FF camera body with interchangeable mounts

[mistamal]

Dear community,

Do you know if there is a compact FF camera that allows for multiple mounts and a firmware setting to define the lens type?

I'm thinking that it would be able to harness the best of all worlds (worlds being lens designs for various sensor sizes) provided that it has the same pixel density of the smaller sensor sizes. This way one could have a compact camera when needed (increased zoom factor etc) or a pro type camera in other situations (more DOF, low light, etc).

I'm sure this would turn out to be economical as well: one would chose the best value lenses for any given application - throughout the entire mount catalog. No more "speciality" lens constraints due to mount/sensor size/type.

Also, why isn't pixel density and surface a mandatory spec for sensors?

Cheers,

m

[pnodrog]

Wait ten years...... and do not expect it to come from Canon or Nikon.

[Inkanyezi]

There is one, or two, Sony α7 and α7r.

There are however problems associated with digital sensors that make it unfeasible to use just any lens. Back focus distance can be too short for the micro-lenses in front of the sensels, so that a very short symmetric focal length will not perform well out to the extremes of the image area. Notably, the Summilux 35 mm f/1.4 for Leica RF cameras has shown problems, and the wide angle lenses that work well have longer back focal length, as those made for SLR cameras.

And don't worry, the pixel density is crammed enough.

There isn't however, any possibility to use lenses other that Sony for AF and automatic features beyond A automation. But there is an adapter for Sony DSLR lenses and Minolta lenses.

[Saorsa]

It adds several levels of complexity to camera design without any real improvement. I believe Ricoh was trying something like this with their GXR modular camera line.

It's one of those things that are technically feasible but not likely to be worthwhile given the rate of changes in technology over time. For example, it's easy to change firmware or lenses but, things like buffer size, processing capacity are more difficult.

[Inkanyezi]

I believe Ricoh was trying something like this with their GXR modular camera line.

Those cameras in fact have a more or less complete camera that was interchanged in front of a power and display module, very much like the Sony approach for smartphones. Sensors on the modules vary in size, the largest being APS-C with an interchangeable mount that takes Leica RF lenses.

[mistamal]

So I guess the limitation is the actual sensor technology. Ah well maybe someone will come up with the next version of the Ricoh with a fully modular camera (sensor, mount, CPU, body, etc).

I'm convinced this would really cut costs and allow the enthusiast to have pro-grade equipment. Let's just wait for someone to Kickstart an open source camera....

[Inkanyezi]

It's unlikely that such a camera will come up. The difference in sensor sizes is so large, that it is more or less infeasible to make a camera more compact than the Sony α7 with a FF sensor. The Ricoh camera mentioned is not very compact compared to many compact models, and the differences between FF and other sizes are too large for a Swiss army knife approach. The Sony α7 will accept lenses for APS-C, and there are more compact bodies for those lenses, but there isn't one size for all. The complexity and pricing of some of the components make an approach with different bodies as well as lenses more attractive to most of us.

There are also other approaches, making a small sensor behave as a larger one, as the Metabones Speed Booster, which can make an APS-C camera may perform better than the full format camera of just a couple of years back did. They made the Speed Booster so that it can accept Canon lenses with AF, and there are APS-C cameras that are substantially better than some FF cameras with respect to image quality. I am thinking particularly of the Fujifilm mirror-free systems, that have sensors that are superior to the Canon FF sensors in a few respects. With a Canon lens and a Speed Booster on such a camera, you'll get the FF result with a smaller and more compact system.

So there are also other approzaches than having different sensor size.

[Saorsa]

So I guess the limitation is the actual sensor technology. Ah well maybe someone will come up with the next version of the Ricoh with a fully modular camera (sensor, mount, CPU, body, etc).

I'm convinced this would really cut costs and allow the enthusiast to have pro-grade equipment. Let's just wait for someone to Kickstart an open source camera....

To an extent, I already have this with a Nikon F4, Nikon D300 and D90 and a Nikon V1 with an FT1-adapter. All of my legacy lenses work fine with it except for the Non-AI 55mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor.

I think Thom Hogan has been proposing a modular approach with wireless connectivity for some time. I've yet to be convinced that this is really desirable.

[JR1]

impossible as every manufacturer has a different connection, mount, connections etc, won't happen

[Saorsa]

impossible as every manufacturer has a different connection, mount, connections etc, won't happen

That doesn't make it impossible. It just makes it complex. The electronics industry has been moving to standardized connectors and interconnections for some time. Just look at USB or DB 9, 25, etc. It's even true in software.

[Manfred M]

The simple answer is no, it is not technically feasible across 100% of the equipment that exists out there today. The solution would certainly not be economical, because everything would have to be designed to handle the “worst case” scenario, which in this example is the full-frame camera.

Most full-frame glass out there is designed for (D)SLR cameras. This influences the flange to sensor distance and the image circle of the lens. Because of the size of the image circle, this drives the mirror / mirror box design which adds to the size and bulk of the camera. The compactness of the Leica digital rangefinder and micro four-thirds (mFT) designs is largely due to the fact that the lenses can be set much closer to the sensor plane because they do not have to clear the mirror swing.

The second issue is the image circle of the lens. A lens has to be able to cover the entire sensor, which means a universal lens would have to be large enough to project a sharp image across, in the case of the example you cite, the full-frame sensor. This will mean that an expensive, full-frame lens will be required for all of the scenarios you put forward. The less expensive lenses that cover the smaller image circles could not be used.

The third issue is that the flange to sensor distance would drive this design. Each manufacturer has chosen a very specific design distance. Every lens would be equipped with an adaptor / spacer to compensate for these differences. At 9.2mm, the Pentax Q-mount sets the tightest standard, so this would be the lowest common denominator and other lenses would have to be adapted to work with this mount. As this mount likely won’t work for full-frame, the smallest flange distance for full-frame use appears to be the Leica M mount (27.8mmm).

The added complexity would be finding a way to handle all of the electric and mechanical couplings to get various lenses to work (nicely said, this is going to be extremely complicated).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

As for the pixel density argument, this is already handled by existing technology, but again relies on sub-optimizing a full-frame sensor. My full frame camera can already produce crop frame images and even smaller 2K (1920 x 1280) images (still shots out of HD video mode). Again, the lowest common denominator is the full frame camera.

The pixel density is a bit of a moot point; small pitch sensors are being produced; the total pixel count, which is linked to the surface area of the sensor, is really the only connection here.

If you look at the Nikon line; I can already use my full-frame lenses on my crop frame body, as they share the same mount. I can also put my crop frame lenses on my full-frame body and have the camera automatically shoot in crop frame mode. I can buy an adaptor and attach my full-frame lenses to the Nikon 1 body. Similarly, I can buy an adaptor for my mFT body and use my full-frame Leica lenses on it.

So, rather than simplifying things and making thing less expensive, your suggestion would likely have the opposite effect of driving everything to full-frame sizes and hence costs.

[Manfred M]

That doesn't make it impossible. It just makes it complex. The electronics industry has been moving to standardized connectors and interconnections for some time. Just look at USB or DB 9, 25, etc. It's even true in software.

The electronics is likely simpler than the mechanical interface.

[ajohnw]

Some thing vaguely similar to this has been done and there is a remote possibility that more along the same lines might appear but the main manufacturers probably wont like it.

Basically it's an intelligent adapter that sits between the camera and lens and provides the compatibility between the 2 allowing full control of lenses from another manufacturer. There are several Canon lens adapters about that allow aperture to be set. This area seems to be of most interest to people who shoot movies. I did see a prototype on the web some time ago and things do seem to be moving eg

http://www.dl-kipon.com/en/articledetail.asp?id=56

but that is just aperture.

John
-

[ajohnw]

It adds several levels of complexity to camera design without any real improvement. I believe Ricoh was trying something like this with their GXR modular camera line.

It's one of those things that are technically feasible but not likely to be worthwhile given the rate of changes in technology over time. For example, it's easy to change firmware or lenses but, things like buffer size, processing capacity are more difficult.

There was some press excitement when this was introduced but it doesn't seem to have caught on. These days I feel it's better to adopt the same idea via 2 cameras with different sensor sizes. On the small sensor camera I don't think 1.5 crop goes small enough.

John
-

[Saorsa]

The camera body is the simple part. Those processes are well known over time.

The problem stems from the sensors. This is the point where an analog signal (light) is captured and converted to digital values at various wavelengths. These need to be converted to a processable value. We call this a pixel and at the point prior to that conversion there can be any number of methods. CMOS, CCD, etc. Each of those makes their own demands for physical interfaces and processing.

The processing elements need to consider the size of the raw data and how often it will change. In the case of video, it changes at a predetermined rate but in the case of a still camera it changes less frequently. This means that you don't need as much temporary storage (buffer) and processing power to keep the flow of images going to the storage device.

It's lots easier to just create a new camera model than try to make all this stuff modular.

[benm]

I'm sure this would turn out to be economical as well:

Economical maybe for you and me. What's in it for the camera companies? Currently, you are locked into a particular manufacturer - why would they want to change that?

[pnodrog]

Standardisation is a big inhibiting factor for innovation, research and development. Until the technology has matured to a far greater extent than it has at this stage I would be very reluctant to ask for standardisation.

Just about any standard would be superseded and become restrictive in less than a year....

[ajohnw]

Standardisation is a big inhibiting factor for innovation, research and development. Until the technology has matured to a far greater extent than it has at this stage I would be very reluctant to ask for standardisation.

Just about any standard would be superseded and become restrictive in less than a year....

In many respects the mounts are standardised now as far as a specific manufacturers is concerned. EOS has been around for ages as has the Nikon variants - that particular one has had a lot of impact on how it's future development has panned out.

The bells and whistles in cameras are also standardised after a fashion, called different things but all manufacturers tend to evolve them in the same way and even at the same time. Real innovation is rather thin on the ground.

John
-

[Glenn NK]

Well it hasn't changed in the automobile industry (except for tires, wiper blades and a few other minor components). Not long ago, headlights were standard items but no longer.

Why would it change for cameras?

And why would one brand (Nikon or Canon for example) compromise their design? There are enough compromises in the design of any complex product without adding more complexity so a few users can interchange camera parts.

So it will not likely happen to any significant degree.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/283700.html

Glenn

[Saorsa]

In many respects the mounts are standardised now as far as a specific manufacturers is concerned. EOS has been around for ages as has the Nikon variants - that particular one has had a lot of impact on how it's future development has panned out.

The bells and whistles in cameras are also standardised after a fashion, called different things but all manufacturers tend to evolve them in the same way and even at the same time. Real innovation is rather thin on the ground.

John
-

I think Nikon has been much better with their support of legacy lenses than most.

With the exception of really old lenses (Non-AI) I can use every one of my Nikkors on my current cameras. The only really old one I have left is a Micro-Nikkor that is Pre-AI and only gets mounted on tubes or bellows.

Some bodies don't support the mechanical AF but only my Nikon 1 requires me to use manual focus with them.