OK, OK, after my rant last week I've read the attached article, the
Scheider Optics article, and a review of the E-10 at steve's digicams. I
now have got a much better handle on the complex issues surrounding design
for high-end digital imaging.
What do you think of this viewpoint? I may now understand Olympus'
reluctance to port the OM lenses to a digital camera. Since they fell
behind in the AF game long ago, they didn't have a huge installed base
platform to launch a digital interchangable lens camera. They wouldn't
have been able to attract enough attention to their OM-lensed digi-cam to
compete with a D1, S1, N1, or D30. So they fell back on their P&S and IS
experience and introduced the Camedia line, culminating in the current
E-10. Safe in their ZLR design paradigm, they feel little pressure to move
to a removable lens camera. They can therefore build an uncompromising
digital camera, leveraging all their R&D dollars and optical expertise.
I also can now understand that lenses can be designed for digital imaging;
mating their resolution and circle of confusion to a specific CCD pixel size.
Now if I could only afford an E-10, or rationalize one. I can't yet. My
first digital camera will probably be the Nikon Coolpix 880 next year when
it's price drops. That's a sweeter price point for me.
Skip
At 09:53 PM 11/28/00 +0100, you wrote:
Hi,
I´ve written to this list about E-10 and I´ve seen this
answer very interesting, so here it is.
I like you, have many OM lenses including the 180f2.0. An love it
dearly. A digital camera is however not a film camera and has many
different requirements. I can not answer for Nikon or others building
film digital bridge cameras, but this is the technology requirements
for a digital system. For example a digital/film lens SLR's using a
1 inch 2.7 megapixel CCD with a pixel pitch of about 12 microns.
(this varies according to whose spec you read from 11-13 microns.
The SLR lenses in general will resolve to 10 micron, on the surface
more than enough, but unlike film the CCD has valleys or wells, and
not a relativly smooth surface like film emultion.
A 1 " CCD is aboout 1/4 the spatial size of a 35mm negative, so a
35mm lens of 20mm will be the equivalent of a 35mm focal length lens.
The light ray angle of the lens will impact the CCDs ablility to deal
with the light, a 10-13 micorn pixel well can receive light from about
16-18 degrees. This means angles greater than the 35mm will not work.
(please not that the 20 is equivalent to a 35mm in all ways including
light ray angle in the area used by the CCD). When you go wider than
35mm your lens light ray angle increases, a 28mm (or equivalent) is
20 degrees or more. This is why we designed our E-10 lens the way it
is. When you get to higer density 4-6 million pixel CCDs the pixel
wells are smaller. A 1" 6 million pixel CCD is about 6 microns
reducing the angle of the light accepted to about 8 degrees, and a
2/3 inch 4 million pixel CCD will need light with less than 4-5
degrees of light ray angle. As we approch higher resolution CCD's to
allow for larger print sizes and more cropping the lens requirements
become ever more precise.
The Film lenses like Olympus, Nikons, Canons and so on are excellent
lenses and work well in the media they were designed to, But going
forward the lens designes will need to change from all manufacturers
being more digital and CCD matched.
Interchangability? The CCD/CMOS imager as I said is a rought surface
of ridges and wells. Dust and particulate matter falling on to this
suface can not be easily removed.resulting in dust specs on the
image. (check this out on some of the digicam chat rooms, it is a fact
of interchangable lens digicams). In a studio enviroment they wil work
ok if the camera is maintained in a clean
enviroment. The action of a focal plane shutter
(metal or cloth) will also
create micro dust particles that will attach them selfs to thecharged
surface of the CCD (resulting in dust specs). This is a challenge for
all high end digital manufacturers. One we as an industry will
eventually meet the right way, with the quality you have expessed for
the OM 4T system you have.
As far as the E-10 goes, the lens, meter, color saturation, exposure
control ('cept the multi spot), and the durability are equal to or
better than my 4ti. Infact I find the ability to control the color
temerature and exposure in 1/3 steps to exceed the film camera in many
cases. The E-10 does read ligh of the CCD (like OTF) for its exposure,
that is a common digital function. Unlike a film camera it can also
read the light in miultile areas off the CCD befor the picture is made
for exposure, color temerature, even flash with the FL-40. Digital can
do things afilm camera can't, but even say this they both have there
place and offer unique places in photography.
------------------------------------------------------------
Unofficial Olympus web page
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/index.html
Unofficial Olympus Gallery
http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/subpages/irissari/irissari.html
------------------------------------------------------------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|