more about the camera design I would like to have

In the previous thread, I coined the term "single lens direct" or "single lens
display" or "SLD" to refer to my design. A summary of the design:

1. The viewfinder that is normally viewing through the taking lens via a
flip-up mirror, ground glass focusing screen, and a pentaprism, in an
SLR design, now view an LCD screen. I had suggested that LCD screen
can be placed where the focusing screen is on an SLR, and be viewed via
the same pentaprism. Others suggest to just skip the pentaprism and do
a straight view of the LCD screen. It would also be possible, if some
camera shape design needed it, to just use a mirror and electrically
reverse the LCD display as needed.

2. The sensor would always operate in "live view" mode. A camera can have
both an viewfinder LCD display, as well as a back LCD display (yes, two
LCD displays). The "face is close" detector that shuts off the back LCD
in SLR cameras now can also turn the viewfinder LCD display on. One way
or the other, you see through the taking lens electrically live. Focusing
can use the techniques SLR with "live vider" mode already have, like doing
software magnification and/or contrast focusing. Focusing points can be
put anywhere desired.

2. The flip-up mirror is now gone. This leaves room inside the camera for
other things. I suggested super wide angle lenses can be placed closer
to the sensor. There was a heated debate about this, but my take on the
"conclusion" of that is wide angle lenses are less complex when designed
this way, and the real issue is light falloff at extreme angles on the
sensor. Whether it is easy or hard to solve, it is solvable, and I even
suggest more than one way to do it exists.

3. I suggested that this SLD design should be made to make use of (nearly)
all SLR lenses in that manufacturer's line. So for Canon, that would mean
making EF and EF-S lenses normally work (or just EF lenses for a full frame
SLD model).

4. For a wide angle lens closer to the sensor than can be done with an SLR,
such a lens would have a protruding rear element if the mounting distance
remained at the same point as for an SLR. There is the risk that someone
might try to mount such a lens on an SLR, possibly damaging both camera
and lens. I suggested a slightly variant mount with an adaptor for real
SLR lenses on an SLD camera. Others suggested this would actually be more
complicated for both the average photo hobbyist as well as professional.
And I think they win that argument. So a lens with a protruding rear
element used on an SLR invokes a hard learned lesson.

5. It was suggested that we should move away from a focal plane shutter and
return the leaf shutter, which is the basis for large format view cameras
and many other "smaller" cameras, as well. I hadn't considered this when
I suggested the SLD design, but it clearly is the way to go. But it should
do this in a migratory way, keeping the focal plane shutter in SLD cameras
for a number of years until the lens lines upgrade to have leaf shutters.

6. Despite what I think are clear advantages in the SLD design over SLR for
most things, there are times where at least a focal plane shutter have
some benefit, and there could still remain some use for optically viewing
through the taking lens. So I don't see the SLR going completely away in
my lifetime, and there might always be at least some SLD cameras with a
focal plane shutter, too.

7. In-camera filters, either slide-in from a side door, or inserted from the
front with the lens off, might be more practical than on-lens (front or
rear) filters. The electrical sensor needs a filter to block both IR and
even some UV. Glass passes only a limited amount of UV, so it has not been
a big issue with film, even though film is generally very UV sensitive. A
UV blocking filter has been common on the front of many lenses. But with
digital, an IR blocking filter is critical for accurate visual spectrum
photos. If this is done with a slide in filter, that leaves open options
to use other filters instead. But those filters either need to have their
own IR blocking, or we need 2 filter positions, or one filter cartridge
that can have 2 filters on it.

There is one more idea I thought of today. And this is not specific to SLD,
although doing it in an SLR would probably need to change the camera frame
construction a bit. This idea is to increase the sensor dimensions from the
3:2 aspect normally used with a landscape orientation (which requires the
camera to be rotated 90 degrees for portrait orientation), to a full 1:1 at
the full size. So for a full-frame sensor this would be 36mm x 36mm. For an
APS-C size, this would be around 22mm x 22mm. Not every camera needs to have
this. I could be a premium feature on advanced cameras. The idea is to have
the electronics simply use the appropriate portion of the sensor based on the
desired picture orientation. If you want landscape, you use the portion of
the sensor that is 36mm wide by 24mm high. But with one button, you can have
the camera use the portion of the sensor that is 24mm wide by 36mm high. As
most lenses are round and cover a complete circle of at least 43.2666mm wide,
which is the corner to corner distance of 36mm x 24mm, this should work. The
only issue I see at the moment is with lenses that have integrated hoods with
a rectangular opening oriented in landscape mode the way the lens would be
mounted to the camera. When using these lenses, fall back to the classical
method: turn the whole camera (the smart camera will beep and warn about the
change to portrait orientation when said lens is mounted).

Such a sensor could leave out the corner parts that don't get used by either
orientation. Or the sensor could also be made to allow other aspect ratios
that fit within the standard coverage circle for that sensor size. A square
(1:1) aspect ratio could be 30.59mm x 30.59mm and fit this coverage. Other
aspect ratios could be used in ways that one dimension is a bit wider that if
that same aspect ratio were derived from cropping the standard size. If the
sensor is going to be upgraded to do the landscape/portrait switch, then these
other aspect ratios came almost free (the cost it not cutting out as much in
the corners of the sensor, and writing some more firmware).

Why would anyone want a 1:1 taking aspect ratio? How about circular fisheye?

Also, maybe an SLR could be designed in such a way that when its mirror does
go into a locked up position, it optically flips the light path to allow an
LCD screen to be seen in the viewfinder. Then we have an SLR/SLD combo. That
and a focal plane shutter locked-open mode, and you can have a real combo.

I'm sure a few people will come up with descriptions of why they don't need
these features. I do think that over time (10 years or so after SLDs first
come out) a lot of people will end up preferring the SLD over the SLR.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:

In the previous thread, I coined the term "single lens direct" or
"single lens
display" or "SLD" to refer to my design. A summary of the design:

snip details

Looks like the Olympus / Panasonic micro four thirds covers your points
1 - 4, at least.
--
Alex Monro
Exeter, UK
Running on Linux (Kubuntu 7.1)

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:54:14 +0100 Alex Monro wrote:
| wrote:
|
| In the previous thread, I coined the term "single lens direct" or
| "single lens
| display" or "SLD" to refer to my design. A summary of the design:
|
| snip details
|
| Looks like the Olympus / Panasonic micro four thirds covers your points
| 1 - 4, at least.

Right. And that was mentioned in the other thread. But the four-thirds
system is a reduced resolution system. My goal would be to see a system
with at least some cameras at full frame, and lenses that can cover it.
That, in addition to the further details that has been added. Four-thirds
would not satisfy my needs, and probably not that of many others, either.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:54:14 +0100 Alex Monro wrote:
| wrote:
|
| In the previous thread, I coined the term "single lens direct" or
| "single lens
| display" or "SLD" to refer to my design. A summary of the design:
|
| snip details
|
| Looks like the Olympus / Panasonic micro four thirds covers your points
| 1 - 4, at least.

Right. And that was mentioned in the other thread. But the four-thirds
system is a reduced resolution system.

Perhaps "slightly increased image noise", rather than "reduced
resolution" due to a smaller sensor would be more accurate?
There are currently 4/3 DSLR cameras with the same or higher pixel count
(resolution) than similar price-ranged APS-c DSLR cameras, with no real
reason why this won't continue.

My goal would be to see a system
with at least some cameras at full frame, and lenses that can cover it.
That, in addition to the further details that has been added. Four-thirds
would not satisfy my needs, and probably not that of many others, either.

I believe that it depends on what your goal is, if it's the smallest
interchageable lens camera with a large sensor and affordable price,
then totally disregarding the Mu4/3 standard seems a tiny bit foolish to me.
The most attractive part of the Panasonic DMC-G1 is it's 1.4mp EVF,
although the "mini SLR" styling doesn't make the smallest it could be.
If the mock-up Mu4/3 that Olympus was displaying at FotoKina had that
EVF in the top left-hand corner on the back of the body, then I think it
would be a really great design.
The problem with that is that if the LCD is articulated from the left
hand edge, then it would have to be smaller so as to not interfere with
the EVF, but it could be articulate on the top or bottom edge instead.
The same design features could just as easily be incorporated into a
body with a larger (APS-c or 35mm FF) sensor, but then it will always be
at least slightly bulkier than could be achieved with a 4/3 sized sensor.

wrote:

would anyone want a 1:1 taking aspect ratio?

Not as long as larger sensors are exponentially more expensive.

Also, maybe an SLR could be designed in such a way that when its mirror does
go into a locked up position, it optically flips the light path to allow an
LCD screen to be seen in the viewfinder.

Probably just a matter of time before we see this. The current live view
on DSLRs is awkward as heck, the mirror klunks up, then there's three
clickety clacks when you shoot, and don't forget which mode you left it in!

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:17:27 +1100 dj_nme wrote:

| Perhaps "slightly increased image noise", rather than "reduced
| resolution" due to a smaller sensor would be more accurate?
| There are currently 4/3 DSLR cameras with the same or higher pixel count
| (resolution) than similar price-ranged APS-c DSLR cameras, with no real
| reason why this won't continue.

Sure, if they are squeezing the pixels down smaller, then other conditions
being equal, there will be more noise.

Why smaller? Is it because so many people want a smaller lighter camera?
It doesn't seem to be the good tool for dedicated photo hobbyists through
to professionals. Maybe spies might like it, but I'm sure they have access
to some really cool stuff that we could never afford even if it wasn't a
secret. Still, there are laws of physics even spies can't get around.


| My goal would be to see a system
| with at least some cameras at full frame, and lenses that can cover it.
| That, in addition to the further details that has been added. Four-thirds
| would not satisfy my needs, and probably not that of many others, either.
|
| I believe that it depends on what your goal is, if it's the smallest
| interchageable lens camera with a large sensor and affordable price,
| then totally disregarding the Mu4/3 standard seems a tiny bit foolish to me.

My goal isn't for a smallest system. It's for a good quality system (and
that means to me a full-frame sensor) that can be compatible within reason
to lower priced cameras (which likely means a smaller sensor).


| The most attractive part of the Panasonic DMC-G1 is it's 1.4mp EVF,
| although the "mini SLR" styling doesn't make the smallest it could be.
| If the mock-up Mu4/3 that Olympus was displaying at FotoKina had that
| EVF in the top left-hand corner on the back of the body, then I think it
| would be a really great design.

How would "top left-hand corner" be significant?


| The problem with that is that if the LCD is articulated from the left
| hand edge, then it would have to be smaller so as to not interfere with
| the EVF, but it could be articulate on the top or bottom edge instead.
| The same design features could just as easily be incorporated into a
| body with a larger (APS-c or 35mm FF) sensor, but then it will always be
| at least slightly bulkier than could be achieved with a 4/3 sized sensor.

I think I really don't know what you are referring to with this "articulated"
reference. Is this a "pop out" viewfinder like cheap camcorders have?

Personally, I think going smaller is the wrong idea. I do understand people
do want smaller cameras generally for more casual shooting. I'd rather see
things go more in the direction of medium format. But there won't be much of
a market there, at least any time soon. Ideally, I'd like to see my design
go full-frame (the full 36mm x 24mm). Then a smaller standard for the masses
could still let them use "big lenses" using an adaptor (possible because the
smaller camera mounts closer to the sensor, defining the size of the adapter).

As for LCDs, I'm thinking there should be 2 of them. One is on the inside
and viewed through the traditional viewfinder when holding the camera up to
your face. The other is on the back for more convenient use when the camera
is on a tripod (a convenience I did not have with my Nikon FE-2 back when I
did film).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In article , Paul Furman
wrote:

The current live view
on DSLRs is awkward as heck, the mirror klunks up, then there's three
clickety clacks when you shoot, and don't forget which mode you left it in!

that's on nikon. canon does a much better job. the mirror stays up &
sensor does a rolling first shutter curtain.

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:17:27 +1100 dj_nme wrote:

| Perhaps "slightly increased image noise", rather than "reduced
| resolution" due to a smaller sensor would be more accurate?
| There are currently 4/3 DSLR cameras with the same or higher pixel count
| (resolution) than similar price-ranged APS-c DSLR cameras, with no real
| reason why this won't continue.

Sure, if they are squeezing the pixels down smaller, then other conditions
being equal, there will be more noise.

Why smaller? Is it because so many people want a smaller lighter camera?
It doesn't seem to be the good tool for dedicated photo hobbyists through
to professionals. Maybe spies might like it, but I'm sure they have access
to some really cool stuff that we could never afford even if it wasn't a
secret. Still, there are laws of physics even spies can't get around.

If your idea isn't to design a smaller system camera, then why bother
with mentioning a shorter mount-to-sensor distance or a viewfinder
that's designed to save room (such as an EVF instead of an SLR viewfinder).
You've lost me on want you're actually after.

| My goal would be to see a system
| with at least some cameras at full frame, and lenses that can cover it.
| That, in addition to the further details that has been added. Four-thirds
| would not satisfy my needs, and probably not that of many others, either.
|
| I believe that it depends on what your goal is, if it's the smallest
| interchageable lens camera with a large sensor and affordable price,
| then totally disregarding the Mu4/3 standard seems a tiny bit foolish to me.

My goal isn't for a smallest system. It's for a good quality system (and
that means to me a full-frame sensor) that can be compatible within reason
to lower priced cameras (which likely means a smaller sensor).

So why not just settle and get a Canon EOS DSLR?
It has the shortest mount-to-sensor distance with a large sensor (both
APS-c and 35mm FF) and can be adapted with mechanical rings to use most
other lenses (except 4/3 and Leica RF).
My guess is that most of your goal would be achieved with a 5D sensor
put into a Rebel body, it would be very compact for a large-sensor DSLR
camera.

| The most attractive part of the Panasonic DMC-G1 is it's 1.4mp EVF,
| although the "mini SLR" styling doesn't make the smallest it could be.
| If the mock-up Mu4/3 that Olympus was displaying at FotoKina had that
| EVF in the top left-hand corner on the back of the body, then I think it
| would be a really great design.

How would "top left-hand corner" be significant?

It would remove the need to squish your nose against the LCD when
looking through the eyepiece, if it was placed centrally like on most
cameras with a viewfinder.
The reason why I suggest "top left-hand corner" for the EVF is so that
there is no "hump" to accommodate it (like if it's located in the top
middle) and so that there is space below it hinge the LCD from.

| The problem with that is that if the LCD is articulated from the left
| hand edge, then it would have to be smaller so as to not interfere with
| the EVF, but it could be articulate on the top or bottom edge instead.
| The same design features could just as easily be incorporated into a
| body with a larger (APS-c or 35mm FF) sensor, but then it will always be
| at least slightly bulkier than could be achieved with a 4/3 sized sensor.

I think I really don't know what you are referring to with this "articulated"
reference. Is this a "pop out" viewfinder like cheap camcorders have?

You've never seen a digicam with an LCD which can fold out and twist around?
That's what's called "articulated LCD": it isn't fixed in position to
the back of the camera.

Personally, I think going smaller is the wrong idea. I do understand people
do want smaller cameras generally for more casual shooting. I'd rather see
things go more in the direction of medium format. But there won't be much of
a market there, at least any time soon.

I agree, this wouldn't make much sense.
Considering that there are already several medium format DSLR cameras in
the market and the volume of sale isn't very large.
There is also now a new one, in the form of the Leica S2, to compete
against.

Ideally, I'd like to see my design
go full-frame (the full 36mm x 24mm). Then a smaller standard for the masses
could still let them use "big lenses" using an adaptor (possible because the
smaller camera mounts closer to the sensor, defining the size of the adapter).

As for LCDs, I'm thinking there should be 2 of them. One is on the inside
and viewed through the traditional viewfinder when holding the camera up to
your face.

That's called an EVF (Electronic ViewFinder).

The other is on the back for more convenient use when the camera
is on a tripod (a convenience I did not have with my Nikon FE-2 back when I
did film).

I would suggest an articulated LCD, then you could angle it for easy
viewing.

nospam wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

The current live view
on DSLRs is awkward as heck, the mirror klunks up, then there's three
clickety clacks when you shoot, and don't forget which mode you left it in!

that's on nikon. canon does a much better job. the mirror stays up &
sensor does a rolling first shutter curtain.

I haven't really looked into it, there's a couple different modes I
think for AF, and I've not even tried it with AF lenses. Maybe it's
dropping the mirror again to focus... ack I should change that!

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
nospam wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

The current live view on DSLRs is awkward as heck, the mirror klunks
up, then there's three clickety clacks when you shoot, and don't
forget which mode you left it in!

that's on nikon. canon does a much better job. the mirror stays up &
sensor does a rolling first shutter curtain.

I haven't really looked into it, there's a couple different modes I
think for AF, and I've not even tried it with AF lenses. Maybe it's
dropping the mirror again to focus... ack I should change that!

I don't have either an EOS nor Nikon.
According to dpreview.com, the Nikon D700 can use contrast detection
when it live-view mode (described as "tripod mode") and that should keep
the mirror in the up position.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page2.asp
Have a look under "Auto Focus", which is about a quarter of the way down
the list of specifications.