Photonic Shunkan

A field system is for sports, wildlife, reportage, and street photography. A studio system is for more methodical use in ideal light situations where portability is less of an issue. As with all dichotomies, the margins are always blurred, but I see this as a good thing. For some, the field is the studio, and Ansel Adams did take his large format camera out into Yosemite. I still find the term "field" vs "studio" camera to be a useful distinction for the purposes of discussion. The most interesting phenomenon today is that we can squeeze much better quality out of much smaller formats. The basic field camera in everyday use today is the phone camera. Today, M4/3 and APS-C cameras are maturing into remarkably highly resolving field systems. It used to be that 35mm format was considered a low resolution field system that compromised on image quality for ergonomic gain. You could even buy a disposable 35mm camera at souvenir shops at tourist spots (and nobody t

The largest astronomical telescope is the Gran Telescopio Canarias in Spain. It has an effective aperture of 10.4m in diameter. The larger the aperture, the better the resolution. Even in a post-truth world you still cannot overcome the limits imposed by physics. This brings us to a widespread delusion amongst photo enthusiasts today. Many think that the sensor resolution on their cameras can be increased infinitely. People think that at the present rate of exponential rise in digital sensor resolution that the sky is the limit. Soon we may get smartphone sensors that reach 100MP in resolution, 35mm format sensors that reach 100TP (terapixels) etc etc ad infinitum. But there is a problem. It is called the lens. You can increase the bandwidth of the digital component all you want but you have to increase the size of the lens to go with that. If you wanted to make use of a camera sensor with 100TP in resolution, you might need to mount a lens with a nice 10-metre aperture diameter t

This comes from the Phase One website: Notice that Phase One refer to a digital 645 format equivalent sensor as "full frame". That is probably correct given that the largest format used in standard civilian photography is a 645 format sensor. In addition to the 645 (53.7 × 40.2mm; similar to the 56 × 42mm imaging frame size of 645 format film) and 4433 (43.8 × 32.9mm) format medium format sensor, some video cameras use sensors larger than 35mm (36 × 24mm) format e.g. 54.12 × 25.59mm Arri sensor. There is also the Leica S system with its 45 × 30mm format sensor. That means there are several sensor size formats larger than 35mm format making it increasingly difficult to hail something running in fifth place the leader in the size stakes. Newer video camera sensor formats are now growing larger than 35mm format It is probably only a matter of time before even larger digital photography 670 format sensors go into production though that may not happen for another 6-12

I've found myself thinking this seemingly simple question with an obvious answer: what are mirrorless cameras? And further what is the point of them? Now you might answer that everyone knows what a "mirrorless" camera is. They are very popular after all. The trouble is that a pinhole camera made from a shoebox has no mirror and is, therefore, a mirrorless camera. The earliest daguerreotype cameras introduced in 1839 were also a mirrorless design. ILLUSTRATION: SUSANNA CELESTE CASTELLI, DENSITYDESIGN RESEARCH LAB; SOURCE: GEORGE EASTMAN HOUSE INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM OF PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILM Contrary to popular opinion, rangefinder cameras are also mirrorless cameras. Why? Simple: they have no mirror! So what makes 21st-century "mirrorless cameras" different then to daguerreotype cameras and rangefinders from the nineteenth to early twentieth century? The answer is the electronic viewfinder. We should really call them "mirrorless electronic viewfinder

My rather notorious piece critiquing the Sony 35mm format E mount mirrorless system written for Petapixel (from April 2016): https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/ A lot of new information has come to light since especially now that Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic have announced their own 35mm format mirrorless systems. First and foremost there is this presentation by Canon at the time the R mount system was announced: https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1158578.html The diagram I draw your attention to from Canon's media presentation on the new mirrorless R mount is this: It turns out that based on Canon's optical research that the problem with an 35mm format mount with APS-C mount dimensions isn't just a short flange distance but when this is combined with a narrow mount diameter. Note the way light is forced to diffract awkwardly into the sensor corners. It is surmountable but it also means you need a large len

It looks like Hasselblad are up to it again in trying to pre-empt Fuji in releasing a new model. The last time, they released the X1d ahead of the GFX50s even though Hasselblad had no previous experience with mirrorless cameras. The end result was a Hasselblad beta model rushed into production in an effort to steal the limelight from Fuji. The Chinese DJI owned firm didn't even manage to incorporate live exposure preview when first released. Now Hasselblad appear to be rushing a new model into production with the same 100MP Sony 4433 (44 x 33mm) medium format BSI sensor that Fuji intend to use on their GFX100. As yet too little is known about the specs of either of the two new bodies. So far the Fuji GFX system has proven to be the one that has made the biggest impact in the marketplace. It is looking like medium format has returned to the mainstream of photography once more. So much so that 35mm format can no longer be called "full frame". In fact, Phase One calls its