Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
Rich
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
Ron Recer
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:l-qdna1Eseey2THU...@giganews.com...
> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
Might be fine for some folks, but I would hate to try and hold it steady
while I looked at the LCD to frame a photo using a 300mm or 400mm lens. Of
course you could always use a tripod, but I would think that would be more
awkward to carry around than a camera with a mirror box. <g>
Ron
Dave Cohen
Dave Cohen
Pboud
:)
P.
Ron Recer
"Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:gohk01$3u2$1...@news.motzarella.org...
You are right, I read "By replacing the mirror box and optical viewfinder of
an SLR with an electronic viewfinder" to mean no view finder and only an LCD
to frame the photo. Had I read further I would found out about their EVF.
Ron
Alfred Molon
> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
Does it take interchangeable lenses and if so what lens mount does it
use? Is it perhaps compatible with the micro 4/3 standard?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Does it take interchangeable lenses
there is what looks like a lens release button on the side of the lens
barrel.
> and if so what lens mount does it
> use?
presumably a new one, as the flange distance is shorter. there will
more than likely be an adapter for pentax k-mount lenses.
> Is it perhaps compatible with the micro 4/3 standard?
highly doubtful since neither pentax nor samsung are part of the 4/3rd
consortium.
ray
> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
Geez! What will they think of next!! A digital camera with an Electronic
ViewFinder!!! Absolutely REVOLUTIONARY!!!!!
Get lost
> In article <l-qdna1Eseey2THUnZ2dnUVZ_gyWn...@giganews.com>, Rich says...
>
> > Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
>
> Does it take interchangeable lenses and if so what lens mount does it
> use? Is it perhaps compatible with the micro 4/3 standard?
> --
No, but we all knew u4/3rds didn't hold the patent for mirrorless
cameras. Still waiting for the Olympus flat, small bodies that can
take different lenses. That will really shake things up, I hope.
MG
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
Why did they only half way?
They should go all the way and shape it like a digicam. With a LCD that
flips out to the side, and the EVF at the back.
MG
MG
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
Why did they only go half way?
They should go all the way and shape it like a digicam. With a LCD that
flips out to the side, and the EVF at the back end.
MG
ray
> CoolPix 5700 redux
For one thing - I see no information on the resolution of the EVF. That
has been the downfall of many an EVF, IMHO. Most of them are of such low
resolution that the image is far too 'blocky' to do any decent
photography - I think, typically, they are around 100k - 300k or more
seems to be adequate.
Bruce
>On 2009-03-02 20:26:36 -0800, ray <r...@zianet.com> said:
>
>CoolPix 5700 redux
Oh really? So the CoolPix 5700 had an APS-C sized sensor?
I didn't know that. ;-)
I remember it as a horrible little noisebox with a tiny sensor that was
grossly overburdened by far too many pixels for its minute size. But if
you say it had an APS-C sensor (DX in Nikon terms) then I must bow to
your "superior" knowledge.
Bruce
>
>Sensor size??? I was only refering to the EVF.
OK, thanks. I haven't seen a good EVF yet. I don't expect that the
Samsung will have one.
>Certainly if there was ever a noise poster child the 5700 was it.
Indeed!
Rich
> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:52:04 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-02 20:26:36 -0800, ray <r...@zianet.com> said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:40:15 -0600, Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
>>>
>>> Geez! What will they think of next!! A digital camera with an
>>> Electronic ViewFinder!!! Absolutely REVOLUTIONARY!!!!!
>>
>> CoolPix 5700 redux
>
> For one thing - I see no information on the resolution of the EVF. That
> has been the downfall of many an EVF, IMHO. Most of them are of such low
> resolution that the image is far too 'blocky' to do any decent
> photography -
Isn't the Panasonic G1 about 1.4 megs? It sure looks like it when you use
it.
ray
I don't know - there may be some info on the panasonic web site. I use a
Kodak P850 which, as I recall, is about 330k - it's fine. I've also
looked at e.g. a canon s31s and it's so blocky I know I could not stand
it. I know that several makers have done a decent job - there was a
Minolta that was pretty decent, too. I've read that although Minolta
claimed 1mp for the EVF they were counting all of the red, green and blue
pixels separately so the res was only about 330k.
ray
> Savageduck <savag...@savage.net> wrote:
>>
>>Sensor size??? I was only refering to the EVF.
>
>
> OK, thanks. I haven't seen a good EVF yet. I don't expect that the
> Samsung will have one.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at a Kodak P series? I find
the EVF on it to be quite usable - has about three times the pixels of
the lesser ones.
Bruce
I can't imagine ever wanting to use a Kodak digicam, so no.
David J Taylor
[]
> I don't know - there may be some info on the panasonic web site. I
> use a Kodak P850 which, as I recall, is about 330k - it's fine. I've
> also looked at e.g. a canon s31s and it's so blocky I know I could
> not stand it. I know that several makers have done a decent job -
> there was a Minolta that was pretty decent, too. I've read that
> although Minolta claimed 1mp for the EVF they were counting all of
> the red, green and blue pixels separately so the res was only about
> 330k.
That was the Minolta A2 - nice viewfinder but I returned mine for other
reasons.
The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have called
it 4.2M <G>) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks like in
practice.
David
Ron Hunter
accompanied by ignorance of the features of the other brand.
But, it's your money.
ray
Or, are they doing the same thing and it's really 450k? In either event
that should be adequate.
ray
> ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at a Kodak P series?
>
>
> I can't imagine ever wanting to use a Kodak digicam, so no.
If you could ever lower yourself, you might find that the 330k EVF in the
Kodaks is quite useable.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
|
| http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
Why was this originally crossposted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? It is
not an SLR. I deleted that newsgroup from my followup.
I'll be interested when a truly pro model comes out with a full line of lenses.
As discussed in other threads a while back, it would be possible to make this
kind of camera work compatibly with an SLR system. It will need either a leaf
shutter in the lens (preferred) or a focal plane shutter. A hybrid system with
leaf shutters in most or all lenses could have camera bodies with optical view
(e.g. SLR, or classic rangefiner) or digital view (LCD, either on the back on
in the viewfinder, or even both). Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
plane shutter in SLRs).
While having the option for lightweight consumer grade cameras is good, for the
more intense photography, a serious camera, with at least enough size to hold
on to effectively, is desired. Having them use the same lens mount would be a
plus.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
phil-new...@ipal.net
There is a viewfinder on it. You can see it in the picture. If it has no
mirror, what would you see through there? I do not see a rangefinder opening
on the front. How about a 2nd LCD inside that is optically mated with the
viewfinder?
I want to find the JTAG port.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| In article <l-qdna1Eseey2THU...@giganews.com>, Rich says...
|> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
|>
|> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
|
| Does it take interchangeable lenses and if so what lens mount does it
| use? Is it perhaps compatible with the micro 4/3 standard?
Article says APS-C sensor. That's larger than 4/3. That means better than 4/3.
That means not as good as full frame. OTOH, many cameras do reasonably well in
APS-C size.
phil-new...@ipal.net
If it includes an electronic zoom just for viewing, which lots of cameras
do already have in some form for viewing from the back LCD, then it can be
a reasonably convenient way to verify the focus was on the right part of
the scene, or for manual focusing (don't know if this camera can do that).
For more critical work, you would be on a tripod, using the back LCD, and
probably not this camera.
No LCD is going to have the resolution of the sensor without being a monster
in size (think of hauling around a big 42" widescreen TV with computer display
pixel size). If you want to see individual sensor pixels while composing, you
will need the zoom.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have called
> it 4.2M <G>) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks like in
> practice.
Isn't it 800x600 full colour pixels, i.e. 0.48MP?
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
phil-new...@ipal.net
| OK, thanks. I haven't seen a good EVF yet. I don't expect that the
| Samsung will have one.
By the time Canon and Nikon release professional versions of this camera style,
I suspect the EVF designs will be better and more usable for the kinds of uses
that need viewfinder composing. I don't think it needs to actually have as
much resolution in the EVF as in the back. Neither needs as much as the sensor
itself. There needs to be a convenient button for zooming the view for focus
confirmation/setting. A contrast enhancer on the view could also assist the
focusing effort.
phil-new...@ipal.net
For people that like that style, yes, they should make a version like that.
I, for one, do not want it.
ray
I'm not expecting the EVF to have the full resolution of the sensor. I'm
hoping for something I can use. I've looked at a number of EVF cameras -
my assessment, for my use - YMMV - is that I can't stand an EVF of 110k
pixels while one with 330k is perfectly acceptable. I don't need or want
to see individual pixels while composing - I don't see that it would be
useful. I also don't want a stinking LCD on the back of the camera -
again YMMV and most seem to come that way anyhow.
Bruce
Buying junk is irrational and always expensive, because you end up
paying once for junk and a second time for the equipment that you should
have bought in the first place.
Some of us buy junk, learn from it, and try hard never to do it again.
Others buy junk and are happy with it. Go figure.
Ron Hunter
If, that that is a big if, the color is accurate, and the sensor is able
to provide color in low light. Kinda makes a histogram display useless
if color isn't present in the display too.
Bruce
>On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:07:14 +0000, Bruce wrote:
>
>> ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at a Kodak P series?
>>
>>
>> I can't imagine ever wanting to use a Kodak digicam, so no.
>
>If you could ever lower yourself, you might find that the 330k EVF in the
>Kodaks is quite useable.
That's like saying your Yugo has nice alloy rims.
David J Taylor
No, they are not doing the same thing. They have a field-sequential
system, I believe, with 1.4MP of red, 1.4MP of green and 1.4MP of blue. I
would be most interested to see how that works in practice....
David
David J Taylor
> In article <Foqrl.2536$Lc7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have
>> called it 4.2M <G>) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks
>> like in practice.
>
> Isn't it 800x600 full colour pixels, i.e. 0.48MP?
No, 1.4MP, field sequential. According to:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/page2.asp
David
ray
Seems like overkill and rather expensive. Should be interesting to see
one.
phil-new...@ipal.net
A lot of what I do involves camera on tripod, and the back LCD is much more
convenient for that. Some people want one. Some want the other. Some want
both. Camera makers will have to decide what to do. Having both seems to
be the simpler choice.
Ron Hunter
bias against another product, their product really doesn't do the job
better.
After about 60 years using Kodak products, I have never had a negative
experience with their cameras. Given that they still sell more cameras
and photographic products than any other company (last time I checked),
I believe I have the weight of the world on my side in this one.
Ron Hunter
have only had optical viewfinders. A back mounted LCD is a great thing
for certain purposes, pretty much useless for others. It depends on
where, and how, you take pictures.
dj_nme
> In rec.photo.digital Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> | Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
> |
> | http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
>
> Why was this originally crossposted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? It is
> not an SLR. I deleted that newsgroup from my followup.
>
> I'll be interested when a truly pro model comes out with a full line of lenses.
> As discussed in other threads a while back, it would be possible to make this
> kind of camera work compatibly with an SLR system. It will need either a leaf
> shutter in the lens (preferred) or a focal plane shutter.
If the Samsung NX is similar in design to the Panasonic DMC-G1, then it
also has a focal plane shutter and can use almost any lens with a
register distance greater than the camera with a simple metal ring adapter.
Being only a "wooden block" mock-up means that this is all pretty much
just speculation about what the NX could be.
> A hybrid system with
> leaf shutters in most or all lenses could have camera bodies with optical view
> (e.g. SLR, or classic rangefiner) or digital view (LCD, either on the back on
> in the viewfinder, or even both).
It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
NX lenses.
If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.
What would be nifty is if Samsung produces an NX to KAF adapter which
has a screw drive for Pentax K AF lenses.
Even an adapter For using Pentax K SDM AF lenses on an NX seems like a
good idea (to me).
> Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
> with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
> plane shutter in SLRs).
There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
the Samsung NX cameras will have.
I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
built into the NX camera body.
> While having the option for lightweight consumer grade cameras is good, for the
> more intense photography, a serious camera, with at least enough size to hold
> on to effectively, is desired. Having them use the same lens mount would be a
> plus.
Interesting idea, but I'm not overly convinced about in-lens shutters.
It restricts the type of lenses which can be used, EG: no pinhole.
Bob
dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
>the Samsung NX cameras will have.
>I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
>built into the NX camera body.
All this talk about where the shutter should
be has me confused. This isn't an SLR. When
would the shutter be closed? It seems to me
that since it's not an SLR, it is intrinsically
shutterless. The shutter time would just be
the time between sensor dumps.
Bob
phil-new...@ipal.net
| It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
| NX lenses.
| If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
| dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
| for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
| This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
| lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
| In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
| the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
| camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.
I'd like to have the leaf shutters. The focal plane shutter could be a plus,
but I would generally not use it. This is where a lot of cameras break.
Once the camera has been on the market a while, I suspect it is likely there
will be 3-rd party adapters around for other lens systems, which would work
for lenses for APC-S and larger coverage.
| What would be nifty is if Samsung produces an NX to KAF adapter which
| has a screw drive for Pentax K AF lenses.
| Even an adapter For using Pentax K SDM AF lenses on an NX seems like a
| good idea (to me).
Or other manufacturers. But what Samsung will make is likely to be more
limited.
|> Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
|> with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
|> plane shutter in SLRs).
|
| There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
| the Samsung NX cameras will have.
| I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
| built into the NX camera body.
No matter what kind of shutter it has, it has to remain open for the EVF to
work. When the picture is taken, it closes, the sensor is cleared, it opens
for the exposure time and closes again, the sensor is read out, and it opens
again. You'll see black flashes or still frames in the EVF.
I still prefer the leaf shutter. It's cheaper per shutter. It's expensive
only if you have a lot of lenses (this isn't the Samsung market, at least not
yet). The leaf shutter has no wiping effect for high speed motion. And it
can syncronize to a flash at higher speed (a focal plane shutter has to open
all the way before a flash can be fired). Leaf shutters are also more reliable
and less noisy. High end professional lenses with leaf shutters can have the
shutters replaced if they do fail, saving very expensive optics.
| Interesting idea, but I'm not overly convinced about in-lens shutters.
| It restricts the type of lenses which can be used, EG: no pinhole.
You can put a leaf shutter on a pinhole. You can put it behind or in front.
All shutters were leaf shutters before the flippin' mirror cameras came along.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| All this talk about where the shutter should
| be has me confused. This isn't an SLR. When
| would the shutter be closed? It seems to me
| that since it's not an SLR, it is intrinsically
| shutterless. The shutter time would just be
| the time between sensor dumps.
That's an electronic shutter. And it is doable. Just store selected frames
of what is essentially a video stream. However, you either have to use a
more expensive sensor, or live with the highlight streaks of cheaper sensors.
Ideally, any camera should support this mode, running in video mode and storing
frames when the shutter is pressed, whether the video stream itself is stored
or not. The stored single frame can be in full resolution while the video is
more compressed at lower resolutions like 1920x1080.
The future market _should_ (IMHO) consist of cameras that all serve both the
still frame at high resolution, and video at reduced compatible resolution,
with people simply making choices about which box shape they find to be easier
to handle. Then I'd expect to see some cameras show up that can morph (think
of Transformer toys) from one shape to another. Others will probably just
have addable grips to handle them in various ways.
I still want a leaf shutter so I can control the light exposure on the sensor.
Bruce
>
>And some find that having spent a lot of money for a product, based on
>bias against another product, their product really doesn't do the job
>better.
There is no point paying for something better that you won't ever have
the skills to use.
>After about 60 years using Kodak products, I have never had a negative
>experience with their cameras.
Perhaps you (or your eyes) are too old to tell the difference?
>Given that they still sell more cameras
>and photographic products than any other company (last time I checked),
>I believe I have the weight of the world on my side in this one.
Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest
chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers
daily."
McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds
burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily
good.
The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.
dj_nme
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:37:07 +1100 dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> | It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
> | NX lenses.
> | If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
> | dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
> | for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
> | This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
> | lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
> | In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
> | the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
> | camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.
>
> I'd like to have the leaf shutters. The focal plane shutter could be a plus,
> but I would generally not use it. This is where a lot of cameras break.
I have a distinct feeling that what you'd like and what Samsung will
actually produce won't meet up.
Only a limited number of high-end medium format camera systems use
interchangeable leaf-shutter lenses and it would be extremely surprising
if Samsung went down that route.
> Once the camera has been on the market a while, I suspect it is likely there
> will be 3-rd party adapters around for other lens systems, which would work
> for lenses for APC-S and larger coverage.
If all that's required is a simple metal-ring type adapter, then they
could very well start showing up in the first few weeks.
If it requires a complex shutter or other electronics, don't hold your
breath waiting for it to appear.
> | What would be nifty is if Samsung produces an NX to KAF adapter which
> | has a screw drive for Pentax K AF lenses.
> | Even an adapter For using Pentax K SDM AF lenses on an NX seems like a
> | good idea (to me).
>
> Or other manufacturers. But what Samsung will make is likely to be more
> limited.
An adapter to use Pentax SDM lenses would be the simplest of the two,
because SMD lenses have their focus motor in-built.
All it would require extra is a shutter (assuming that there isn't one
built into the NX body) in the empty space usually taken up by the
reflex mirror.
> |> Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
> |> with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
> |> plane shutter in SLRs).
> |
> | There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
> | the Samsung NX cameras will have.
> | I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
> | built into the NX camera body.
>
> No matter what kind of shutter it has, it has to remain open for the EVF to
> work. When the picture is taken, it closes, the sensor is cleared, it opens
> for the exposure time and closes again, the sensor is read out, and it opens
> again. You'll see black flashes or still frames in the EVF.
The Panasonic DMC-G1 has a focal plane shutter which closes at the end
of an exposure, but (of course) stays open all other times and even when
the camera is turned off.
Some silly people don't bother reading manufacturer information or
reviews and assume that because they can see the sensor when they change
lenses (camera on or off) that there isn't a shutter built into it.
> I still prefer the leaf shutter. It's cheaper per shutter. It's expensive
> only if you have a lot of lenses (this isn't the Samsung market, at least not
> yet).
It makes each lens dearer to manufacture and the camera itself less
adaptable.
> The leaf shutter has no wiping effect for high speed motion. And it
> can syncronize to a flash at higher speed (a focal plane shutter has to open
> all the way before a flash can be fired). Leaf shutters are also more reliable
> and less noisy.
So the Leica cloth focal plane shutter is noisy, is it?
Are you sure about that?
> High end professional lenses with leaf shutters can have the
> shutters replaced if they do fail, saving very expensive optics.
Just like camera bodies can have shutters replaced.
It's either the lens or in the body which goes to get repaired.
Either way, it's out of action until repaired or replaced.
> | Interesting idea, but I'm not overly convinced about in-lens shutters.
> | It restricts the type of lenses which can be used, EG: no pinhole.
>
> You can put a leaf shutter on a pinhole. You can put it behind or in front.
> All shutters were leaf shutters before the flippin' mirror cameras came along.
Not true, there was the Thornton-Pickard roller blind shutter.
Essentially a similar design to a cloth focal plane shutter, except that
it was originally sold to be fitted on the front element of a camera lens.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest
| chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers
| daily."
|
| McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
| doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds
| burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily
| good.
|
| The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.
Especially since they don't actually make, or even design, most of them,
anymore. I used to prefer Kodak film over other brands. Since I quit
using film, I have no preference in that area.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| phil-new...@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:37:07 +1100 dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
|>
|> | It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
|> | NX lenses.
|> | If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
|> | dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
|> | for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
|> | This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
|> | lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
|> | In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
|> | the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
|> | camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.
|>
|> I'd like to have the leaf shutters. The focal plane shutter could be a plus,
|> but I would generally not use it. This is where a lot of cameras break.
|
| I have a distinct feeling that what you'd like and what Samsung will
| actually produce won't meet up.
In the area of cameras, except for convenience P&S, I'd say that is true.
Canon and Nikon are the current ones that would, in my price range.
| Only a limited number of high-end medium format camera systems use
| interchangeable leaf-shutter lenses and it would be extremely surprising
| if Samsung went down that route.
For film, you had to have the focal plane shutter in SLR. The leaf shutter
had to be open (if present) and the focal plane shutter closed, while
composing. Digital changes that around. Now a focal plane shutter is not
required for SLR. You can get by with just a leaf shutter, or even none at
all. Now it makes more sense (again) to have leaf shutters in lenses. And
the focal plane shutter just doesn't add that much, if anything at all, to
a digital camera that has a leaf shutter. The only reason to have digital
cameras with focal plane shutters is for compatibility with lenses that do
not have leaf shutters, when the electronic shutter is not desired.
|> Once the camera has been on the market a while, I suspect it is likely there
|> will be 3-rd party adapters around for other lens systems, which would work
|> for lenses for APC-S and larger coverage.
|
| If all that's required is a simple metal-ring type adapter, then they
| could very well start showing up in the first few weeks.
| If it requires a complex shutter or other electronics, don't hold your
| breath waiting for it to appear.
Someone will figure it out. It depends on issues like patents and such.
It would be for the consumer's advantage to have an open system that many
companies can make things for.
| The Panasonic DMC-G1 has a focal plane shutter which closes at the end
| of an exposure, but (of course) stays open all other times and even when
| the camera is turned off.
| Some silly people don't bother reading manufacturer information or
| reviews and assume that because they can see the sensor when they change
| lenses (camera on or off) that there isn't a shutter built into it.
I've read that the FP shutter is more easily damaged than the sensor, which
has an optical cover over it for filtering out IR, anyway.
|> I still prefer the leaf shutter. It's cheaper per shutter. It's expensive
|> only if you have a lot of lenses (this isn't the Samsung market, at least not
|> yet).
|
| It makes each lens dearer to manufacture and the camera itself less
| adaptable.
A new camera maker (like Samsung) isn't going to get all that much of a
high end consumer or pro-sumer market unless they make a wide range of
quality lenses. Lenses are what count. The shutter is a small fraction
of the cost of all but kit lenses which I am sure would sport the cheapest
shutters.
|> The leaf shutter has no wiping effect for high speed motion. And it
|> can syncronize to a flash at higher speed (a focal plane shutter has to open
|> all the way before a flash can be fired). Leaf shutters are also more reliable
|> and less noisy.
|
| So the Leica cloth focal plane shutter is noisy, is it?
| Are you sure about that?
That may be the exception. So everyone that likes FP shutters and hates the
noise should switch to Leica?
I'm considering the bulk of the higher end camera market. Leica is certainly
very high end, well respected, and highly desired. But I'm looking at what
will replace the SLR market over the next 10 to 20 years. Leica is not what
I see doing that.
|> High end professional lenses with leaf shutters can have the
|> shutters replaced if they do fail, saving very expensive optics.
|
| Just like camera bodies can have shutters replaced.
| It's either the lens or in the body which goes to get repaired.
| Either way, it's out of action until repaired or replaced.
Right. But shutters are just not that often going in for repair. Leaf
shutters less so in proportion to their existance, not counting the cheap
low end junk (but who ever sends junk in to be repaired).
Bruce
>In rec.photo.digital Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>| Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest
>| chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers
>| daily."
>|
>| McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
>| doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds
>| burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily
>| good.
>|
>| The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.
>
>Especially since they don't actually make, or even design, most of them,
>anymore. I used to prefer Kodak film over other brands. Since I quit
>using film, I have no preference in that area.
Well, I do still use some film, and it's all Kodak, because I prefer it
over other brands. Kodak's film standards may have slipped a little,
but that's hardly surprising given film's transition from mass market to
niche product.
But Kodak's digital products are extremely disappointing. At one point
they were ahead of the curve, with good quality products such as the
DC210, but since then their standards have dropped to rock bottom.
I understand why people show loyalty to the Kodak brand, but that
loyalty should not blind them to the company's precipitous decline from
film's market leader to digital's pariah.
ray
Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing' to
do. Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the
DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still
running. I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm
not saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different
things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces
decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series,
but that does not make their entire product line junk.
Bruce
>
>Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing' to
>do.
Knocking junk is perfectly valid, regardless of brand. Lots of Samsung
digital cameras are junk. Some Sony, some Olympus, some Pentax are
junk. It has nothing to do with brand. If they are junk, they are
junk, regardless of the name on the front.
>Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the
>DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still
>running.
I apologise, I meant the DC210. Nothing that followed the DC210 was any
good; the first retrograde step was the DC280 and it has been downhill
ever since.
>I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm
>not saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different
>things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces
>decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series,
>but that does not make their entire product line junk.
Kodak obviously satisfies a certain market. Thanks to their illustrious
past, Kodak are still able to trade on a reputation that has certainly
not been supported by their digital cameras for many years now.
But you won't find anyone who is serious about their photography using
Kodak digital cameras, and that speaks volumes.
ray
So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent Kodak
camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any personal
experience at all.
At least that puts yours remarks in perspective.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| But Kodak's digital products are extremely disappointing. At one point
| they were ahead of the curve, with good quality products such as the
| DC210, but since then their standards have dropped to rock bottom.
That's the effect of "going consumer". Price matters to consumers. But the
quality doesn't seem to. So lower the quality to 1/4 of what it was before,
then lower the price by 15% Profit!
phil-new...@ipal.net
| So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent Kodak
| camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any personal
| experience at all.
It's based on how they are marketed, who they are marketed to, specifications,
and reviews. No ONE person can try all cameras. That's what these methods of
making decisions are for. Once Kodak earns a reputation for good cameras, and
makes models that serve my needs, then I will look again.
ray
> In rec.photo.digital ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> | So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
> Kodak | camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
> personal | experience at all.
>
> It's based on how they are marketed, who they are marketed to,
> specifications, and reviews. No ONE person can try all cameras. That's
> what these methods of making decisions are for. Once Kodak earns a
> reputation for good cameras, and makes models that serve my needs, then
> I will look again.
I see. I guess that makes perfect sense - to you. So no one looks at
Kodak until they earn a good reputation. How are they supposed to earn a
good reputation if no one will look at them?
Bruce
>In rec.photo.digital Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>| But Kodak's digital products are extremely disappointing. At one point
>| they were ahead of the curve, with good quality products such as the
>| DC210, but since then their standards have dropped to rock bottom.
>
>That's the effect of "going consumer". Price matters to consumers. But the
>quality doesn't seem to. So lower the quality to 1/4 of what it was before,
>then lower the price by 15% Profit!
That's how it is supposed to work.
But Kodak has never made a penny profit out of digital. Go figure.
Bruce
>So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent Kodak
>camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any personal
>experience at all.
>
>At least that puts yours remarks in perspective.
I'm a professional photographer. Kodak doesn't offer any digital
cameras that are suitable for professional work.
Why on earth would I be interested in trying any of Kodak's
consumer-grade junk?
ray
So, as a professional photographer, why are you wasting time in
rec.photo.digital? I had assumed 'rec' implied recreation rather than
profession.
Bruce
>So, as a professional photographer, why are you wasting time in
>rec.photo.digital?
I'm in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems where some professionals have been
posting useful, informative messages for some years now.
Unfortunately, the thread is also cross-posted to rec.photo.digital,
where idiots like you have posted useless and often misleading drivel
for even longer.
ray
Hmmmmmm! I think you have your idiots crossed.
ray
I see. So the 'rec' in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems really means
professional instead of recreational. Makes sense.
phil-new...@ipal.net
I'd hear about it, I'm sure. Some reviews would be reporting "Kodak Komeback".
phil-new...@ipal.net
There isn't a "pro" top level group. So we had to crash the party on "rec".
phil-new...@ipal.net
Lots of business executives are completely incapable of a "paradigm shift"
in business markets and models. Unfortunately, it seems, Kodak has many of
them. There are a few products in many areas. Didn't they make a photo
printer for a computer? Or did Canon steal that whole market?
I remember a very early digital camera Kodak was about to sell. I contacted
them about getting raw image data from it. They didn't want to do that for
the reason that "they would have to reveal their proprietary secret on how
they arranged the various color subpixels".
Bruce
>
>Lots of business executives are completely incapable of a "paradigm shift"
>in business markets and models. Unfortunately, it seems, Kodak has many of
>them. There are a few products in many areas. Didn't they make a photo
>printer for a computer? Or did Canon steal that whole market?
It was still available late last year, in the UK at least.
It got some reasonable reviews, winning praise for its low ink costs.
ray
> In rec.photo.digital ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote: | On Sat, 07 Mar 2009
> 00:44:58 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote: |
> |> In rec.photo.digital ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote: |>
> |> | So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
> |> Kodak | camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
> |> personal | experience at all.
> |>
> |> It's based on how they are marketed, who they are marketed to, |>
> specifications, and reviews. No ONE person can try all cameras. That's
> |> what these methods of making decisions are for. Once Kodak earns a
> |> reputation for good cameras, and makes models that serve my needs,
> then |> I will look again.
> |
> | I see. I guess that makes perfect sense - to you. So no one looks at |
> Kodak until they earn a good reputation. How are they supposed to earn a
> | good reputation if no one will look at them?
>
> I'd hear about it, I'm sure. Some reviews would be reporting "Kodak
> Komeback".
If no one looks at them, who is going to report it?
ray
> In rec.photo.digital ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote: | On Sat, 07 Mar 2009
> 08:18:20 +0000, Bruce wrote: |
> |> ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> |>>So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
> |>>Kodak camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
> |>>personal experience at all.
> |>>
> |>>At least that puts yours remarks in perspective. |>
> |>
> |> I'm a professional photographer. Kodak doesn't offer any digital |>
> cameras that are suitable for professional work. |>
> |> Why on earth would I be interested in trying any of Kodak's |>
> consumer-grade junk?
> |
> | So, as a professional photographer, why are you wasting time in |
> rec.photo.digital? I had assumed 'rec' implied recreation rather than |
> profession.
>
> There isn't a "pro" top level group. So we had to crash the party on
> "rec".
Well and good. I just don't appreciate being told that all Kodak cameras
are junk because they don't make a 'professional' level camera - that
seems to be the argument here.
phil-new...@ipal.net
I would expect reviewers would look.
phil-new...@ipal.net
The bottom half of consumer cameras are junk ... by definition. Junk cameras
go to the bottom ... by definition.