Now what.... digital lenses & CMOS?

[mhickey]

My understanding was that when the manufacturers developed digital slrs they were focused (no pun) on making the legacy lenses compatible and not necessarily what would be best for an electronic image receptor. Now that the dslrs are widely accepted they are going back to create lenses that are specifically designed for the camera. I too have many $s in Nikon lenses. Tomorrow my Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G ED-IF DX AF-S Lens will arrive and I should be in a better position to give some feedback in a week or so.

[bsphoto]

The Fuji S2 has an excellent reputation for accurately reproducing skin tones. Check around the digital forums if you want to get other's opinions.

The "digital" lens thing seems like a lot of marketing hype to me. Most of the time they mention the light strikes the film at an oblique angle at the edges of the frame, omitting the little fact that the sensor is considerably smaller than a full frame. Also it seems that it's a "problem" more on wide angle lenses. Again, if you're using a non-full frame digital camera then you're at a definite disadvantage on the wide angle side anyway and will probably have to add a wider lens, if that's what you're into.

Of course the best thing to do is to use what you have and see if it works for you. No need to switch, especially based on the opinion of someone else.

[Soujrnr]

Speaking of CMOS, CCD, Digital, electronics, chemistry and all this is spinning me up (in a good way) because I work on the latest and greatest technology in my job as a field engineer working on SPY radar systems on board U.S. Navy destroyers and cruisers!! Be that as it may, I am wondering what others are thinking about the new Olympus E1. It sure looks like a very nice camera with a pretty fair selection of lenses (at least for most everything I do) and other accessories like flash, flash brackets, yada yada yada. The lenses are designed specifically for the body and don't have the 1.3x factor issue to deal with, etc. It looks like a very sound camera. I'd love your thoughts on THIS one.

Happy New Year everyone!! Here's to another year with the "finest of the finest" forums to be found.

Good day!

Mike

[rjwarren]

Andy

Three things.

First -- lots of this stuff about lenses and the direction of the light, etc are like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Who really cares? If you want to talk about the S2 and similar BS -- take a look at the Fuji web site where they discuss how their sensor is so much better because of the shape of the sensors on the CCD and the spacing of the sensors on the CCD field. So, you can have the improved lenses or the improved sensors....

Second, go check out the Olympus web site and the profile of their E1. It's made to use the digital specific lenses, etc. They'll represent the argument that it makes a difference.

Third -- I agree with Robert on the issue of CMOS vs CCD. The CMOS is definately a "softer" sensor. Canon has been one of the few people to make it work. One "secret" -- the cost of CMOS is lower than CCD so it allows Canon to put price pressure on everyone else. THANK YOU Canon!

My personal opinion -- I believe that having the digital lenses is interesting, but it's a balance. I'd like to see Fuji use the Super CCD technology on a 4/3rds camera (like the Olympus E1) and use those Olympus lenses. THAT'S a camera I would buy!

Regards
Bob

[rjwarren]

Mike

Great question. I think the issue of the lenses being lighter and focusing the light better is interesting.

However, I think the real interesting thing about the E1 and the specification it's built to is the 4:3 ratio of the sensor. It (in effect) shoots 645. Way cool.

You can always say that the tool doesn't make the photographer, etc. And you can always crop a 6x6 or 35mm to a 645 ratio. But, it's nice to compose with the shape you're shooting. I still shoot with my 6x6 for things that look better with a square presentation.

Some things are better square:


And some things are better long and narrow (2:3)


Bob

[Soujrnr]

Hi Bob,

First off, that first picture you posted in square format is totally awesome!! I love it! It almost looks like a sepia print (maybe it is) but the sepia component seems ever so slight. Perhaps it's just the characteristics of the film and developer that you used. No matter. It's a wonderful picture!!

The E1 4:3 ratio is an interesting development and, I think, a gamble for Olympus because first, it is different from the "main line" DSLR camera formats and as such no other lenses will work with it. Second, Olympus is typically not a name associated with high quality professional equipment as is Nikon, Canon, Contax, and others. I may be wrong but it seems like Olympus has been more geared over the years to offer consumer level, amateur cameras. Granted, a camera is just a box that lets light in and I've always said that a good artist can paint with a nail but I think you know what I mean. It's the Nikons and Canons that have been renowned for their ruggedness and durability, but I digress. The gamble mostly goes to the fact that it's a 4:3 ratio. However, if the gamble pays off, I think Olympus may have put themselves in a good light with this offering. I sure wish I could try one out and see how it feels. I think it's a nice looking camera and has a fair number of accessories. It certainly can't compete with Nikon and Canon as far as lens selection and other "toys" but they all had to start somewhere. I'm going to keep my eye on this one for awhile before I jump in to the digital realm. My plan was to move to Canon but due to unforseen medical circumstances with my wife, I am unable to part with the money I'd have to spend to get into a 10D and a couple lenses. Perhaps it's by divine providence, who can tell? :-)

Good day sir!

Mike

[Marko]

The both of them. Congrats.