Samsung's mirrorless APS "shot across the bow"
RichA
in the APS sensor camera field, but with a little effort...
RichA
Just to add, this also puts another nail in the Pentax coffin since
there will be no more K-mount/Pentax bodied Samsung DSLRs.
David J Taylor
news:8b9d2e41-7a35-41a1...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Admittedly, they aren't the most likely company to start an revolution
> in the APS sensor camera field, but with a little effort...
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx10/
Oh, dear! A NAIL camera!
Not Another Interchangeable Lens
Please not another lens mount!
David
R. Mark Clayton
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b9d2e41-7a35-41a1...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> in the APS sensor camera field, but with a little effort...
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx10/
Most film SLR cameras are / were 35mm ("full frame"), however there were
Pentax 110, Minolta and other APS format and larger formats (e.g. Pentax
645)
Whether cameras with mirrors will survive long term remains to be seen, but
I am doubtful as an EVF camera allows you to see what can be shot with the
sensor rather than just an image. The other issue is size, without the
mirrors a camera with equivalent resolution and field of view can be smaller
with a smaller lens [system].
PS anyone sell twin lens reflex cameras any more?
Bowser
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b9d2e41-7a35-41a1...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Admittedly, they aren't the most likely company to start an revolution
> in the APS sensor camera field, but with a little effort...
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx10/
Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus quickly?
How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can contain a
larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).
Richard
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:jr6dnf2m4v4cZtzW...@bt.com...
>
> PS anyone sell twin lens reflex cameras any more?
Paul Furman
The only other such model is probably that Leica?
This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
expect the price to reflect that.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Peter Chant
>> Love the concept, so let's see about the execution. Can it focus
>> quickly? How's the IQ? At least someone is showing us a small camera can
>> contain a larger sensor (larger than the usual P&S crap).
>
> The only other such model is probably that Leica?
>
> This looks like something I might actually buy, with the fast-ish normal
> pancake lens. I've been eyeing the micro 4/3 cameras but the price gets
> in the way plus I'd like something with a reasonable option to use my
> slr lenses on, and something without a mirror for macro stacking & time
> lapse work. The viewfinder kind of stinks and no articulated LCD but I'd
> expect the price to reflect that.
>
I can't see the advantage of the NX over micro 4/3. What is it? They both
do away with the reflex mirror. The NX camera shown has an EVF, but micro
4/3 can do that if it wants? Is it just variations on a theme?
Pete
R. Mark Clayton
"Richard" <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:4b420415$0$2529$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
The exception that proves the rule.
Bit like valve amplifiers though...
Bruce
Alas Rollei are now bust, and Yashica ended TLR production quite a few
years ago. Although I know of a UK camera store that has a brand new,
unused Yashica 124G TLR for sale ...
RichA
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:06:43 -0000, "Richard"
>
> >"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:jr6dnf2m4v4cZtzW...@bt.com...
>
> >> PS anyone sell twin lens reflex cameras any more?
>
> >Yes.
> >http://microsites.lomography.com/seagull/
>
> Alas Rollei are now bust, and Yashica ended TLR production quite a few
> years ago. Although I know of a UK camera store that has a brand new,
> unused Yashica 124G TLR for sale ...
A horrible, cheesy TLR. Better to get a Mamiya.
Richard
Not at all like a valve amplifier (IMNSHO)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/rollei/images/rolleiflex28.jpg
http://www.techdigest.tv/mystere_ia21_valve_amplifier.jpg
;)
R. Mark Clayton
"Richard" <smit...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> Bit like valve amplifiers though...
>
> Not at all like a valve amplifier (IMNSHO)
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/rollei/images/rolleiflex28.jpg
> http://www.techdigest.tv/mystere_ia21_valve_amplifier.jpg
> ;)
The mindset is.
Adherents of valve hi-fi amplifiers claim that the sound is better, whereas
the reality is that the noise level is far higher (those heated cathodes -
Boltzman and all that) and the fidelity less. The only advantage is that
due to its deficiencies an overdriven valve amp gently rounds off the peaks
whereas a semiconductor amp clips (which sounds terrible). They also pay
bundles for a valve amp where the component valves cost a few dollars each.
Similarly users of particular cameras systems will illogically claim they
are better than more advanced solutions. In the long run EVF will supplant
SLR because it is better in the same way that SLR supplanted TLR. Just
complaining about problems with current systems will not change the
underlying fact.
dj_nme
<snip>
>
> I can't see the advantage of the NX over micro 4/3. What is it? They both
> do away with the reflex mirror. The NX camera shown has an EVF, but micro
> 4/3 can do that if it wants? Is it just variations on a theme?
>
> Pete
For a start, the Samsung NX10 has an APS-c sized sensor, which is 30%
bigger than the 4/3 sensor in the mu4/3 cameras and this bodes well for
it's high iso against them.
The NX seems to be directly competing against the Panasonic G1 and GH1,
which have the same form-factor, but smaller sensors and slightly larger
bodies.
Richard
It is most unfortunate that I understand completely and have from the
outset.
A question was asked.
It was answered, with a link for proof.
Problem?
A comparison was made.
The difference explained (this time pictures).
Problem?
Regards,
Richard
RichA
wrote:
> "Richard" <smith...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:4b445273$0$2480$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> SNUP
>
> >> Bit like valve amplifiers though...
>
> > Not at all like a valve amplifier (IMNSHO)
> >http://www.kenrockwell.com/rollei/images/rolleiflex28.jpg
> >http://www.techdigest.tv/mystere_ia21_valve_amplifier.jpg
> > ;)
>
> The mindset is.
>
> Adherents of valve hi-fi amplifiers claim that the sound is better, whereas
> the reality is that the noise level is far higher (those heated cathodes -
> Boltzman and all that) and the fidelity less. The only advantage is that
> due to its deficiencies an overdriven valve amp gently rounds off the peaks
> whereas a semiconductor amp clips (which sounds terrible). They also pay
> bundles for a valve amp where the component valves cost a few dollars each.
>
Not really. 300B values can cost $300/ea. (using the Western Electric
manufacturing process) or more. The Chinese have made some cheap
ones.
There have been some really interesting limited production amps made
using old military value stock.
You are right, they do distort and have higher noise, but the sound
can be pleasant.
R. Mark Clayton
On Jan 6, 5:27 am, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "Richard" <smith...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:4b445273$0$2480$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> SNUP
>
> >> Bit like valve amplifiers though...
>
> > Not at all like a valve amplifier (IMNSHO)
>
> The mindset is.
>
> Adherents of valve hi-fi amplifiers claim that the sound is better,
> whereas
> the reality is that the noise level is far higher (those heated cathodes -
> Boltzman and all that) and the fidelity less. The only advantage is that
> due to its deficiencies an overdriven valve amp gently rounds off the
> peaks
> whereas a semiconductor amp clips (which sounds terrible). They also pay
> bundles for a valve amp where the component valves cost a few dollars
> each.
>
: Not really. 300B values can cost $300/ea. (using the Western Electric
manufacturing process) or more. The Chinese have made some cheap
ones.
A sucker can pay $300 for a speaker cable or digital internconnects, but
that does not mean to say that is what it cost to make. Back in the days
when TV's were full of valves, replacements cost a dollor or two retail,
indeed even now sophisticated audio valves (e.g. EL81) are still only �6
($10) new.
The other big problem with valves is low MTBF, which on ones that got a hard
life (like the PCL85/805) was not much better than a light bulb...
I almost forgot another fadist category - vinyl record buffs, who maintain
(against all the evidence) that their worn hissy crackly records, played
with wow, flutter and usually a generous helping of crosstalk are better
than CD's - I still remember some of the article in EDN - CD's have a
dynamic range of 96dB, which pretty much goes from inaudible to deafening.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Adherents of valve hi-fi amplifiers claim that the sound is better, whereas
> the reality is that the noise level is far higher (those heated cathodes -
> Boltzman and all that) and the fidelity less.
You write that down as if they were opposites.
As if "the sound is better" merely was 'less noise' and 'higher
fidelity'.
As if a TIFF was million times better than a JPEG for viewing at
web resolutions and on your browser, because JPEG has evened out
detail, quantisised data (and thus added noise) and destroyed
most of the fidelity.
> The only advantage is that
> due to its deficiencies an overdriven valve amp gently rounds off the peaks
> whereas a semiconductor amp clips (which sounds terrible).
There's another advantage. It's obvious:
> They also pay
> bundles for a valve amp where the component valves cost a few dollars each.
... there is something they want, for some reason (and that
reason is the advantage) so much, they put much money where
their mouth is.
> Similarly users of particular cameras systems will illogically claim they
> are better than more advanced solutions. In the long run EVF will supplant
> SLR because it is better in the same way that SLR supplanted TLR. Just
> complaining about problems with current systems will not change the
> underlying fact.
In the future, artifical intelligence will supplant you and your
job, just as the buggy whip maker was supplanted by the automobile.
(see? Two can do bad logic.) Just complaining about the sorry
state of current AI doesn't change the underlying fact: You are
about to be made redundant in your job and as a being.
We'll --- that is I and the AI that replaced you will ---
talk again about lag times and power needs and so on, when the
resolution and fidelity are finally close to proper SLR standards.
Remember (or tell that AI), there's a reason why most video
consumer cameras have a fold-out monitor in addition to the EVF.
-Wolfgang
R. Mark Clayton
"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:l71hk59hd7dfs5qig...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:08:52 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
SNIP
>
> I hear (and, IIRC, have posted before) that scientists have managed to
> optically scan old wax cylinders and get better sound out of them than
> any of the original players.
Indeed - the tracking weight of an optical reader would be zero, whereas the
weight of a needle and horn would be substantial and vastly reduce top end
fidelity.
> I wonder if the same could be done with LPs.
Possibly, but a decent arm and cartridge would only load the needle with a
gram or two. You can buy one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_turntable
for about $3,000 (compared to about $30 for a laser CD reader).
> Could be it's the playback devices that are lacking, not the recording
> medium.
S/N on moving magnet cartridges were quite good (but still the weakest point
in a pre-digital hi-fi system). The main problem is the discs. Most discs
are third generation pressings (there was a market in [expensive] second
generation direct metal mastered pressings in the early 80's but this died
out.
The medium has problems because of: -
Wear
Production quality (defects in the material)
and most of all
dust.
Suffice it to say that when CD's first came out, I could easily tell the
difference between CD's and LP's on the radio* while driving up the M6 at
XXmph.
* top quality vinyl decks back at the studio obviously - the much poorer
quality of vinyl was obvious even with the intervening FM radio segment and
over the noise of a car (albeit a BMW 735i) travelling at speed.
nospam
<jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> I hear (and, IIRC, have posted before) that scientists have managed to
> optically scan old wax cylinders and get better sound out of them than
> any of the original players. I wonder if the same could be done with
> LPs. Could be it's the playback devices that are lacking, not the
> recording medium.
it's been done.
<http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/digitizing_vinyl.html>
Haber realized that computer programs they'd designed to track the
twisting paths of subatomic particles could also be used to track the
movements of the groove, giving them a "virtual needle" that could
play the high-resolution picture of the record. When they applied the
computer programs to the picture of the grooves, they were able to
recreate the music. But they were also able to improve it.
or use a desktop scanner, but not quite as good:
<http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2003/02/57769>
John Turco
Does anybody recall RCA's short-lived CED (Capacitance Electronic Disc) of
1981-1986? The ill-fated system was essentially an audio/video version of
a conventional phonograph, except that the discs were contained in caddies.
Unfortunately, CED quickly proved to be decidedly inferior to the competing
Laserdisc format. The latter enjoyed solid advantages in A/V quality, overall
convenience, and longevity/ruggedness of the media.
Sold under the "SelectaVision" label, CED was among the marketing failures
which led to RCA's 1986 demise. (Since then, the onetime industry giant has
existed in name only.)
Additional information:
Wikipedia - Capacitance Electronic Disc
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc>
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:4B4EBE8E...@concentric.net...
Here, it describes not only VHS, Beta and 2000 Decks, but capacitance disks
and some other odd formats, too (including a serial tape VCR!). I'm old
enough to remember the infamous format wars during the early '80s. I've seen
a Beta deck in a house of a disabled school friend, although none 2000 decks
in person. Todays kids might not even know what a VCR is or why we needed
one.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> > Does anybody recall RCA's short-lived CED (Capacitance Electronic Disc) of
> > 1981-1986? The ill-fated system was essentially an audio/video version of
> > a conventional phonograph, except that the discs were contained in
> > caddies.
> >
> > Unfortunately, CED quickly proved to be decidedly inferior to the
> > competing Laserdisc format. The latter enjoyed solid advantages in
> > A/V quality, overall convenience, and longevity/ruggedness of the
> > media.
> >
> > Sold under the "SelectaVision" label, CED was among the marketing failures
> > which led to RCA's 1986 demise. (Since then, the onetime industry giant
> > has existed in name only.)
> >
> > Additional information:
> >
> > Wikipedia - Capacitance Electronic Disc
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc>
>
> Yes-although not by first hand, from http://www.totalrewind.org
> Here, it describes not only VHS, Beta and 2000 Decks, but capacitance disks
> and some other odd formats, too (including a serial tape VCR!). I'm old
> enough to remember the infamous format wars during the early '80s. I've seen
> a Beta deck in a house of a disabled school friend, although none 2000 decks
> in person. Todays kids might not even know what a VCR is or why we needed
> one.
Over the years, I'd accumulated various new VHS models of different brands,
as well as a couple of secondhand VCR machines (Mitsubishi S-VHS and Sanyo
Betamax). Never came across any CED or Laserdisc decks (if my memory serves
me correctly), though.