How thin can a sensor become - or could you live without a LCD?

So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being used for small
format cameras, yet they've obviously made slim(mer) cameras in the past, like
the Nikon FE.

Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in the very back
of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that is several times more
thicker, mounted on a circuit board that also adds thickness. On top of that,
there is a LCD screen just behind it as well with accompanying circuitry.

So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would only be possible
if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we live without a LCD?

Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be as big
obviously, but with enough resolution you could still make out whether the
photo was exposed correctly, which really is all we use the LCD for anyway.

--
Sandman

On 02.01.2016 10:49, Sandman wrote:
So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being used for small
format cameras, yet they've obviously made slim(mer) cameras in the past, like
the Nikon FE.

Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in the very back
of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that is several times more
thicker, mounted on a circuit board that also adds thickness. On top of that,
there is a LCD screen just behind it as well with accompanying circuitry.

So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would only be possible
if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we live without a LCD?

Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be as big
obviously, but with enough resolution you could still make out whether the
photo was exposed correctly, which really is all we use the LCD for anyway.

As for me, LCD could be detachable small tablet-like, with remote
control functionality.

On 2 Jan 2016 09:49:13 GMT, Sandman wrote:
: So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being used for small
: format cameras, yet they've obviously made slim(mer) cameras in the past, like
: the Nikon FE.
:
: Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in the very back
: of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that is several times more
: thicker, mounted on a circuit board that also adds thickness. On top of that,
: there is a LCD screen just behind it as well with accompanying circuitry.
:
: So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would only be possible
: if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we live without a LCD?
:
: Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be as big
: obviously, but with enough resolution you could still make out whether the
: photo was exposed correctly, which really is all we use the LCD for anyway.

I see your point, Jonas; but I don't think the LCD is a major contributor to
the unwieldiness of today's DSLRs. IMO, the real culprit is modern,
image-stabilized, autofocusing lenses. In the Canon world, two of their
lenses, the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, are considered to
be among the finest lenses ever made, but they're HUGE. And lenses are getting
larger much faster than cameras are. I have that 70-200, and it weighs several
times as much as any of my camera bodies. When you have a behemoth like that
mounted, the size and weight of the body doesn't matter a whole lot.

Bob

On 2016-01-02 12:31:27 +0000, trolling tone said:

On 02.01.2016 10:49, Sandman wrote:
So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being used for small
format cameras, yet they've obviously made slim(mer) cameras in the past, like
the Nikon FE.

Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in the very back
of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that is several times more
thicker, mounted on a circuit board that also adds thickness. On top of that,
there is a LCD screen just behind it as well with accompanying circuitry.

So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would only be possible
if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we live without a LCD?

Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be as big
obviously, but with enough resolution you could still make out whether the
photo was exposed correctly, which really is all we use the LCD for anyway.

As for me, LCD could be detachable small tablet-like, with remote
control functionality.

That is already available with many cameras which have WiFi capability
(or WiFi add-on). To start with check on some of the latest offerings
from Nikon, and Fujifilm. Those can be paired with phone or tablet, iOS
or Android, to provide full remote function, including browsing images
on the camera, focus, exposure setting, setting GEO-Tags, and transfer
of image files.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 02/01/2016 14:20, Robert Coe wrote:
[]
I see your point, Jonas; but I don't think the LCD is a major contributor to
the unwieldiness of today's DSLRs. IMO, the real culprit is modern,
image-stabilized, autofocusing lenses. In the Canon world, two of their
lenses, the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, are considered to
be among the finest lenses ever made, but they're HUGE. And lenses are getting
larger much faster than cameras are. I have that 70-200, and it weighs several
times as much as any of my camera bodies. When you have a behemoth like that
mounted, the size and weight of the body doesn't matter a whole lot.

Bob

Size, weight, bulk - one of the major reasons I went to
micro-four-thirds from an APS-C DSLR. Not everyone needs the extra
capabilities of a full-frame camera.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Robert Coe wrote:

I see your point, Jonas; but I don't think the LCD is a major
contributor to the unwieldiness of today's DSLRs. IMO, the real
culprit is modern, image-stabilized, autofocusing lenses.

So, yeah, the lens isn't actually part of the camera. If you don't want modern
image-stabilized autofocusing lenses, there's plenty of older manual focus
lenses that are smaller.

My post concerned the camera body only.

In the Canon world, two of their lenses, the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and
the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, are considered to be among the finest
lenses ever made, but they're HUGE.

There's a reason for it. The physical size of a lens is a direct result of its
focal length and aperture. And image stabilization and autofocus makes up a
small part of that size.

Nikon AF-S 70-200/2.8 G IF-ED VR II is 20.5 cm long and weighs 1.5 kg

The old Ai-S 80-200/2.8 ED is 22.3 cm long and weighs 1.9 g

In fact, the 80-200/2.8 *shrunk* when it got autofocus, not grew.

And lenses are getting larger much faster than cameras are.

This isn't true at all. Another example:

AF-S 200-400/4 G IF-ED VR II, length 36cm, diameter 124mm, weight 3.3kg

Ai-S 200-400/4 ED, length 33cm, diameter 144mm, weight 3.7kg

I have that 70-200, and it weighs several times as much as any of my
camera bodies. When you have a behemoth like that mounted, the size
and weight of the body doesn't matter a whole lot.

But when you don't have it mounted, the size and weight of the camera body can
matter.

--
Sandman

On 2016-01-02 15:42:45 +0000, David Taylor
said:

On 02/01/2016 14:20, Robert Coe wrote:
[]
I see your point, Jonas; but I don't think the LCD is a major contributor to
the unwieldiness of today's DSLRs. IMO, the real culprit is modern,
image-stabilized, autofocusing lenses. In the Canon world, two of their
lenses, the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, are considered to
be among the finest lenses ever made, but they're HUGE. And lenses are getting
larger much faster than cameras are. I have that 70-200, and it weighs several
times as much as any of my camera bodies. When you have a behemoth like that
mounted, the size and weight of the body doesn't matter a whole lot.

Bob

Size, weight, bulk - one of the major reasons I went to
micro-four-thirds from an APS-C DSLR. Not everyone needs the extra
capabilities of a full-frame camera.

Agreed. That is one of my reasons for my move to the Fuji X-system (in
my case an X-E2). I get an APS-C sensor in a camera which gives me all
I need without the bulk and weight of the DSLR system, and no
decernable loss in IQ.
https://db.tt/Jdr8g5OZ

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/2/2016 4:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being used for small
format cameras, yet they've obviously made slim(mer) cameras in the past, like
the Nikon FE.

Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in the very back
of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that is several times more
thicker, mounted on a circuit board that also adds thickness. On top of that,
there is a LCD screen just behind it as well with accompanying circuitry.

So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would only be possible
if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we live without a LCD?

Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be as big
obviously, but with enough resolution you could still make out whether the
photo was exposed correctly, which really is all we use the LCD for anyway.


I guess nobody uses it for composition and focusing.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being used
for small format cameras, yet they've obviously made slim(mer)
cameras in the past, like the Nikon FE.

Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in
the very back of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that is
several times more thicker, mounted on a circuit board that also
adds thickness. On top of that, there is a LCD screen just behind
it as well with accompanying circuitry.

So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would
only be possible if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we
live without a LCD?

Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be as
big obviously, but with enough resolution you could still make out
whether the photo was exposed correctly, which really is all we
use the LCD for anyway.

I guess nobody uses it for composition and focusing.

I think use of live view is sparse, yes. Obviously some use it sometimes,
including me, but given the shoddy implementation of live view on DSLR's when
compared to mirrorless, it's rather useless.

While I'd be interested in a serious Nikon mirrorless, it would be pretty
uninteresting unless it uses regular F-mount, and F-mount has a unnecessarily
large flange distance for mirrorless.

In fact, when thinking about it... Imagine a Nikon mirrorless with a Sony E-
mount-like flange distance, with special lenses made specifically for it, but
with an adapter that has full lens communication with AF-S lenses, it becomes
the perfect bridge camera... Hmmm.

--
Sandman

In article 2016010207264317746-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Sandman:
So, Nikon has one of the largest flange distances still being
used for small format cameras, yet they've obviously made
slim(mer) cameras in the past, like the Nikon FE.

Now, this is obviously because the film is ultra thin and is in
the very back of the camera body, and a DSLR have a sensor that
is several times more thicker, mounted on a circuit board that
also adds thickness. On top of that, there is a LCD screen just
behind it as well with accompanying circuitry.

So, could Nikon even build a digital FE? I'm guessing it would
only be possible if they remove the LCD altogether, but could we
live without a LCD?

Or could it be moved? Maybe replace the top LCD? It wouldn't be
as big obviously, but with enough resolution you could still
make out whether the photo was exposed correctly, which really
is all we use the LCD for anyway.

trolling tone:
As for me, LCD could be detachable small tablet-like, with remote
control functionality.

That is already available with many cameras which have WiFi
capability (or WiFi add-on). To start with check on some of the
latest offerings from Nikon, and Fujifilm. Those can be paired with
phone or tablet, iOS or Android, to provide full remote function,
including browsing images on the camera, focus, exposure setting,
setting GEO-Tags, and transfer of image files.

Right, but it's a separate device, that needs to be setup and connected etc
etc. Imagine it being an actual LCD display on the camera, that is detachable.
I.e. when attached to the camera, it functions just like a normal LCD would,
but you can "unsnap" it from its place and it becomes a remote display and
remote for the camera. It has a small battery that is being charged when
connected to the camera and lasts for 30-60 minutes disconnected, or you can
have a battery pack for it that you can snap it to as well.

Without the screen, the camera becomes considerably slimmer, and the camera is
fully functional without it if you don't need a LCD on the camera.

When connected it receives a video feed from the sensor, but when disconnected,
it uses low-power bluetooth to send a 1 fps video stream to it for instance,
just for compositing.

There would be connection cables that lengthens the connection so you can mount
the display on a video rig for the camera and use as a video viewfinder, or you
can get a larger and better LCD screen and connect it via the same connection.

It's a pretty neat idea, actually.

--
Sandman