Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not Four Thirds!

Reply
Thread Tools

New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not Four Thirds!

 
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2010
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

<heavily edited for brevity>

> We like to think that electronics enables miniaturisation but, though
> the Four-turds format is about the same size as a 110 frame,


<edited>

A digital camera must "flush" its frame buffer, also. That would be
an exceedingly excremental feat, regarding your above description of
a certain line of Olympus equipment.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2010
Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> "Kennedy McEwen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> [ . . . ]
> >
> > We like to think that electronics enables miniaturisation but, though the
> > Four-turds format is about the same size as a 110 frame, Olympus has
> > struggled to make their dSLR range as small as any of the OM full frame
> > cameras. Meanwhile Minolta and Pentax managed to do this with a
> > mechanical system back in the 70s, despite the extremely inefficient 110
> > film cartridge packaging. Progress!

>
> Yes. :-/
>
> Not only inefficient, the crummy (but universally marketed) 110 cartridge
> effectively killed off all the other, mostly superior, ultraminiature
> formats. There's nothing really wrong with having a cassette-to-cassette
> system in one cartridge, but putting a cheesy plastic piece in there to
> serve as a pressure plate was not very smart. (Of course they'd done the
> same thing with their 126, which seriously limited otherwise serious
> Instamatic cameras like the Retina Reflex in that film size.)
>
> Minolta did it the right way. I had one of the early Minolta 16s. The
> Minolta cartridge was similar to (and previous to) the Kodak one except that
> the pressure plate was in the camera where it belonged. The cartridges were
> easy to handload from bulk 16mm movie stock, and I even had a cute (but
> HOT!) little Minolta enlarger for it.



You're slightly off base, Neil. The 126 frame was basically a squared-off
35mm one; hence, it was pretty large and >would've< benefited from a true
pressure plate (instead of a "cheesy plastic piece").

On the other hand, 110 was significantly smaller. Its overwhelming woe,
concerned grainy prints (for obvious reasons). Film-plane issues didn't
even enter the picture (pun intended).

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
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
Canon mirrorless let-down (maybe) RichA Digital Photography 27 07-28-2012 09:52 PM
Canon, Nikon mirrorless = Disney and FOX on DVD RichA Digital Photography 9 09-15-2011 04:57 PM
Canon; Only loser companies need compact mirrorless RichA Digital Photography 1 03-21-2011 11:25 PM
Nikon's patent applications for mirrorless camera system? Bruce Digital Photography 25 11-28-2010 01:55 AM
Canon and Nikon mirrorless remind me of FOX and Disney at theinception of DVD RichA Digital Photography 2 09-08-2010 01:13 PM



Advertisments