View single post by Robert

Posted: Thu Sep 7th, 2017 02:01

Joined:	Mon Apr 2nd, 2012
Location:	South Lakeland, UK
Posts:	4066
Status:	Offline

If we were able to check back to the old forum you would find way back in about '08 that I was a keen advocate for the Nikon mirrorless, it's almost inevitable. Just like 35mm overtook 4x3" and 4x3" replaced 10x8". Replacing the ground glass screen and glass negatives. BUT it will take a while. It's not that long since Graham posted an image of himself in Africa with a 4x3", perhaps with a wire frame viewfinder? These cameras were pretty much the norm for high quality images in that era. Some would argue that wire frame was good because you could see outside the frame and it aided composition... It was still dumped eventually as was the external, clip-on exposure meter found on some cameras like the Leica.

Today we are looking at 45MP on a 35mm full frame sensor. Way beyond any resolution ever seen by film and in my opinion overkill in terms of the need for definition by anyone except perhaps scientists and people who create 40 foot billboard images, but I am only a small voice. The masses seem to see ultra high resolution capture as their holy grail and many others follow, the trend keeps camera manufactures in business. Perhaps not just for the ultra high resolution but for the other benefits the camera designers bundle like greater and better high ISO performance and better dynamic range etc.

For most uses 75 to 90% of the captured resolution will be thrown away before the target viewer has a chance to see it. But at least it's nice to know it was there once... ;-)

To stop this post wandering too far from topic, in a sense mirrorless is similar to the ground glass screen. What you see is what you get. It's the technical implementation of the process which seems to be the stumbling block. How to display what the lens sees in a viewfinder, in real time and with an acceptable resolution. It can be achieved optically as with the SLR but I think for now delay and poor resolution are inevitable until the engineers can create a screen which matches the sensor gathering power. i.e. the matching resolution. They have done it with the sensor, why not the display? However, processing that amount of data will inevitably take some time, even with powerful, dedicated processors which of necessity must be tiny and not be power hungry.

The problems with the ground glass screen, which were accepted in the day, was the image was reversed and you needed to have a black cloth to put over the back of the camera and the photographers head so the photographer could see the screen. It had to be accepted then because that was the only was it was going to happen. Just as the current photographer has to accept the current limitations of mirrorless and the cumbersome DSLR.

Sony I believe produce a small full frame (FX) body which, with an adaptor, can be fitted to Nikkor lenses, no bigger than a packet of cigarettes. Produces good video and stills, essentially it's a box with a sensor and a screen with a slot for a memory card. It's not far removed from the plate glass screen camera but much smaller. With a clip on loupe to examine detail one can see exactly what the camera will record.

Personally I would love an electronic version of my beloved Bronica S2a, 60x60mm single lens reflex with a ground glass screen waist level viewfinder with pop up shield and built in loupe. That camera was wonderful to compose the image, rather than the eye level viewfinder which many use as a sight, to aim the lens at the target, like a rifle.

As for sensor size, bigger the better. If they can make 45MP FX sensors then why not put two together and make a 48x36 90MP combo. It can be done, some technical cameras do that and electronically marry the two (or more) sensors images seamlessly into one.

Sorry to ramble but it's an interesting question, close to my heart.

If you got this far, thanks for reading!

____________________
Robert.