5 ms·

Check out Fuji's GFX100S. It's a consumer camera ($6000) that can take 400MP photos.

by Scene_Cast2 6y ago

throwanem 6y ago
I bet medium-format 1:1 macro lenses are spendy, though.
- namibj 6y ago
  Only if they're fast. Slow objectives would get by with lenses from e.g. regular eyeglasses arbitrary-aspheric production lines. It only gets expensive (>1000$) when you need fancy glass elements (or manage to waste a lot of money on inefficient R&D... computers are really good these days, and at least for fixed-focus prime lenses (you want 1:1, right?) the parameter space is fairly small. I can highly recommend [0] for some reading on how simple optics can be if you can optimize aspherics for a fixed focus. Just to state the obvious: two identical infinity-focused objectives can be placed with the infinity-corrected sides looking straight towards another, for a physically long 1:1 macro "lens". I wonder if there is a decent topology for a decently-high-NA reflective objective in the 1:1 to 1:10 (object:sensor) magnification range. And also whether some of those topologies would cope with a (sensor-sized) reflective spatial light modulator (LCoS/DLP would seem most practically relevant) in place of the sensor. I still get that mouth-watering imagination when thinking about direct digital (maskless) photolithography, as the flexibility is enormous, especially regarding rapid prototyping of highly integrated circuits (350 nm is the limit for single-patterning using aluminium-coated MEMS modulators (aka TI's DLP technology), due to the UV reflectivity drop below 400 nm and thermal limits of the MEMS device). [0]: https://www.telescope-optics.net/ https://www.telescope-optics.net/
  - jimduk 6y ago
    The back to back infinity-focussed objective set up works nicely with 2 sets of cheap infinity microscope objectives 2x or 4x back to back in a thorlabs tube. Paired lenses cancel out a lot of aberrations (but not all of them). I use this setup regularly for fairly close up, highly planar projective work. For 'low magnifications' say 2:1 and up the Edmunds 2X, 0.15 NA, Ultra Compact Objective has decent price/performance, but this is for sensors in the 1/1.8 - 1" range. If you come up with a nice, planar, cheapish 1:1 design for large sensors, drop me a line. (Disclaimer - not an optics person, but peered into the fascinating rabbit hole)
    - namibj 6y ago
      What numerical aperture and image circle are we talking about? 0.15 NA leaves a lot on the table (at least 0.6 NA objectives can be had for still-decent prices). But I'd probably look at a Zeiss Planar style design. In general, a 3/5-element design (achromat/apochromat) should do the trick I think, provided you have access to arbitrary aspherics. And in case you can accept a shift in focal length with wavelength (like monochromatic photolithography would), a single symmetric element should be up to the task, unless I'm missing something.
      - jimduk 6y ago
        Thanks, we are pretty low budget. Image circles are in the 1/3", 2/3" range and we are looking at patterns with say 5 to 50 um pitch on a flat planar object, monochromatic, we control illumination, standard 3.45 um pixels (so 1k to 5kish). We have a decent small design with two elements (good planarity, ok resolving and ok ish depth of field are what we care about). But we also sometimes look at larger frame (aps-c and up) and are also interested in smaller (eg VGA Omnivision type tiny module but with a decent planar macro lens e.g. f= 4 or 6mm, for 0.5 or 1x mag would be interesting). We do imager based metrology at the sub um and nm level
        namibj 6y ago
        Yeah, sounds like a normal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens from BK7 or so should do the trick. You'd have significant chromatic abberation, but with monochromatic illumination that's not a problem. This would just be 4 normal lenses, afaik. And you should be able to reach around 100 mm image circle I guess with the low NA you get away with at that relatively low resolution.
LegitShady 6y ago
>It's a consumer camera ($6000) very few consumers spend $6k on a camera, and if I spent $6k on a camera I wouldn't want it to be consumer.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  To be fair, in photography nowadays, the line between professional and consumer is veeeryy thin. I'm a hobbyist and spent 600$ on my camera, just a few years ago it was used by quite a few professionals.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    I spent some money on my 50d a long time ago, and its still a great camera. Then I spent thousands on EF lenses instead and those lenses will move to a 5d2 or whatever used body I find to replace the 50d.
    - namibj 6y ago
      Just curious: these are (mostly, weighted by cost) zoom lenses, right? Or did you invest a lot into very fast prime lenses?
      - LegitShady 6y ago
        I think fast primes are amazing but not convenient. My lens collection currently looks like this: Canon 50mm f/1.8 (because its fun and cheap) Canon 17-40mm f4/L Sigma 17-55mm f/2.8 Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro You can cover quite a bit of range with the 17-55 and 70-200 in just two lenses. I also have the original Canon EOS M with the 20mm pancake lense (which is super old at this point) with an adapter to stick EF lenses on it. When I upgrade to an actual full frame body (my 50d is an APS-C size sensor) I'll probably want to see how zoomed 200mm feels but until then I'm pretty happy. I still do a fair amount of hobby photography but it's one of a dozen hobbies so they probably don't get as much attention as they should.
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago

Check out Fuji's GFX100S. It's a consumer camera ($6000) that can take 400MP photos.

throwanem 6y ago

I bet medium-format 1:1 macro lenses are spendy, though.

namibj 6y ago
Only if they're fast. Slow objectives would get by with lenses from e.g. regular eyeglasses arbitrary-aspheric production lines. It only gets expensive (>1000$) when you need fancy glass elements (or manage to waste a lot of money on inefficient R&D... computers are really good these days, and at least for fixed-focus prime lenses (you want 1:1, right?) the parameter space is fairly small. I can highly recommend [0] for some reading on how simple optics can be if you can optimize aspherics for a fixed focus. Just to state the obvious: two identical infinity-focused objectives can be placed with the infinity-corrected sides looking straight towards another, for a physically long 1:1 macro "lens". I wonder if there is a decent topology for a decently-high-NA reflective objective in the 1:1 to 1:10 (object:sensor) magnification range. And also whether some of those topologies would cope with a (sensor-sized) reflective spatial light modulator (LCoS/DLP would seem most practically relevant) in place of the sensor. I still get that mouth-watering imagination when thinking about direct digital (maskless) photolithography, as the flexibility is enormous, especially regarding rapid prototyping of highly integrated circuits (350 nm is the limit for single-patterning using aluminium-coated MEMS modulators (aka TI's DLP technology), due to the UV reflectivity drop below 400 nm and thermal limits of the MEMS device). [0]: https://www.telescope-optics.net/ https://www.telescope-optics.net/
- jimduk 6y ago
  The back to back infinity-focussed objective set up works nicely with 2 sets of cheap infinity microscope objectives 2x or 4x back to back in a thorlabs tube. Paired lenses cancel out a lot of aberrations (but not all of them). I use this setup regularly for fairly close up, highly planar projective work. For 'low magnifications' say 2:1 and up the Edmunds 2X, 0.15 NA, Ultra Compact Objective has decent price/performance, but this is for sensors in the 1/1.8 - 1" range. If you come up with a nice, planar, cheapish 1:1 design for large sensors, drop me a line. (Disclaimer - not an optics person, but peered into the fascinating rabbit hole)
  - namibj 6y ago
    What numerical aperture and image circle are we talking about? 0.15 NA leaves a lot on the table (at least 0.6 NA objectives can be had for still-decent prices). But I'd probably look at a Zeiss Planar style design. In general, a 3/5-element design (achromat/apochromat) should do the trick I think, provided you have access to arbitrary aspherics. And in case you can accept a shift in focal length with wavelength (like monochromatic photolithography would), a single symmetric element should be up to the task, unless I'm missing something.
    - jimduk 6y ago
      Thanks, we are pretty low budget. Image circles are in the 1/3", 2/3" range and we are looking at patterns with say 5 to 50 um pitch on a flat planar object, monochromatic, we control illumination, standard 3.45 um pixels (so 1k to 5kish). We have a decent small design with two elements (good planarity, ok resolving and ok ish depth of field are what we care about). But we also sometimes look at larger frame (aps-c and up) and are also interested in smaller (eg VGA Omnivision type tiny module but with a decent planar macro lens e.g. f= 4 or 6mm, for 0.5 or 1x mag would be interesting). We do imager based metrology at the sub um and nm level
      - namibj 6y ago
        Yeah, sounds like a normal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens from BK7 or so should do the trick. You'd have significant chromatic abberation, but with monochromatic illumination that's not a problem. This would just be 4 normal lenses, afaik. And you should be able to reach around 100 mm image circle I guess with the low NA you get away with at that relatively low resolution.

LegitShady 6y ago

>It's a consumer camera ($6000) very few consumers spend $6k on a camera, and if I spent $6k on a camera I wouldn't want it to be consumer.

sudosysgen 6y ago
To be fair, in photography nowadays, the line between professional and consumer is veeeryy thin. I'm a hobbyist and spent 600$ on my camera, just a few years ago it was used by quite a few professionals.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  I spent some money on my 50d a long time ago, and its still a great camera. Then I spent thousands on EF lenses instead and those lenses will move to a 5d2 or whatever used body I find to replace the 50d.
  - namibj 6y ago
    Just curious: these are (mostly, weighted by cost) zoom lenses, right? Or did you invest a lot into very fast prime lenses?
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      I think fast primes are amazing but not convenient. My lens collection currently looks like this: Canon 50mm f/1.8 (because its fun and cheap) Canon 17-40mm f4/L Sigma 17-55mm f/2.8 Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro You can cover quite a bit of range with the 17-55 and 70-200 in just two lenses. I also have the original Canon EOS M with the 20mm pancake lense (which is super old at this point) with an adapter to stick EF lenses on it. When I upgrade to an actual full frame body (my 50d is an APS-C size sensor) I'll probably want to see how zoomed 200mm feels but until then I'm pretty happy. I still do a fair amount of hobby photography but it's one of a dozen hobbies so they probably don't get as much attention as they should.
- AuryGlenz 6y ago