Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Now, the next BIG contest is ON!

Reply
Thread Tools

Now, the next BIG contest is ON!

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2010
WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2010
On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!



Leica already did it with the M9. Wikipedia says:

"The Leica M9 is the second digital camera in the rangefinder M
series. It was introduced by Leica Camera AG on 9 September 2009. It
uses a 18.5-megapixel Kodak KAF-18500 Full Frame CCD image sensor."

Next question?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:25 -0400, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:30:57 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!

>>
>>
>>Leica already did it with the M9. Wikipedia says:
>>
>>"The Leica M9 is the second digital camera in the rangefinder M
>>series. It was introduced by Leica Camera AG on 9 September 2009. It
>>uses a 18.5-megapixel Kodak KAF-18500 Full Frame CCD image sensor."
>>
>>Next question?

>
>The M9 is hardly compact, really. And it relies on an antiquated
>mechanical focusing rangefinder design that has not only seen better
>days, but even hard-core Leica shills, like Michael Reichman, calling
>for Leica to abandon it in favor of something developed over the last
>couple of decades.



Reichmann isn't a hard core Leica shill. He's a dilettante. Even if
Leica made a camera that addressed all his ridiculous "wants", he
still wouldn't be happy.

As for an antiquated mechanical focusing system that has seen better
days, look at your reflex mirror. The Leica system is very fast and
accurate, far better than manual focusing with an SLR. It also holds
its adjustment far better.

Most people don't realise just how inaccurate a reflex mirror can be,
and how it can easily lose its accuracy when the camera body is
knocked or dropped. Some AF systems are even worse; Canon's being a
case in point, with fundamental errors built in to the system.

But hey, let's all shoot at f/8 with cheap consumer-grade zooms, and
no-one will ever know.



 
Reply With Quote
 
BFD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:25 -0400, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:30:57 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!

>>
>>
>>Leica already did it with the M9. Wikipedia says:
>>
>>"The Leica M9 is the second digital camera in the rangefinder M
>>series. It was introduced by Leica Camera AG on 9 September 2009. It
>>uses a 18.5-megapixel Kodak KAF-18500 Full Frame CCD image sensor."
>>
>>Next question?

>
>The M9 is hardly compact, really. And it relies on an antiquated
>mechanical focusing rangefinder design that has not only seen better
>days, but even hard-core Leica shills, like Michael Reichman, calling
>for Leica to abandon it in favor of something developed over the last
>couple of decades.
>
>I think it's only a matter of time before we see some major
>manufacturer introduce a new system with a new mount, kind of like
>Sony's NEX cams but with a larger sensor. Not necessarily 35mm sized,
>but it would make sense to use that size since you can then tap into
>the wealth of lenses already on the market that support that size.
>Advances in contrast-detection AF have greatly improved the usability
>of such systems, so it seems that one barrier after another is being
>eroded, and the days of the mirror box are numbered. As for
>rangefinders? Who cares? If some shooters are willing to spend three
>times more for a less capable camera, let them.


I still don't understand this ignorant desire to base digital sensors on a
35mm frame size. As if that is somehow the holy-grail of sensor sizes. Even
now, 1/2.5 sensors surpass the dynamic range of 35mm films. As technology
improves even more (as with the recent introduction of inexpensive back-lit
sensors, or technology that hasn't even been dreamed of yet) there is zero
reason to desire a digital sensor with a 35mm film frame size. That is the
desire of a fool.

 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!


What is the point? It would only make sense if they make the lenses
small as well and that affect IQ.


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:27:32 -0500, BFD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I still don't understand this ignorant desire to base digital sensors on a
>35mm frame size. As if that is somehow the holy-grail of sensor sizes. Even
>now, 1/2.5 sensors surpass the dynamic range of 35mm films. As technology
>improves even more (as with the recent introduction of inexpensive back-lit
>sensors, or technology that hasn't even been dreamed of yet) there is zero
>reason to desire a digital sensor with a 35mm film frame size. That is the
>desire of a fool.



I use three sensor formats in my work; Hasselblad medium format
digital, Nikon full frame digital and Micro Four Thirds.

As a social photographer, the level of control over depth of field is
one of the most important issues that influence my choice of equipment
for a job. In almost all cases, I choose the Nikon full frame digital
equipment because it gives me the range of levels of control of depth
of field that best suits what I do.

The Hasselblad format tends to give me too little depth of field, and
the Micro Four Thirds too much. I only use Micro Four Thirds so I can
carry a camera with me at all times, but the comparative lack of
control of depth of field is a constant problem.

If you cannot understand the importance of depth of field, and the
significant effect on it of physical sensor size (as distinct from
pixel count) then it is you who is the fool.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!

>
>What is the point? It would only make sense if they make the lenses
>small as well and that affect IQ.



The Leica M9 full frame compact camera accepts lenses that are
absolutely *tiny* by the standards of DSLR lenses, yet their image
quality is unsurpassed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
BFD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:24:38 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:27:32 -0500, BFD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>I still don't understand this ignorant desire to base digital sensors on a
>>35mm frame size. As if that is somehow the holy-grail of sensor sizes. Even
>>now, 1/2.5 sensors surpass the dynamic range of 35mm films. As technology
>>improves even more (as with the recent introduction of inexpensive back-lit
>>sensors, or technology that hasn't even been dreamed of yet) there is zero
>>reason to desire a digital sensor with a 35mm film frame size. That is the
>>desire of a fool.

>
>
>I use three sensor formats in my work; Hasselblad medium format
>digital, Nikon full frame digital and Micro Four Thirds.
>
>As a social photographer, the level of control over depth of field is
>one of the most important issues that influence my choice of equipment
>for a job. In almost all cases, I choose the Nikon full frame digital
>equipment because it gives me the range of levels of control of depth
>of field that best suits what I do.
>
>The Hasselblad format tends to give me too little depth of field, and
>the Micro Four Thirds too much. I only use Micro Four Thirds so I can
>carry a camera with me at all times, but the comparative lack of
>control of depth of field is a constant problem.
>
>If you cannot understand the importance of depth of field, and the
>significant effect on it of physical sensor size (as distinct from
>pixel count) then it is you who is the fool.
>
>


I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF effects can
be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the focal-length used.
But since you are limited to small apertures at longer focal-lengths with
larger sensor cameras, you fail to realize this or know how to make use of
this in smaller sensor cameras. The long focal-lengths required with useful
apertures are not even available for larger sensor cameras. Instead of
changing aperture I quickly change focal-length and change my distance to
the subject accordingly. No different than someone who uses larger
apertures and then gets up closer to a subject to photograph it. You can
walk away from a subject just as easily as you can walk toward it. The
added benefit of using this method is that you are now also diminishing the
background clutter by using much narrower FOVs. There's less things to have
to try to blur in the background and foreground. With a further added
benefit; that it now becomes possible to quickly compose your image to use
the OOF bokeh behind the object to frame, highlight, and enhance which
parts of your subject that you wish to frame, highlight, and enhance; by
moving only very small directions laterally to your subject.

You're just so used to using aperture to change DOF that you can't get
around this simple switch in technique, by easily changing focal-length
instead. You'd have to fumble around with lugging 30 lbs of lenses to try
to accomplish the same thing. Missing many shots while changing them and/or
getting filth or condensation on your sensors and mirrors.

I used to be just like you. That's why I know. The only difference is that
I am able to quickly and easily invent and adapt new techniques as they are
required and presented to me. Methods far more beneficial and efficient. I
try to never cripple myself by stubbornly holding onto the past out of
habit or learned ignorance.



 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On May 12, 6:30*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!

>
> Leica already did it with the M9. *Wikipedia says:
>
> "The Leica M9 is the second digital camera in the rangefinder M
> series. It was introduced by Leica Camera AG on 9 September 2009. It
> uses a 18.5-megapixel Kodak KAF-18500 Full Frame CCD image sensor."
>
> Next question?


It costs $10k with a 50mm lens. NEXT!!!
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On May 13, 2:27*pm, BFD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:25 -0400, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:30:57 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >wrote:

>
> >>On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>wrote:

>
> >>>WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!

>
> >>Leica already did it with the M9. *Wikipedia says:

>
> >>"The Leica M9 is the second digital camera in the rangefinder M
> >>series. It was introduced by Leica Camera AG on 9 September 2009. It
> >>uses a 18.5-megapixel Kodak KAF-18500 Full Frame CCD image sensor."

>
> >>Next question?

>
> >The M9 is hardly compact, really. And it relies on an antiquated
> >mechanical focusing rangefinder design that has not only seen better
> >days, but even hard-core Leica shills, like Michael Reichman, calling
> >for Leica to abandon it in favor of something developed over the last
> >couple of decades.

>
> >I think it's only a matter of time before we see some major
> >manufacturer introduce a new system with a new mount, kind of like
> >Sony's NEX cams but with a larger sensor. Not necessarily 35mm sized,
> >but it would make sense to use that size since you can then tap into
> >the wealth of lenses already on the market that support that size.
> >Advances in contrast-detection AF have greatly improved the usability
> >of such systems, so it seems that one barrier after another is being
> >eroded, and the days of the mirror box are numbered. As for
> >rangefinders? Who cares? If some shooters are willing to spend three
> >times more for a less capable camera, let them.

>
> I still don't understand this ignorant desire to base digital sensors on a
> 35mm frame size. As if that is somehow the holy-grail of sensor sizes.


I agree. It is stupid, but then so is the 3:2 format. Alas, we still
suffer with it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net 0 12-26-2008 09:29 AM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net Web Controls 0 12-26-2008 06:11 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Python 0 12-24-2008 07:35 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Ruby 0 12-24-2008 05:07 AM
CurrentElement->next = CurrentElement->next->next (UNDEFINED?) Deniz Bahar C Programming 2 03-09-2005 12:45 AM



Advertisments