Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

mirrorlessrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 371 posts

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#351

Post by foldr »

sudosysgen wrote: post #347
foldr wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies for the snark. This would probably be a fun discussion in person. In my experience, most apparent disagreements like this just come down to confusion over which factors are being held constant out of field of view, sensor size, focal length, total amount of light gathered, etc. etc. If the phone was using a slice of a DSLR sensor, then yes, the absolute aperture would be what was relevant, as you obviously…

It's not an either-or. Diffraction makes things a lot harder, and some phone lenses are indeed essentially diffraction limted Secondly, I'm actually comparing resolution at fixed FoV, not a fixed focal length. Again, the sensor size doesn't matter, what matters is the focal length. The focal length of an iPhone main lens isn't 10mm, the sensor size is 8.5mm but the focal length is actually around 5mm. You find the th…

>Again, the sensor size doesn't matter, what matters is the focal length.

Well, yes, but the two are obviously tightly linked if we're comparing a DSLR to a phone camera.

I'm going by the calculation in the 'Cameras' section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk It explains why only the f-number is relevant. If you plug values for an iPhone into the 'x =' equation, you'll see that an iPhone camera is not really close to being limited by diffraction. The minimum separation distance at 500nm wavelength at f1.6 comes out to 976nm. Along an 8mm sensor dimension that's 8188 line pairs. Now sure, that's by the Rayleigh criterion, so you're not resolving 8188 perfectly sharp line pairs. But that's a still a good margin over the sensor resolution, and it's an open question how good sharpening algorithms can get.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#352

Post by Matrixik »

ghaff wrote: post #76
robotmay wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think camera bodies make a much larger difference these days than lenses, actually. Obviously the lens still makes a notable difference, and for certain forms, like wildlife photography, the lens requirements are inescapable. The new models out in the past few years have absolutely incredible low-light performance that completely change the lens landscape, even; you can now ditch the requirement of carrying a hefty…

Sigma used to be one of the brands you bought because you didn't have the money for the camera manufacturer's lens. Now, they have unique models in a number of cases. I still have mostly Canon glass but I have a couple Sigma models because Canon doesn't have the equivalent.

Same happen with Tamron. They new lenses for Sony cameras are great. They newest "super" zoom 28-200 is basically best zoom of this type from any brand.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#353

Post by Wistar »

tomatocracy wrote: post #335
Wistar wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 70-300mm DO and it is not a lens I like much. The 400 DO is probably light-years better. It is definitely light-years more expensive.

I have the 400 DO. It's not really "light" but it's much much less of a beast than the 400/2.8. I really like it - it feels like it hits a sweet spot for me in the weight/light gathering ability/quality trade off and the quality is indeed excellent. But there's an argument that a 70-200/2.8 plus a 2x TC is very close in quality these days, gets you more flexibility and is a bit less unwieldy for a loss of only half a…

Ooh. I'd love to try that lens. I have both the 70-200 2.8L II and the 100-400 II and I love them both. That 70-200 is one of my all time zoom faves but the 100-400 is not too far behind it.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#354

Post by sudosysgen »

foldr wrote: post #351
sudosysgen wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an either-or. Diffraction makes things a lot harder, and some phone lenses are indeed essentially diffraction limted Secondly, I'm actually comparing resolution at fixed FoV, not a fixed focal length. Again, the sensor size doesn't matter, what matters is the focal length. The focal length of an iPhone main lens isn't 10mm, the sensor size is 8.5mm but the focal length is actually around 5mm. You find the th…

>Again, the sensor size doesn't matter, what matters is the focal length. Well, yes, but the two are obviously tightly linked if we're comparing a DSLR to a phone camera. I'm going by the calculation in the 'Cameras' section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk It explains why only the f-number is relevant. If you plug values for an iPhone into the 'x =' equation, you'll see that an iPhone camera is not really…

I'm afraid that the radius, not the diameter. The diameter of the airy disk at f1.6 for 500nn is of 2 microns, and for a line pair you'd need double that, not a single, so a line pair would fit on 4 microns. Over an 8mm sensor that's 4000 lines, 2000 line pairs. Note that even here contrast is reduced by diffraction as we are operating from the first null. If you use the Rayleigh criterion and relax your standard for resolution you're at 4000 barely distinguishable line pairs. IIRC that would 4000LP at MTF15, so at MTF50 you might be at around 2500-2600?

And this is of course the very best you can do at 26mm equivalent focal lengths, if you want a tighter or wider shot your image quality degrades because once again the optics don't fit and you'll have to reduce your f number.

2000 line pairs in perfect conditions is quite low. Better is expected from cheap DSLR zoom lenses.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#355

Post by tomatocracy »

Wistar wrote: post #353
tomatocracy wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the 400 DO. It's not really "light" but it's much much less of a beast than the 400/2.8. I really like it - it feels like it hits a sweet spot for me in the weight/light gathering ability/quality trade off and the quality is indeed excellent. But there's an argument that a 70-200/2.8 plus a 2x TC is very close in quality these days, gets you more flexibility and is a bit less unwieldy for a loss of only half a…

Ooh. I'd love to try that lens. I have both the 70-200 2.8L II and the 100-400 II and I love them both. That 70-200 is one of my all time zoom faves but the 100-400 is not too far behind it.

Yes. I have the 70-200/2.8 as well and had the 100-400 mk 1 years ago. The 100-400 mk I isn't a patch on either quality-wise but I gather the mk 2 is significantly better so not sure how it compares.

Where the 400DO perhaps really shines is paired with a 1.4x TC - it's much more handleable than a 600/4 and paired with a decent body gets results as good as bodies 10 years ago would have got with the 600/4.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#356

Post by foldr »

sudosysgen wrote: post #354
foldr wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, the sensor size doesn't matter, what matters is the focal length. Well, yes, but the two are obviously tightly linked if we're comparing a DSLR to a phone camera. I'm going by the calculation in the 'Cameras' section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk It explains why only the f-number is relevant. If you plug values for an iPhone into the 'x =' equation, you'll see that an iPhone camera is not really…

I'm afraid that the radius, not the diameter. The diameter of the airy disk at f1.6 for 500nn is of 2 microns, and for a line pair you'd need double that, not a single, so a line pair would fit on 4 microns. Over an 8mm sensor that's 4000 lines, 2000 line pairs. Note that even here contrast is reduced by diffraction as we are operating from the first null. If you use the Rayleigh criterion and relax your standard for…

>I'm afraid that the radius, not the diameter

Yes: the quantity calculated is the smallest separation two objects can have before they blur together (by the Raleigh criterion).

According to the standard notion of lp/mm, there is no need to halve the reciprocal of this quantity to get lp/mm. See e.g. the table on p.14 here: https://zenodo.org/record/3518178/files/Verhoeven%202019%20-... An airy disc of ~2um radius translates to ~500 lp/mm. The following page also agrees with this usage, as does every other source I can find at the moment. http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html

I think you are basically out by a factor of 4 by using the diameter instead of the radius and requiring line quads rather than line pairs. I believe the lp/mm value obtained is for ~9% MTF, so it's a fairly generous estimate of the available resolution, but not excessively so.

Regardless of the correct definition of lp/mm, the iPhone has plenty of room to increase the sensor resolution at f1.6. And phone cameras could certainly move to somewhat wider apertures and somewhat larger sensors.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#357

Post by astrostl »

krooj wrote: post #245
perardi wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine so. At the risk of angering Leica fans: they’re shipping not exactly state of the art technology at very high prices, with a lot of the R&D actually being done by Panasonic. (Or, in the case of their Lux compact cameras, they’re literally shipping Panasonic cameras with a different sticker on them.) Look at the Leica Q2: it costs $5000. The Fuji X100V costs $1300. I know there’s a bigger sensor in the Q2, b…

Ehhhh... I've owned a bunch of digital Leica gear, and I'll flatly say that the M lenses produce some of the best images you'll see from a raw optical pipeline. A 50mm APO Summicron is an exceptional lens for its optical characteristics; same goes for most of their 'cron and 'lux models. By contrast, Leica's digital M bodies have always been at least a generation behind... at their time of release. The way you deal w…

> By contrast, Leica's digital M bodies have always been at least a generation behind... at their time of release

The M9 was revolutionary in 2009, an 18MP full-frame sensor in a peer-comparatively tiny body. The M Monochrom in 2012 is the only major first-party camera to release w/o a Bayer filter with massive increases in resolution and sensitivity. They've been riding the "classic rangefinder experience" for some time since with incremental improvements, but the early digital M bodies were anything but behind. The recent M10-R and M10-M are also competitive sensor-wise.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#358

Post by leadingthenet »

megablast wrote: post #278
warkdarrior wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely different markets: good Swiss watches start at $2-3k and go up, way, way up. Apple watches are sub-$1k for the majority of models.

Not a different market at all. I hate that phrase. Apple watches are updated every few years. Swiss watches last a lot longer. Price might not be that different over 10 to 20 years.

Sure, but since getting an Apple Watch, I haven’t felt the need to wear a mechanical watch anymore.

They are good enough looking, and I need to close my rings, damnit! They just do so much more...

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#359

Post by bee_rider »

sudosysgen wrote: post #350
KineticLensman wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discussion crops up every so often: "Wouldn't it be nice if a camera had a full OS behind it". Personally, I'm very pleased that my camera (a Nikon D850) boots instantly (approx 0.2 seconds) and has a shutter lag of 0.05 seconds (when pre-focused). It essentially never unexpectedly hangs when I need to take a shot. For my preferred subjects (wildlife) a consistently instant response is far more important than ar…

Your camera doesn't actually boot in 0.2 seconds, it just wakes up from sleep. My Sony runs Android and never hangs nor has an shutter lag. Instant response in everything. It can be done.

How did you measure the shutter lag? .05s is like a couple hummingbird wing flaps.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#360

Post by sudosysgen »

foldr wrote: post #356
sudosysgen wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid that the radius, not the diameter. The diameter of the airy disk at f1.6 for 500nn is of 2 microns, and for a line pair you'd need double that, not a single, so a line pair would fit on 4 microns. Over an 8mm sensor that's 4000 lines, 2000 line pairs. Note that even here contrast is reduced by diffraction as we are operating from the first null. If you use the Rayleigh criterion and relax your standard for…

>I'm afraid that the radius, not the diameter Yes: the quantity calculated is the smallest separation two objects can have before they blur together (by the Raleigh criterion). According to the standard notion of lp/mm, there is no need to halve the reciprocal of this quantity to get lp/mm. See e.g. the table on p.14 here: https://zenodo.org/record/3518178/files/Verhoeven%202019%20-... An airy disc of ~2um radius tra…

Phone cameras are already at the limit of the space they can occupy. You would have to trade off the number of cameras.

As for the rest, lp/mm only makes sense at a given MTF rating. MTF50 is the standard. MTF9 is very, very, very generous. Incredibly so.

But anyways, sure, let's take 900lp/mm on the short edge for 4590lp/mm MTF9 - maybe I misremembered. A 5DSr with a real world zoom lens, the 24-70mm F2.8L, gets 7700lp/mm in the real world, and that's the MTF lens-sensor system, not just the lens. And that's not even close to the maximum possible resolution, nor to the maximum you can actually get in real life as you can. If you take the sharpest full-frame lens I know of whose MTF9 is limited to 400lp/mm because no testing apparatus was available that could go higher, the actual maximum is around 9600lp/mm. In any case, even the highest theoretical resolution of a phone is far lower than the practical resolutions of ILCs in use today, and is actually less than the sharpness of a 90$ lens on the very cheapest full-frame body you can find.

Indeed, take the Canon 50mm EF II, with an MTF50 yielding ~2000-2400lp/mm on the short edge of FF sensor. According to this source (https://www2.uned.es/personal/rosuna/resources/photography/D...), at around f/1.6 we should get around 420lp/mm, on the short edge that's 2142lp on the short edge, which is less than the cheapest EF lens in production right now. I don't know about you, but the best possible performance in theoretically perfect conditions being under the performance of the cheapest EF lens in the real world says something.

In real life, of course, the lens-sensor system will barely get close to the theoretically perfect result, and you will peak at the best possible result being around half the linear resolution of the cheapest production Canon lens.

Keep in mind, if you were to go for a larger sensor, you'd have to increase the focal length to compensate too. So 20% increase in sensor size length would need a 20% increase in focal length and at the same f number you'd need a 20% wider aperture too. And again, you'd be fixed at around 25mm FF eq. focal lengths, if you try more practical focal lengths like 50mm FF eq. you would see a drop in quality. They're already pretty much at their optical limits and have been for a while, actually f/1.6 isn't even the fastest phone lens - but those had smaller sensors still.

Post reply on HN