lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would
you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo
meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter
and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most
films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica.
The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior
cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor,
Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc.
Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not
make a good camera. Do you agree?
My questions are about another critical component which makes good
quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new
CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera. I
visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as
http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites
undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from
others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you
find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to
read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know
what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous
for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get
excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on
this?
In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a
lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize
their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor
technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this
issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image
sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera
will be crappy.
On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all
CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether
you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD
and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon?
Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc
who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS
technology better than the other?
So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and
image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony,
Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others?
I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica
(who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital
cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by
Sony.
Thanks for the discussion.

aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:
> Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
> distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
> producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would
> you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo
> meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter
> and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most
> films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica.
> The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior
> cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor,
> Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc.
> Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not
> make a good camera. Do you agree?
> My questions are about another critical component which makes good
> quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new
> CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera. I
> visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as
> http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites
> undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from
> others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you
> find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to
> read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know
> what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous
> for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get
> excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on
> this?
> In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a
> lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize
> their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor
> technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this
> issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image
> sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera
> will be crappy.
> On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all
> CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether
> you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD
> and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon?
> Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc
> who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS
> technology better than the other?
> So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and
> image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony,
> Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others?
> I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica
> (who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital
> cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by
> Sony.
> Thanks for the discussion.
>

If you left out a few periods and spaces, you could have made your post even
harder to read.

Better yet, don't even bother with capitalizing. Just use one long stream of
lowercase characters without any spaces whatsoever. Readers will think it as
a puzzle and be pleased.

aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:
> Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
> distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
> producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would
> you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo
> meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter
> and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most
> films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica.
> The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior
> cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor,
> Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc.
> Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not
> make a good camera. Do you agree?
> My questions are about another critical component which makes good
> quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new
> CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera. I
> visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as
> http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review
> sites undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one
> camera from others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of
> those sites, you find out conclusively that all cameras are all good
> (Just like when to read all different car magazines for best cars).
> Well... I like to know what are the superiority of a camera over the
> other. Nikon is famous for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good
> CCD or CMOS to get excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide
> me with some input on this?
> In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see
> a lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to
> utilize their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image
> sensor technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss
> about this issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your
> technology of image sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in
> the digital camera will be crappy.
> On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all
> CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether
> you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these
> CCD and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips,
> Canon? Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel,
> AMD, etc who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS
> technology better than the other?
> So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and
> image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony,
> Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others?
> I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica
> (who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their
> digital cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being
> picked up by Sony.
> Thanks for the discussion.

I would say it is not easy to say and compare since it is only the final
product that counts and the variables all intermix.

Test the camera(s) you are considering to see how they do the kind of
work you are interested in and how they feel to you. After than don't worry
about how they got there.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

<aniramca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
> distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
> producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would
> you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo
> meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter
> and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most
> films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica.

But there were HUGE variations in film, from Kodachrome 25 and 64 (and the
unlamented 200) Ektar/Gold 25, Protra through Fuji Reala, Fujipress, the
list goes on. And then there were the black and white films, like Technical
Pan, Panatomic X, Delta, etc. All of them had distinctly different
characteristics.

> The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior
> cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor,
> Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc.
> Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not
> make a good camera. Do you agree?

It never did. It made a good lens and a good image, but not a good camera.
A good lens is critical, no matter what the medium.

> My questions are about another critical component which makes good
> quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new
> CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera.

Well, the sensor isn't the "brain," the processor is. The sensor is the
replacement for the film. And just as critical.

I
> visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as
> http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites
> undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from
> others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you
> find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to
> read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know
> what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous
> for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get
> excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on
> this?
> In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a
> lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize
> their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor
> technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this
> issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image
> sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera
> will be crappy.
> On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all
> CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether
> you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD
> and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon?
> Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc
> who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS
> technology better than the other?
> So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and
> image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony,
> Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others?
> I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica
> (who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital
> cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by
> Sony.
> Thanks for the discussion.
>
Sony makes the majority of sensors for P&S cameras, and many of the DSLRs,
too, including Pentax, most of Nikons. Panasonic makes some (Olympus?) as
does Kodak (Leica). Canon makes most of their own, as far as DSLRs are
concerned. K/M's failure wasn't due to not producing a good sensor, Sony
made them before the acquisition. It was more a failure of business plan.
One reason for the unanimity of reviews is that most cameras perform more
than acceptably. There are no really bad sensors, some are just better than
others, and, to a large degree, which is which is a matter of taste. Even
Sigma/Foveon has its adherents.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Yoggi Berra said something like baseball is 90% physical and the other
50% is mental. I think photography is about the same.

I don't think you can rule out the human element because equipment
choice of the right stuff for the project is a huge consideration. You
don't take a camera will a large telephoto lense on a scuba dive and
expect to get any pictures. But anyway.

The lense is the most important thing. Here's a test. Go smear
vasoline on a lens and try to take a picture. Nope. Nada. You've got
to be able to see it.

Film was the next most important. You needed to select the right file
(but you've ruled out the human element). Film can make a huge
different. That's why there are/where so many.

Finally the camera. Well, that's pretty irrelevent. It's just a box
to keep out the light. You don't need light meters and winders and
flashes to take great pictures. Look at all of the large format stuff
without it. Heck, a hand light meter normally beats the heck out of a
camera's meter.

<aniramca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
> distribution of critical components of a camera

This rather pointless attribution of % values reminds me of the famous joke
where the parts of the body are arguing about their relative worth.

A version can be found here: http://joek.com/jokes/joke_102.shtml

--
Jeff R.

On Dec 8, 6:57 pm, "Skip" <shadowcatc...@cox.net> wrote:
> <anira...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.g ooglegroups.com...
>
> > Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
> > distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
> > producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would
> > you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo
> > meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter
> > and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most
> > films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica.But there were HUGE variations in film, from Kodachrome 25 and 64 (and the
> unlamented 200) Ektar/Gold 25, Protra through Fuji Reala, Fujipress, the
> list goes on. And then there were the black and white films, like Technical
> Pan, Panatomic X, Delta, etc. All of them had distinctly different
> characteristics.
>
> > The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior
> > cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor,
> > Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc.
> > Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not
> > make a good camera. Do you agree?It never did. It made a good lens and a good image, but not a good camera.
> A good lens is critical, no matter what the medium.
>
> > My questions are about another critical component which makes good
> > quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new
> > CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera.Well, the sensor isn't the "brain," the processor is. The sensor is the
> replacement for the film. And just as critical.
>
> I
>
>
>
> > visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as
> >http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites
> > undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from
> > others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you
> > find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to
> > read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know
> > what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous
> > for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get
> > excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on
> > this?
> > In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a
> > lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize
> > their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor
> > technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this
> > issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image
> > sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera
> > will be crappy.
> > On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all
> > CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether
> > you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD
> > and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon?
> > Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc
> > who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS
> > technology better than the other?
> > So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and
> > image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony,
> > Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others?
> > I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica
> > (who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital
> > cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by
> > Sony.
> > Thanks for the discussion.Sony makes the majority of sensors for P&S cameras, and many of the DSLRs,
> too, including Pentax, most of Nikons. Panasonic makes some (Olympus?) as
> does Kodak (Leica). Canon makes most of their own, as far as DSLRs are
> concerned. K/M's failure wasn't due to not producing a good sensor, Sony
> made them before the acquisition. It was more a failure of business plan.
> One reason for the unanimity of reviews is that most cameras perform more
> than acceptably. There are no really bad sensors, some are just better than
> others, and, to a large degree, which is which is a matter of taste. Even
> Sigma/Foveon has its adherents.
> --
> Skip Middletonwww.shadowcatcherimagery.comwww.pbase.com/skipm- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Pat wrote:

> Finally the camera. Well, that's pretty irrelevent. It's just a box
> to keep out the light.

That's only true of film cameras. With Digital cameras, it is quite
relevant --- true that the variation between quality for different
cameras is perhaps not as high, or doesn't have as much impact, as
the variation between different types of film. But still, the rules
completely change with digital cameras, since the film is now one
of the intrinsic, non-removable-non-replaceable-non-refillable
components of the camera.

Also, for P&S cameras, the lens is part of the camera as well (but
then, P&S things do not even qualify as "cameras", so we'll keep
them out of the discussion )

Carlos
--

<aniramca@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
> distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
> producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would you
> say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo meter,
> and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter and 5%
> film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most films were
> either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica. [..]

Nice troll.

In article <1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
aniramca@yahoo.com writes
>Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon?

The CCD was first proposed on October 17th 1969 by Willard Boyle and
George Smith of Bell Labs which, as of last week, is now part of the
French communications giant Alcatel-Lucent. The original intention of
the CCD was not an imaging device, but a semiconductor analogue of
magnetic bubble memory devices. The manufacturing technique was first
developed and an imaging device demonstrated a few months later in 1970
by another Bell Labs worker, Gilbert Amelio, who subsequently moved to
Fairchild on the west coast to productionise and continue th development
of imaging CCD sensors. Amelio then went on to run National
Semiconductor, followed by a period in charge of Apple Computers.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)