceptable for quality imaging, even in 645. Sheesh, grain is visible in
> A4 prints from 645.

So what? SOme people are more interested in the image than obcessing about
grain. Then again maybe this is why you are so anal about noise?

>
> If you had been using Tri-X in the '80s (or '70s or '60s or 50s) in medium
> format, you'd have better prints than if you use ISO 400 color films in
> 35mm today.

Lets see, you're comparing B&W film to color?

>
> (The largest changes have been in the Fuji ISO 100 slide films, which are
> quite wonderful. But again, not wonderful enough for 35mm to compete with
> the MF B&W ISO 100 films from 1960 (or whenever Plus-X was first
> released).)
>

Again try comparing apples to apples.
--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

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

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:

>> Sure, there are going to be lots of sensor improvements, but the physics is
>> already clear that we're close to the limits (see Roger Clark's notes), so
>> those improvements are going to be minimal. And no matter how much it
>> improves, larger is always better.

> Now, that paragraph trips all my bullshit detectors. Probably because
> I've watched 40 years of writers explaining why integrated circuits
> are nearing fundamental physical limits, and won't be able to continue
> to develop. They always had a sane-sounding explanation, too (to this
> non-physicist). And, of course, they were always wrong.

There are a few areas that could be improved without breaking any of
the laws of physics. Firstly, the well capacity could be increased
without increasing the sensor pitch. Also, readout and amplifier
noise could be reduced. Also, the RGB filters could be improved. But
the fundamental limits won't go away.

Andrew.

 

[Roger]

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

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:08:55 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Josh wrote:
>
>
>>
>> This doesn't kill it for me, I'm sure I'd just get used to it. But I
>> was a bit disappointed. Anyone else have a similar opinion or know why?
>>
>
>I found the same thing and is one reason I chose the Olympus Dslr, better
>viewfinder. If I already owned some nikon or canon lenses it might have
>swayed me but I don't want a viewfinder I have "to get used to" if I can
>help it. Makes composing hard if the viewfinder is too small.

I've been using an 8008 and an F4S for years. I never noticed the
image was smaller in the viewfinder until it was mentioned in this
thread. I guess it just wasn't one of those things I pay attention
to.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Guest]

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

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:10vi2b3dcrkkk15@news.supernews.com...
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>
> >> Sure, there are going to be lots of sensor improvements, but the
physics is
> >> already clear that we're close to the limits (see Roger Clark's notes),
so
> >> those improvements are going to be minimal. And no matter how much it
> >> improves, larger is always better.
>
> > Now, that paragraph trips all my bullshit detectors. Probably because
> > I've watched 40 years of writers explaining why integrated circuits
> > are nearing fundamental physical limits, and won't be able to continue
> > to develop. They always had a sane-sounding explanation, too (to this
> > non-physicist). And, of course, they were always wrong.
>
> There are a few areas that could be improved without breaking any of
> the laws of physics. Firstly, the well capacity could be increased
> without increasing the sensor pitch. Also, readout and amplifier
> noise could be reduced. Also, the RGB filters could be improved. But
> the fundamental limits won't go away.

If you read between the lines in Sony's blurbs for their sensors, this is
exactly what you see. They bust their butts to tweak the fabrication
processes, microlens designs, device characteristics. But a 3 dB improvement
in readout noise won't sell cameras, so each generation of chips has better
_per square mm_ characteristics and worse _per pixel_ characteristics.
Really depressing: the Sony F717 is a better 5MP camera than any 5MP camera
you can buy today, even though current sensor technologies could make a
better 5MP 2/3" sensor than the F717's. Sigh.

Look through the Sony CX-NEWS back numbers here:

http/www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/backnumber.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

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

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:10vi2b3dcrkkk15@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> There are a few areas that could be improved without breaking any of
>> the laws of physics. Firstly, the well capacity could be increased
>> without increasing the sensor pitch. Also, readout and amplifier
>> noise could be reduced. Also, the RGB filters could be improved. But
>> the fundamental limits won't go away.

> If you read between the lines in Sony's blurbs for their sensors,
> this is exactly what you see. They bust their butts to tweak the
> fabrication processes, microlens designs, device
> characteristics. But a 3 dB improvement in readout noise won't sell
> cameras, so each generation of chips has better _per square mm_
> characteristics and worse _per pixel_ characteristics.

But that's fine, and quite to be expected. Let's say that you could
split each pixel into four: the readout noise of these four pixels
would sum as RMS, while the signal would sum linearly because nearby
pixels are highly correlated. So, you'd double the noise and also
double the linear resolution. If you combine that with process
improvements to reduce the nose floor a little and perhaps increase
the signal a little, it doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

> Really depressing: the Sony F717 is a better 5MP camera than any 5MP camera
> you can buy today, even though current sensor technologies could make a
> better 5MP 2/3" sensor than the F717's. Sigh.

> Look through the Sony CX-NEWS back numbers here:

> http/www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/backnumber.html

What, all of them?

Andrew.