DPReview reviews the D810... two years after release

[AvTvM]

Don: yes it does matter. With 500+ on a single charge, I get by for a typical day of mountaineering or city travel or a planned shooting. I may stilll carry along one (1) spare battery. But that's it. 250 shots is ... pathetic.

Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)

 

[Don Haines]

In general, the level of technology in mirrored and mirrorless camera is about the same..... the big difference is the mechanical shutter. It seems that it takes a lot of energy to hold that shutter open.

You mean the big difference is the mirror, and that it takes energy to hold the mirror up. It takes no energy to hold a shutter open or closed, only to move it.

You are right! I meant to say mirror..... I went back and edited my post..... thanks for pointing it out...

 

[Don Haines]

Don: yes it does matter. With 500+ on a single charge, I get by for a typical day of mountaineering or city travel or a planned shooting. I may stilll carry along one (1) spare battery. But that's it. 250 shots is ... pathetic.

Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)

I agree that 250 shots is pathetic..... at that rate I would be carrying about a dozen spare batteries for a one week canoe trip

My ideal next camera from canon would be a FF mirrorless camera, about the same physical size and toughness of build as the 7D2...... By getting rid of the mechanical mirror and using an EVF instead of the rear display panel I would expect considerably better battery life than the 5D3 or 7D2 when in liveview... probably is the 500 shot range or better...

I would like to see video at 60fps.... not so much as for the sake of video, but if you can read the sensor 60 times per second and you have a decent sized buffer, all of a sudden you are not talking about 7, 8,or 10FPS burst modes but 60.....(obviously they would allow you to select intermediate speeds as well)

Ergonomically, there is a lot to be said for the 5D3 sized camera body, for the way it fits the hands, and the physical space to lay out controls. I think that the futures of interchangeable lens cameras is mirrorless with a "real camera" form factor. Cameras like the Sonys, though technically excellent, loose a lot with that tiny body and once paired with a decent lens just don't feel right to use (at least to me).... In my opinion, Canon has the best ergonomics out there and I doubt they will throw it away in an effort to shrink mirrorless cameras... I think they will stay large.

 

[pierlux]

Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)

... and DPReview still hasn't reviewed the camera obscura since the 4th century B.C.!!!

 

[Don Haines]

Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)

... and DPReview still hasn't reviewed the camera obscura since the 4th century B.C.!!!

It's probably a bit too obscure for them to have noticed it....

 

[pierlux]

Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)

I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?

Whatever, count me in those 2... or 20 million buyers. 3 years ago I was about to get the Fujifilm X-100s, but used that money to finance the purchase of the TS-E 24mm instead, because I thought Canon would have released a FF mirrorless shortly after, damn rumors! Anyway, I have no regrets, though today I think I'd rather have bought the 17mm. One day I'll have both the 24 and the 17... one day... after the supertele... after the 5D4/6D2... one day :-\. That day will probably come before a Canon FF mirrorless.

 

[3kramd5]

I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?

As I recall, he wants something akin to a liquid crystal which electronically blacks out part of the iris rather than mechanical blades

 

[pierlux]

I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?

As I recall, he wants something akin to a liquid crystal which electronically blacks out part of the iris rather than mechanical blades

Ah, ok. But such a thing would greatly deteriorate IQ, unless alien technology is employed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Looking forward to my preferred camera species: 100% solid state. No mirror slapping. No shutter cocking. No aperture iris twitching. No separate Phase AF. No video capture. Even less so "4k". But very very energy efficient stills shooting machine. For me. And 1 or 2 ... or 1 million or 20 million other buyers. 8)

... and DPReview still hasn't reviewed the camera obscura since the 4th century B.C.!!!

It's probably a bit too obscure for them to have noticed it....

Not at all, they reviewed it a couple of years ago. They concluded that the camera obscura's AF and shadow lifting latitude were somewhat better that most if not all Canon cameras, but fell substantially behind the class-leading Nikon dSLRs.

 

[Mikehit]

Not at all, they reviewed it a couple of years ago. They concluded that the camera obscura's AF and shadow lifting latitude were somewhat better that most if not all Canon cameras, but fell substantially behind the class-leading Nikon dSLRs.

I wonder what their proposed upgrades would be?

 

[AvTvM]

I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?

As I recall, he wants something akin to a liquid crystal which electronically blacks out part of the iris rather than mechanical blades

Ah, ok. But such a thing would greatly deteriorate IQ, unless alien technology is employed.

Hopefully no. It will still take some time until we get it in our cameras, but the technology is there already. There will be a light loss due to the material not being 100% transparent in the "open" state, but hopefully we will eventually get it with very high transparency, no color cast and no distortions - optically as neutral as good glass today.

 

[3kramd5]

Hopefully no. It will still take some time until we get it in our cameras, but the technology is there already. There will be a light loss due to the material not being 100% transparent in the "open" state, but hopefully we will eventually get it with very high transparency, no color cast and no distortions - optically as neutral as good glass today.

I have to ask the question, though. If you want all solid state, no moving parts, are you going to be happy with fixed focal length lenses which don't focus? Or are you hoping for light field perhaps, or liquid lenses? Something else?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hopefully no. It will still take some time until we get it in our cameras, but the technology is there already. There will be a light loss due to the material not being 100% transparent in the "open" state, but hopefully we will eventually get it with very high transparency, no color cast and no distortions - optically as neutral as good glass today.

I have to ask the question, though. If you want all solid state, no moving parts, are you going to be happy with fixed focal length lenses which don't focus? Or are you hoping for light field perhaps, or liquid lenses? Something else?

So, you think AvTvM actually wants to take pictures with this imaginary fantasy-camera he's dreamed up?!?

 

[3kramd5]

So, you think AvTvM actually wants to take pictures with this imaginary fantasy-camera he's dreamed up?!?

No fewer than 500 per charge!

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?

As I recall, he wants something akin to a liquid crystal which electronically blacks out part of the iris rather than mechanical blades

Ah, ok. But such a thing would greatly deteriorate IQ, unless alien technology is employed.

Hopefully no. It will still take some time until we get it in our cameras, but the technology is there already. There will be a light loss due to the material not being 100% transparent in the "open" state, but hopefully we will eventually get it with very high transparency, no color cast and no distortions - optically as neutral as good glass today.

I also remember being told that digital cameras will never be as good as film...... and that nobody is going to use their phone to take pictures.....

 

[3kramd5]

I'm not familiar with mirrorless, but... I suppose a twitching iris should be there in any case, shouldn't it?

As I recall, he wants something akin to a liquid crystal which electronically blacks out part of the iris rather than mechanical blades

Ah, ok. But such a thing would greatly deteriorate IQ, unless alien technology is employed.

Hopefully no. It will still take some time until we get it in our cameras, but the technology is there already. There will be a light loss due to the material not being 100% transparent in the "open" state, but hopefully we will eventually get it with very high transparency, no color cast and no distortions - optically as neutral as good glass today.

I also remember being told that digital cameras will never be as good as film...... and that nobody is going to use their phone to take pictures.....

http://www.smarttint.com/

I imagine that with a little work, something like that could be made optics-level quality, or at least be close enough that signal amplification can overcome whatever loss the glass induces. Color cast is easily treated with calibrated workflow.

If it could be made truly opaque (which would actually be a larger concern to me than its transparency), perhaps diffraction would become a non-issue (since there wouldn't be a physical opening the light is passing through, but rather a transparent portion of an otherwise opaque lens).

 

[AvTvM]

So, you think AvTvM actually wants to take pictures with this imaginary fantasy-camera he's dreamed up?!?

No fewer than 500 per charge!

yep, exactly! ;D 8)

 

[AvTvM]

re. solid state electronic aperture, no moving parts whatsoever, transparent and opaque, variable size circle, perfectly round. Cannot tell whether transition is soft or hard [edge] ... so diffraction may still apply. But certainly no "light stars" around point light sources.

Posted it already some time ago: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28439.msg562253#msg562253

------
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6924547&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6924547

------
"This work proposes an innovative solid-state variable micro aperture with no moving component. The aperture size can be varied by the change of applied voltage. PDLC (polymer dispersed liquid crystal) plays an important role in tunability of this device. By combing a micro dome structure and the PDLC, the tum-on threshold voltage at a farther radial position to the aperture center can be made higher than that at a closer position. This way, the aperture can open gradually as increasing the voltage."

 

[bwud]

Cool stuff. What about focusing a lens with no moving parts? Just rely on plenoptics and interpolate in post?

 

[neuroanatomist]

But certainly no "light stars" around point light sources.

Yeah, nobody wants those. :

What about focusing a lens with no moving parts? Just rely on plenoptics and interpolate in post?

Well, you know...AvTvM and reality have a long history of not seeing eye to eye.