Digital BW, The Print

Well, we have heard that something new is due from Nikon digital this 
fall.. Something big..

I tend to think this news is dis-information from the Canon side..

Because if it isn't, it'll be a marketing/design failure on a scale of 
the  "New Coke" fiasco...

Fact is, for well over 30 years, Nikon has marketed their lenses and 
bodies on backward and forward compatibility.  The idea you could use 
old lenses on new bodies and new lenses on old..  (with limited 
exceptions and the reality that advanced features would not be available).

There are tons of news shops out there still using Nikon bodies and 
glass to the consternation of shooters who want two things..

1)    A full frame digital chip

2)    Auto White balancing equaling that in the new Canons

If  Nikon were to proceed in this manner, you'd see:

1)    Nikon news shops switching to Canon - why go to an untried product 
from a manufacturer who just suckered you...? The shooters would already 
rather move to Canon for the most part.  In this case any executive 
resistance would be gone..  ESPECIALLY if Nikon's new glass is bigger 
heavier and more expensive.. LOL

2)    Loyal Nikophiles (myself included) dumping Nikon glass and bodies 
en-masse (that might be a good thing for current D1 and D100 owners, as 
well as film purists., but it won't buoy Nikon's reputation)

3)    I'll move to Canon (after 20+ years with Nikon) faster than merde 
through a goose..

4)    The betrayal of a basic corporate selling point (retaining glass 
to use on your next body, and the next, and the next, etc.) would 
virtually destroy any Nikon corporate credibility with many pros - and 
particularly with the news shops

5)    Even the consumer Nikon market would erode significantly. (just 
look back at how Canon grabbed consumer market share when they came out 
with fast big auto-focus glass well before Nikon - people buy what they 
see pros using on TV and Nikons were outnumbered back then - early to 
mid 90's) What happened back then will be nothing compared to this wave..

5)    Nikon will become a minor consumer camera player.. equivalent to 
Minolta..

6)    Key Nikon executives will eventually commit seppuku (hara kiri) in 
shame..

Just my 2 cents, but it's based on talking to other pros in news shops, 
etc..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Another point...

Nikon has a long history of making lens multipliers to extend the range 
of your lenses..

Why have we never seen the obverse...?  i.e. lens adapters to allow 
older lenses to reduce the objective end output to a size commensurate 
with the reduced size chips,,,

Theoretically that would allow one to use lenses at their "traditional" 
35mm factor focal lengths..

Or has Nikon decided the only way they CAN make money is by selling NEW 
glass?

Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith,
 
I agree with you 100%. Having  been a "Nikophile" more than 30 years and have amassed a few "pieces" of equipment.  If this "rumor" would be true, there would be a mass exodus from the Nikon camp that is for sure.  On the other hand for those of us who still maintained the product the used market would be a goldmine!  Nikon would be left with an inventory of new products that no one would be interested in.  Reminds me of something I heard a long time ago. "Be not the first by which the new are tried, nor the last to put the old aside."  The world of digital photography is traveling and changing rapidly and for a company to change substantially  what has been successful ie: "backward compatibiity" would not be in their best interest. BTW, I like the "New Coke" marketing comparison. That was a "bomb."
 
Guess your 2 cents and my 2 cents woould make it 4 cents on this matter.
 
T

"Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...> wrote:
Well, we have heard that something new is due from Nikon digital this 
fall.. Something big..

I tend to think this news is dis-information from the Canon side..

Because if it isn't, it'll be a marketing/design failure on a scale of 
the  "New Coke" fiasco...

Fact is, for well over 30 years, Nikon has marketed their lenses and 
bodies on backward and forward compatibility.  The idea you could use 
old lenses on new bodies and new lenses on old..  (with limited 
exceptions and the reality that advanced features would not be available).

There are tons of news shops out there still using Nikon bodies and 
glass to the consternation of shooters who want two things..

1)    A full frame digital chip

2)    Auto White balancing equaling that in the new Canons

If  Nikon were to proceed in this manner, you'd see:

1)    Nikon news shops switching to Canon - why go to an untried product 
from a manufacturer who just suckered you...? The shooters would already 
rather move to Canon for the most part.  In this case any executive 
resistance would be gone..  ESPECIALLY if Nikon's new glass is bigger 
heavier and more expensive.. LOL

2)    Loyal Nikophiles (myself included) dumping Nikon glass and bodies 
en-masse (that might be a good thing for current D1 and D100 owners, as 
well as film purists., but it won't buoy Nikon's reputation)

3)    I'll move to Canon (after 20+ years with Nikon) faster than merde 
through a goose..

4)    The betrayal of a basic corporate selling point (retaining glass 
to use on your next body, and the next, and the next, etc.) would 
virtually destroy any Nikon corporate credibility with many pros - and 
particularly with the news shops

5)    Even the consumer Nikon market would erode significantly. (just 
look back at how Canon grabbed consumer market share when they came out 
with fast big auto-focus glass well before Nikon - people buy what they 
see pros using on TV and Nikons were outnumbered back then - early to 
mid 90's) What happened back then will be nothing compared to this wave..

5)    Nikon will become a minor consumer camera player.. equivalent to 
Minolta..

6)    Key Nikon executives will eventually commit seppuku (hara kiri) in 
shame..

Just my 2 cents, but it's based on talking to other pros in news shops, 
etc..
Keith



"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Actually, from the "news shop side," a full frame chip is NOT an issue.
That would only mean buying more expensive glass on the long side --heavier
and more money too.  The chip IS full size!!  It is not 35mm size. Nor is it
120 size.

Improved quality in the size we have is the issue.

Seth

=
=There are tons of news shops out there still using Nikon bodies and 
=glass to the consternation of shooters who want two things..
=
=1)    A full frame digital chip
=
=2)    Auto White balancing equaling that in the new Canons
=

=
=Nikon has a long history of making lens multipliers to extend 
The distortion and color fringing factor, going the other way, would be a
nightmare.  Long glass is much easier to extend.  Note that the extenders do
not work on anything below the 80-200.

Seth


=the range 
=of your lenses..
=
=Why have we never seen the obverse...?  i.e. lens adapters to allow 
=older lenses to reduce the objective end output to a size commensurate 
=with the reduced size chips,,,
=
=Theoretically that would allow one to use lenses at their 
="traditional" 
=35mm factor focal lengths..
=
=Or has Nikon decided the only way they CAN make money is by 
=selling NEW 
=glass?
=
=Keith
=

Ernst quotes:

> This new lens mount will be bigger to be able
> to use also a fullsize chip appropriate.

Why would a full-size chip require a larger lens mount than a film frame of
the same size?

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Ernst quotes:
>
>  
>
>>This new lens mount will be bigger to be able
>>to use also a fullsize chip appropriate.
>>    
>>
>
>Why would a full-size chip require a larger lens mount than a film frame of
>the same size?
>
>
>  
>
Makes no sense at all.

Kodak has the new DCS 14n.. Full frame, 14 mpix,  and  the same old 
Nikon mount...  I really don't believe Nikon engineers are that inept...
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Seth Rossman wrote:

>Actually, from the "news shop side," a full frame chip is NOT an issue.
>That would only mean buying more expensive glass on the long side --heavier
>and more money too.  The chip IS full size!!  It is not 35mm size. Nor is it
>120 size.
>
>Improved quality in the size we have is the issue.
>
>  
>
Both are issues...

Try shooting a traditional 20mm field of view without ridiculous 
distortion on a current Nikon digital..  You use a 14mm or less to get 
that field of view -- anything other than a pure vertical and whammo, 
weird shaped heads, etc!!...
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Nikon lens mount changes


> Well, we have heard that something new is due from Nikon
digital this
> fall.. Something big..
>
> I tend to think this news is dis-information from the Canon
side..
>
> Because if it isn't, it'll be a marketing/design failure on a
scale of
> the  "New Coke" fiasco...
>
> Fact is, for well over 30 years, Nikon has marketed their
lenses and
> bodies on backward and forward compatibility.  The idea you
could use
> old lenses on new bodies and new lenses on old..  (with limited
> exceptions and the reality that advanced features would not be
available).
>
> There are tons of news shops out there still using Nikon bodies
and
> glass to the consternation of shooters who want two things..
>
> 1)    A full frame digital chip
>
> 2)    Auto White balancing equaling that in the new Canons
>
> If  Nikon were to proceed in this manner, you'd see:
>
> 1)    Nikon news shops switching to Canon - why go to an
untried product
> from a manufacturer who just suckered you...? The shooters
would already
> rather move to Canon for the most part.  In this case any
executive
> resistance would be gone..  ESPECIALLY if Nikon's new glass is
bigger
> heavier and more expensive.. LOL
>
> 2)    Loyal Nikophiles (myself included) dumping Nikon glass
and bodies
> en-masse (that might be a good thing for current D1 and D100
owners, as
> well as film purists., but it won't buoy Nikon's reputation)
>
> 3)    I'll move to Canon (after 20+ years with Nikon) faster
than merde
> through a goose..
>
> 4)    The betrayal of a basic corporate selling point
(retaining glass
> to use on your next body, and the next, and the next, etc.)
would
> virtually destroy any Nikon corporate credibility with many
pros - and
> particularly with the news shops
>
> 5)    Even the consumer Nikon market would erode significantly.
(just
> look back at how Canon grabbed consumer market share when they
came out
> with fast big auto-focus glass well before Nikon - people buy
what they
> see pros using on TV and Nikons were outnumbered back then -
early to
> mid 90's) What happened back then will be nothing compared to
this wave..
>
> 5)    Nikon will become a minor consumer camera player..
equivalent to
> Minolta..
>
> 6)    Key Nikon executives will eventually commit seppuku (hara
kiri) in
> shame..
>
> Just my 2 cents, but it's based on talking to other pros in
news shops,
> etc..
> Keith

I will archive this message and we will see in spring next year
whether Color Foto had any info for that news.

Is the existing diameter of the Nikon mount limitating the rear
element size of the lenses compared to Canon's lens mount and
that of other 35 mm SLR mounts? Canon claims it has the widest
size now.
At least a wider mount for the Nikon with the same or less
'flange to film' distance will allow an adapter construction for
the old lenses.

Olympus has another approach and explains that a CMOS or CCD of
the same size as 35 mm needs another optical design for the light
falling on the sensor. So they reduce the sensor and keep their
lens mount.

http://cf.olympus-europa.com/FourThirds/press_release.htm

Ernst

Ernst Dinkla wrote:

>  
>
>I will archive this message and we will see in spring next year
>whether Color Foto had any info for that news.
>  
>
Good Deal!

>Is the existing diameter of the Nikon mount limitating the rear
>element size of the lenses compared to Canon's lens mount and
>that of other 35 mm SLR mounts? Canon claims it has the widest
>size now.
>At least a wider mount for the Nikon with the same or less
>'flange to film' distance will allow an adapter construction for
>the old lenses.
>  
>
If that were a true limiting factor, how the heck would  Kodak be able 
to make the DCS 14n with a Nikon body, current Nikon mount, and a 
full-frame sensor?

>Olympus has another approach and explains that a CMOS or CCD of
>the same size as 35 mm needs another optical design for the light
>falling on the sensor. So they reduce the sensor and keep their
>lens mount.
>
>  
>
Yup, I understand their argument and agree in part..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Nikon lens mount changes


> Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> >Is the existing diameter of the Nikon mount limitating the
rear
> >element size of the lenses compared to Canon's lens mount and
> >that of other 35 mm SLR mounts? Canon claims it has the widest
> >size now.
> >At least a wider mount for the Nikon with the same or less
> >'flange to film' distance will allow an adapter construction
for
> >the old lenses.
> >
> >
> If that were a true limiting factor, how the heck would  Kodak
be able
> to make the DCS 14n with a Nikon body, current Nikon mount, and
a
> full-frame sensor?

So far it looks like the Canon is better than the Kodak despite
the first's lower Mpixel number.
Maybe Kodak tilted the sensor wells  at the edges, added
collecting lenses on the wells, whatever.
Maybe this whole story isn't true at all.
That begs the question why Contax made the lens mount wider and
why Olympus doesn't adapt to a full-frame sensor. Olympus has a
history of smaller sized cameras so it doesn't look like they
have thrown in the towel but Kodak must have other reasons to
join the collaboration with Olympus. My guess is that both
companies think there will be another category of digital cameras
replacing todays prosumer 35 mm slr's.

Ernst

Something about color fringing at the edges, but I still think the whole
thing is a hoax.

Seth

=>
=>>This new lens mount will be bigger to be able
=>>to use also a fullsize chip appropriate.
=>>    
=>>
=>
=>Why would a full-size chip require a larger lens mount than a film 
=>frame of the same size?
=>
=>
=>  
=>
=Makes no sense at all.
=
=Kodak has the new DCS 14n.. Full frame, 14 mpix,  and  the same old 
=Nikon mount...  I really don't believe Nikon engineers are 
=that inept... Keith

But my 20mm on film does the same thing.  I am waiting to see how the 12-24
acts.  It's supposed to be rectilinear (aren't they all in the ads??).

It's the long end that's a blessing on the news side. 300/2.8 is cheaper and
lighter than a 400/2.8. 80-200/2.8 is cheaper and lighter than a 300/2.8.

Even in the film days, it was VERY rare to shoot a news picture wider than a
28mm.

Seth

=
=Try shooting a traditional 20mm field of view without ridiculous 
=distortion on a current Nikon digital..  You use a 14mm or less to get 
=that field of view -- anything other than a pure vertical and whammo, 
=weird shaped heads, etc!!...
=Keith
=

> Even in the film days, it was VERY rare to shoot a news picture 
> wider than a
> 28mm.
> 

Hmm - I think my most used lens was 24mm for news  :-)

Seth writes:

> I am waiting to see how the 12-24 acts.  It's
> supposed to be rectilinear (aren't they all
> in the ads??).

I don't know about the 12-24DX, but the AF-S Nikkor 17-35/2.8 is rectilinear
for all practical purposes.  At least I can't see any obvious distortion,
even near the edges of the frame at 17mm, although I'm sure there's a little
bit somewhere.  It's an amazing lens.

I don't know why a special "digital" lens has to be built, though.  It
smells awfully fishy to me.

Anthony,

> I don't know why a special "digital" lens has to be built, though.  It
> smells awfully fishy to me.

Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the sensor.  Schneider wrote a
very comprehensive paper on this.  Go to their web site and find it, and
read it.  If you don't understand it, let me know and I'll do the best I can
to help.

Austin

Austin Franklin wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>> I don't know why a special "digital" lens has to be built, though.
>> It smells awfully fishy to me.
>
> Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the sensor.  Schneider
> wrote a very comprehensive paper on this.  Go to their web site and
> find it, and read it.  If you don't understand it, let me know and
> I'll do the best I can to help.

...and also to produce a lighter, smaller, cheaper wide angle lens (I'm
talking about the 12-24mm zoom) that is designed to cover the small
CCD rather than the whole 35mm frame.

Peter Marquis-Kyle

Austin writes:

> Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the
> sensor.

The lens is designed to be blurry, in other words.  Yes, I read the
Schneider paper.

I suppose this workaround is fine if all you want to do is shoot digital.
But I sure wouldn't want to be stuck with a lens like that for film.  Film
MTF trails off smoothly to zero, and so a lens that does the same is ideal.

Peter writes:

> ...and also to produce a lighter, smaller, cheaper
> wide angle lens (I'm talking about the 12-24mm zoom)
> that is designed to cover the small CCD rather than
> the whole 35mm frame.

Is the 12-24DX inexpensive?  I had heard just the opposite.

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Peter writes:
> 
>> ...and also to produce a lighter, smaller, cheaper
>> wide angle lens (I'm talking about the 12-24mm zoom)
>> that is designed to cover the small CCD rather than
>> the whole 35mm frame.
> 
> Is the 12-24DX inexpensive?  I had heard just the opposite.

It's all relative I suppose. Whatever it costs, I guess it would
be a whole lot cheaper than a full-frame 12-24... <smile>

Peter Marquis-Kyle

Anthony,

> > Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the
> > sensor.
>
> The lens is designed to be blurry, in other words.

No.  Not so at all.  It is designed to be SHARPER when used with a digital
imaging senor.

> Yes, I read the
> Schneider paper.

Read, yes...but obviously, didn't understand.

> I suppose this workaround is fine if all you want to do is shoot digital.
> But I sure wouldn't want to be stuck with a lens like that for film.

No, of course not.  It's simply not made for film.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Peter,

> >> I don't know why a special "digital" lens has to be built, though.
> >> It smells awfully fishy to me.
> >
> > Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the sensor.  Schneider
> > wrote a very comprehensive paper on this.  Go to their web site and
> > find it, and read it.  If you don't understand it, let me know and
> > I'll do the best I can to help.
> 
> ...and also to produce a lighter, smaller, cheaper wide angle lens (I'm
> talking about the 12-24mm zoom) that is designed to cover the small
> CCD rather than the whole 35mm frame.

I was not aware from that.  Are you sure?

Regards,

Austin

Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>>>> I don't know why a special "digital" lens has to be built, though.
>>>> It smells awfully fishy to me.
>>>
>>> Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the sensor.  Schneider
>>> wrote a very comprehensive paper on this.  Go to their web site and
>>> find it, and read it.  If you don't understand it, let me know and
>>> I'll do the best I can to help.
>>
>> ...and also to produce a lighter, smaller, cheaper wide angle lens
>> (I'm talking about the 12-24mm zoom) that is designed to cover the
>> small CCD rather than the whole 35mm frame.
>
> I was not aware from that.  Are you sure?

I don't have direct experience of this lens -- I am relying on this
news
story: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03021800nikon1224dx.asp

Here's a quote: "The DX lens line is designed to be used exclusively
with
digital SLR's with a sensor size of 23.7 x 15.6 mm (a 1.5x FOV crop
factor),
thus this lens could be used on the Nikon D1x, D1H or D100. On these
cameras it would provide an equivelant field of view range of 18 -36
mm."

Peter Marquis-Kyle

~ $999 street.  $1049 list.  Cheap? You decide. That's what my 14mm/2.8 cost
three years ago.

Seth

=-----Original Message-----
=From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...] 
=Sent: Friday, 13 June, 2003 17:29
=To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
=Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Nikon lens mount changes
=
=
=Peter writes:
=
=> ...and also to produce a lighter, smaller, cheaper
=> wide angle lens (I'm talking about the 12-24mm zoom)
=> that is designed to cover the small CCD rather than
=> the whole 35mm frame.
=
=Is the 12-24DX inexpensive?  I had heard just the opposite.
=
=------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
=---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your 
=Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. 
=http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/=ucIolB/TM
=
=---------------------------------------------------------------
=------~->
=
=Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
=Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The 
=page is at:
=
=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
=
=If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
=you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
=preferences by visiting this same page.
=
=Please follow these basic guidelines:
=- Include your full name with your message.
=- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
=- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
=messages to keep them short.
=- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
=subject header.
=- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
=- Complete your Yahoo profile.
=- Before posting a question, search the message archives and 
=the various resources on the homepage. 
=
=
= 
=
=Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
=http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
=
=
=

Austin writes:

> It is designed to be SHARPER when used with a digital
> imaging senor.

A digital sensor that is much more blurry than film, that is.

> Read, yes...but obviously, didn't understand.

I understood it perfectly.  I already know about those problems, anyway.

Haa haa ha ... :-(

Anthony and Austin - this could go on for a while...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:30 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Nikon lens mount changes
>
>
> Austin writes:
>
> > It is designed to be SHARPER when used with a digital
> > imaging senor.
>
> A digital sensor that is much more blurry than film, that is.
>
> > Read, yes...but obviously, didn't understand.
>
> I understood it perfectly.  I already know about those problems, anyway.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

on 6/13/03 7:01 PM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@... wrote:

>> ...and also to produce a lighter, smaller, cheaper wide angle lens (I'm
>> talking about the 12-24mm zoom) that is designed to cover the small
>> CCD rather than the whole 35mm frame.
> 
> I was not aware from that.  Are you sure?

Austin - It's my understanding that they were able to make this lens smaller
(and thus cheaper than it might have been) by designing it to create a
smaller image circle.  This smaller circle will cover the
less-than-35mm-film-size sensor, but would not cover the full film size.  In
addition, it has no aperture ring, since it assumes that it will be used
with a digital body with one or more thumbwheels to set the f/stop.

Stephen Petegorsky
petegorsky@...
web site - www.spphoto.com

> > It is designed to be SHARPER when used with a digital
> > imaging senor.
>
> A digital sensor that is much more blurry than film, that is.

In fact, Anthony, digital imaging sensors are SHARPER than film.  Sharpness
and resolution are two different things.

> > Read, yes...but obviously, didn't understand.
>
> I understood it perfectly.  I already know about those problems, anyway.

Obviously not.

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> > > Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the
> > > sensor.
> >
> > The lens is designed to be blurry, in other words.
> 
> No.  Not so at all.  It is designed to be SHARPER when used with a 
digital
> imaging senor.

The math doesn't make sense.   The highest-res CCD's today don't come 
close to what fine-grain film can record - i.e., 100 LP/mm  - that 
would take 200 sensor elements/mm.

Hi Peter,

> > > > Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the
> > > > sensor.
> > >
> > > The lens is designed to be blurry, in other words.
> >
> > No.  Not so at all.  It is designed to be SHARPER when used with a
> digital
> > imaging senor.
>
> The math doesn't make sense.

To most people, no...it doesn't...but if you understood how digital imaging
sensors worked, and a bit about sampling theory, it would make perfect
sense.  See the Schneider paper.  BTW, it's the reason why the sensors use a
low pass filter over them.

> The highest-res CCD's today don't come
> close to what fine-grain film can record - i.e., 100 LP/mm  - that
> would take 200 sensor elements/mm.

Exactly, and that's why ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Okay guys,

Where is the digital B&W printing in all this Nikon lens mount stuff? If you
can't tie the thread into how lens mounts effect B&W output then let's move
on. I have not followed every post on this thread but I am skeptical that it
is going anywhere other than the old endless film vs. digital debate which
seems irreconcilable.

Thanks,
Martin Wesley


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Nikon lens mount changes


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin
> Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> >
> > Anthony,
> >
> > > > Because the MTF of the lense is matched to the
> > > > sensor.
> > >
> > > The lens is designed to be blurry, in other words.
> >
> > No.  Not so at all.  It is designed to be SHARPER when used with a
> digital
> > imaging senor.
>
> The math doesn't make sense.   The highest-res CCD's today don't come
> close to what fine-grain film can record - i.e., 100 LP/mm  - that
> would take 200 sensor elements/mm.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wesley"
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Okay guys,
> 
> Where is the digital B&W printing in all this Nikon lens mount
stuff? If you
> can't tie the thread into how lens mounts effect B&W output then
let's move
> on. I have not followed every post on this thread but I am skeptical
that it
> is going anywhere other than the old endless film vs. digital debate
which
> seems irreconcilable.
> 
> Thanks,
> Martin Wesley
> 

Thank you, Martin.  Between this topic and the asphalt politics, I'm
having a hard time finding digital black and white printing data to
glean.  Contentious discussions are so tedious!
Chris Mende

It has something to do with the differences of acceptable light angle 
approaching the chip.  Film take it from all directions.  The digital 
chip however may have problem with the color distortion when the light 
falls at the sharp angle.  Wider lens mount provides the necessary space 
for the large last element of the glass.  
This would be my take.  I am sure that everybody is familiar with the 
extreme wide angle lenses (conventional) creating a bit soft images on 
some of the digital cameras, even within the same kind.  It may vary 
from chip to chip.  I am sure that they will address (or have already) 
this issue, but it's one of the factors which without any special 
technology gives advantage to Canon team.  Maybe it's responsible for 
their faster providing the market with a very good Professional camera 
like  1Ds.  As we all know the Kodak's 14n so far sucks (I am still 
waiting for the next firmware, but grow more skeptical day by day)
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle


Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Ernst quotes:
>
> > This new lens mount will be bigger to be able
> > to use also a fullsize chip appropriate.
>
> Why would a full-size chip require a larger lens mount than a film 
> frame of
> the same size?
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]