two interesting trends

Printable View

  • 04-04-2006, 05:18 PM
    Ronnoco
    two interesting trends
    There seems to be a competition to see which camera manufacturer can produce the largest LCD. It has currently moved beyond 3 inches. One has to consider that the larger the LCD, the more battery power is drained from shooting. Unless the LCD is particularly bright with very high resolution, it is not even viewable under bright sunlight.
    Many of them are also very susceptible to damage as well if you knock your camera.

    Related to this is that following trend Sanyo on their video camera has replaced their LCD screen with OLEDs. Organic light emitting diodes have the advance of requiring less battery or electrical power, being brighter than LCD, having a 160 degree viewing angle and handling motion as well as opitcal viewfinders on DSLRs.

    Along with processors that run cooler and produce less noise, ISOs of 3200, super zooms that run from 21mm to 400mm with macro, and shortly OLED viewfinders that match optical quality and better because you can see changes to exposure etc. in real time on the screen, as well as high resolution video capability, you suddenly have a camera that negates the advantages of a DSLR. After all someone with an all-in-one can get the photo faster than someone who is in the process of changing lenses.

    Canon apparently indicated an intention to start the changeover from LCDs to OLEDs as soon as they can.

    Ronnoco
  • 04-04-2006, 06:35 PM
    Photo-John
    Oled!
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    Along with processors that run cooler and produce less noise, ISOs of 3200, super zooms that run from 21mm to 400mm with macro, and shortly OLED viewfinders that match optical quality and better because you can see changes to exposure etc. in real time on the screen, as well as high resolution video capability, you suddenly have a camera that negates the advantages of a DSLR. After all someone with an all-in-one can get the photo faster than someone who is in the process of changing lenses.

    But of course, all these same technologies will be applied to digital SLRs, and they'll still be better. Plus, no superzoom compact is ever going to have glass that matches the lenses on a digital SLR.

    OLED displays are awesome. Kodak has been using them on some compacts and they are beautiful. And Canon is actually planning to start selling HD TV sets that use OLED displays. That will be interesting.

    Did you read my final PMA report?
  • 04-04-2006, 07:38 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Oled!
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    But of course, all these same technologies will be applied to digital SLRs, and they'll still be better. Plus, no superzoom compact is ever going to have glass that matches the lenses on a digital SLR.

    OLED displays are awesome. Kodak has been using them on some compacts and they are beautiful. And Canon is actually planning to start selling HD TV sets that use OLED displays. That will be interesting.

    Did you read my final PMA report?

    Yes, and I found it very interesting and informative.

    Yes, the technology will be applied to DSLRs as well, but the superzooms will be closing the gap with it. DSLRs as yet cannot do video, for example. Superzooms can. DSLRs will still be using optical viewfinders. Superzooms will be using OLEDs. The question will be which is better in a shooting situation as in, as a photographer do you want to visually see the effect of exposure or other decisions on you image in the OLED viewfinder in real time or not, or see the scene optically and wait till you have actually taken the photo to see the effect.

    Glass has been a factor when most photographers have not been shooting very much past ISO 400 with film, except for rare shots. It becomes much less of a factor in low light when you are talking about ISOs in the 3200 range. With sharpness in the 10 to 22 megapixel range, glass will have less of an effect in that area as well. Moreover lens design is improving which will further narrow the gap between the two.

    I should also point out glass wise that the technical test series of colour shots done on I believe the image resource web site, showed greater sharpness from the Minolta A200 and Nikon Coolpix superzoom than from the Canon 20D.

    To point out as well, most photographers are moving to digital despite the fact that film is better in many technical areas. If super zooms start closing the technical gap with DSLRs in low noise and glass and are better in flexibility, it may become an issue for some professionals of speed and "getting the shot" versus losing out to a competitor with a high quality superzoom who does not have to change lenses.

    I think pros have to keep their eyes on what is happening with superzooms. They may at some point be a very necessary convenience for some types of shooting and work. For fast moving journalistic and public relations event work they are extremely useful even now.

    Ronnoco
  • 04-05-2006, 12:14 AM
    SmartWombat
    Re: two interesting trends
    Quote:

    DSLRs will still be using optical viewfinders.
    At Focus on Imaging show here in the UK they showed the new Olympus DSLR that had a fold out LCD screen as well as traditional TTL finder.
    So that's no longer true.

    The one big difference is sensor size, superzoom is possible because the real focal length is small, because the sensor is small. DSLR tends to have much larger sensor and so longer focal length lenses.
    That means a very different appearance of the image, different background, different DoF characteristics for the same "effectice 35mm" focal length ... they're diffeent animals still.
  • 04-05-2006, 12:08 PM
    freygr
    Re: Oled!
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    clip....
    Glass has been a factor when most photographers have not been shooting very much past ISO 400 with film, except for rare shots. It becomes much less of a factor in low light when you are talking about ISOs in the 3200 range. With sharpness in the 10 to 22 megapixel range, glass will have less of an effect in that area as well. Moreover lens design is improving which will further narrow the gap between the two.

    clip....

    Ronnoco

    At 10-22 megapixels the glass will be the difference. The sensor at these resolutions will be able to see any optical problems the lense has, as each pixel will be so small! The larger pixels hide sharpness and contrast problems. This will show up faster if the sensor size stays the small.
  • 04-05-2006, 05:04 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: two interesting trends
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SmartWombat
    At Focus on Imaging show here in the UK they showed the new Olympus DSLR that had a fold out LCD screen as well as traditional TTL finder.
    So that's no longer true ..


    TTL usually refers to flash specifications. DSLRs have optical miror related finders which are obviously through the lens but then superzooms are through the lens as well. Are you saying that the Olympus DSLR has an electronic viewfinder?


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SmartWombat
    The one big difference is sensor size, superzoom is possible because the real focal length is small, because the sensor is small. DSLR tends to have much larger sensor and so longer focal length lenses.
    That means a very different appearance of the image, different background, different DoF characteristics for the same "effectice 35mm" focal length ... they're diffeent animals still
    ..

    Sensor size is really not any different than most DSLRs at present. There is only the Canon 5D and a few others that are total size. Most are the same size. By the way the different in sensor size is more a factor with wide angle shots as in less wide angle but then distortion is a challenge in dealing with extreme wide angle anyway.

    Ronnoco
  • 04-05-2006, 05:15 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Oled!
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freygr
    At 10-22 megapixels the glass will be the difference. The sensor at these resolutions will be able to see any optical problems the lense has, as each pixel will be so small! The larger pixels hide sharpness and contrast problems. This will show up faster if the sensor size stays the small.

    I don't think so. Because pixels are not 3D you have to go to almost twice the number of pixels to get a 20% improvement. This means that the difference in glass would have to be considerably extreme to even amount to a measurable improvement in quality for the photo as the end result.

    So yes, there are at the moment at least, differences in glass but any resulting quality improvements on the side of DSLR are negligable and even questionable in some individual cases and this can be seen in the photos used for lab testing.

    Ronnoco
  • 04-05-2006, 07:40 PM
    Photo-John
    Re: two interesting trends
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    TTL usually refers to flash specifications. DSLRs have optical miror related finders which are obviously through the lens but then superzooms are through the lens as well. Are you saying that the Olympus DSLR has an electronic viewfinder?

    The Olympus E-330 has two sensors, if I remember correctly. One is for capturing the image, and the other is for the live display. The camera doesn't use an EVF, though. Aside from the live view on the LCD, it's a traditional SLR, with changeable lenses and an optical viewfinder.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ronnoco
    Sensor size is really not any different than most DSLRs at present. There is only the Canon 5D and a few others that are total size. Most are the same size.

    This isn't true, if I understand what you're saying. There isn't much difference in size between the sensors in most digital SLRs. But the sensors in superzoom compacts like the Konica Minolta A200, Canon S3 IS, or the Panasonics are much smaller than digital SLR sensors. And means a major difference in depth-of-field. It's next to impossible to get a good, traditional portrait with a compact digital camera because you can't get a shallow enough depth-of-field. There is one exception - the Sony DSC-R1. It's the only "compact" digital camera with an SLR-sized sensor. One of the reasons superzoom compact digital cameras are possible are the smaller lenses. So they rely on smaller sensors. Smaller sensors mean the lenses can focus on a smaller surface area so they can achieve more magnification with a smaller lens. That's also one of the benefits of the Four Thirds digital SLR system. It uses smaller sensors than other digital SLRs and that makes more powerful lenses possible. Olympus done a good job of compensating for the smaller sensor size by having very fast apertures on all of the E-system lenses, so you can still get shallow depth-of-field if you want with those lenses.

    There's a lot to what your saying about the power and flexibility of superzoom compact digitals. And the Four Thirds system is a real attempt to think outside the box and use digital technology as a new platform for very different camera design - rather than designing a digital camera around the 35mm format. I've used the Olympus E-1 and the Konica Minolta A200 and they both have a lot to offer. But even thought the quality of superzooms is getting very good, when it comes down to it - when the images count - I'd still rather have my SLR. That may change, though. However, I still think the Four Thirds system is a real, and serious, alternative.

    By the way, I had full-page Konica A200 images published in a mountain bike magazine. So the quality is very good. But aside from what anyone's tests might say, in the real world, a digital SLR image is going to offer better quality. Then we're back to the quality vs. flexibility question...
  • 04-07-2006, 05:29 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: two interesting trends
    Well to comment on a number of points that have come from a various members. Yes, Photo-John there is definitely a wide range of sensor sizes. However, it seems that the only difference that this makes in photo quality is the increase in noise at high ISOs. There is no difference in sharpness and glass does not make a difference either. I suggested earlier that noise makes a difference when 800 ISO is your highest but when it gets to ISO 3200 the differences are neglible unless noise is unacceptable from 800 right up to 3200. With improvements to sensors the gap will close in that area and how many photographers will be doing serious work at this kind of super low light level i.e. (3200+)

    To point out an example in terms of sharpness, Canon 20D that represents excellent quality in terms of DSLR and the Samsung Digimax PRO815 which in terms of camera quality is not close.

    Both Canon 20D and the Samsun PRO815 have the same resolution in tests: 1780 lines.
    according to Popular Photography.

    This is despite the fact that the Samsung camera has a superzoom equivalent of 28mm to 420 mm af f2.2 -3.5 against the quality Canon lens with a shorter focal length.

    The obvious conclusion is that there is no difference in sharpness and resolution between a superzoom and a DSLR due to either glass or the size of the sensor.

    Another test result was the Nikon D200 with a smaller sensor at 10 megapixels had slightly better resolution than the Canon 5D with a full frame sensor at 12.8 megapixels.
    Obviously here too, sensor size did not make a difference in resolution/sharpness/detail.

    Ronnoco