Now, the next BIG contest is ON!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 12, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!
     
    RichA, May 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    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?
     
    Bruce, May 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:25 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:30:57 +0100, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>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. ;-)
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    BFD Guest

    On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:25 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:30:57 +0100, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>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.
     
    BFD, May 13, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <> 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
     
    DanP, May 13, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:27:32 -0500, BFD <> 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.
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT), DanP <>
    wrote:
    >
    >On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <> 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.
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    BFD Guest

    On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:24:38 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:27:32 -0500, BFD <> 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.
     
    BFD, May 13, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 12, 6:30 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > 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!!!
     
    RichA, May 13, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 13, 2:27 pm, BFD <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:25 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:
    > >On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:30:57 +0100, Bruce <>
    > >wrote:

    >
    > >>On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > >>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.
     
    RichA, May 13, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 13, 2:55 pm, DanP <> wrote:
    > On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <> 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


    Slower lenses don't need to be the size of buses. Someone is going to
    do it. Likely something about the size of a Pentax K7, at some point.
    If Olympus had any sense, they'd do it and break the 4/3 straight
    jacket that confines them.
     
    RichA, May 13, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:50:11 -0500, BFD <> wrote:
    >
    >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.



    Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
    You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
    talking about.
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2010
    #12
  13. Bruce wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:50:11 -0500, BFD <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    >
    > Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
    > You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
    > talking about.


    But he does talk a lot to make up for it. And it's so reassuring to know
    that he will:

    > try to never cripple myself by stubbornly holding onto the past out of
    > habit or learned ignorance.


    Superb!

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, May 13, 2010
    #13
  14. On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce wrote:

    >>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.

    >
    >
    > Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
    > You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
    > talking about.


    It's the P&S troll. What did you expect?



    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 13, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Wilba Guest

    Bruce wrote:

    > Some AF systems are even worse; Canon's being a
    > case in point, with fundamental errors built in to the system.


    Where can I find out more about this?
     
    Wilba, May 14, 2010
    #15
  16. On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:57:51 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    > On 10-05-13 18:47 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
    >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce wrote:
    >>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.

    >
    > Changing focal-length does not change the angle of view at all Tony.
    >
    > >> You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
    > >> talking about.

    >
    > Show us your photos that show what you're talking about Tony - your
    > choo-choo shots certainly are not adequate at any angle.


    Please replyto the right person. You did not reply to what _I_ said.



    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 14, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    BFD Guest

    On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:50:11 -0500, BFD <> wrote:
    >>
    >>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.

    >
    >
    >Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
    >You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
    >talking about.


    Every shot of every subject is relative--to itself only. It is you who are
    the antiquated fool.

    You see a patch of flowers. To you, with your very limited DOF using a 50mm
    lens on a larger sensor camera, you will decide to get up close to that
    flower. You will get dozens of other blossoms and probably part of the sky
    in the background too with your wide FOV. How do you get rid of all those
    other distracting blotches of bright colors detracting from your subject
    and the blue of the sky which you don't even want? You can't. Put on 450mm
    focal-length lens. Back up to get the exact same amount of useful DOF
    around your subject. Position only one or two of those blurred background
    flowers in the far corners to complement your main subject, which is now
    nicely framed in a blur of greens with no distracting colors from
    background flowers touching it. But that's right, you can't get a 450mm
    lens with a wide enough aperture for that large-sensor piece of shit with
    the DOF that you require at that focal-length. Oh well, too bad. They are
    readily available on smaller sensor cameras though.

    THERE IS NO SINGLE CORRECT FOV FOR ALL SUBJECTS.

    You're a bona fide idiot with near-zero experience. Those that agree with
    you, equally so. Thanks for proving that, of yourself, and them.
     
    BFD, May 14, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    BFD Guest

    On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:27:04 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >BFD <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:50:11 -0500, BFD <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
    >>>You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
    >>>talking about.

    >>
    >> Every shot of every subject is relative--to itself only. It is you who
    >> are the antiquated fool.
    >>
    >> You see a patch of flowers. To you, with your very limited DOF using a
    >> 50mm lens on a larger sensor camera, you will decide to get up close
    >> to that flower. You will get dozens of other blossoms and probably
    >> part of the sky in the background too with your wide FOV. How do you
    >> get rid of all those other distracting blotches of bright colors
    >> detracting from your subject and the blue of the sky which you don't
    >> even want? You can't. Put on 450mm focal-length lens. Back up to get
    >> the exact same amount of useful DOF around your subject. Position only
    >> one or two of those blurred background flowers in the far corners to
    >> complement your main subject, which is now nicely framed in a blur of
    >> greens with no distracting colors from background flowers touching it.
    >> But that's right, you can't get a 450mm lens with a wide enough
    >> aperture for that large-sensor piece of shit with the DOF that you
    >> require at that focal-length. Oh well, too bad. They are readily
    >> available on smaller sensor cameras though.
    >>
    >> THERE IS NO SINGLE CORRECT FOV FOR ALL SUBJECTS.
    >>
    >> You're a bona fide idiot with near-zero experience. Those that agree
    >> with you, equally so. Thanks for proving that, of yourself, and them.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Depends if you want to preserve 3-dimensionality of the image. Using a
    >450mm lens would basically flatten it.


    What a load of crap. With the 50mm lens you'd be lucky to even get part of
    the flower in focus. If that's what you mean by "preserving
    3-dimensionality". 3-dimensions are perceived by lighting and shading in a
    2D image. Show us another picture of a face where only the eye is in focus
    but the nose, mouth, ears, and hair are all a blur. I love watching you
    fools trying to brag about shots like that. The one posted of the two red
    cardinals sitting on a branch was a real hoot. Only part of the intervening
    branch was in focus and both cardinals were blurred to hell. What great
    preservation of 3-dimensionality! Post another one like that, I need
    another good laugh.
     
    BFD, May 14, 2010
    #18
  19. Robert Spanjaard wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:57:51 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >> On 10-05-13 18:47 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>> Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.

    >> Changing focal-length does not change the angle of view at all Tony.
    >>
    >> >> You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
    >> >> talking about.

    >>
    >> Show us your photos that show what you're talking about Tony - your
    >> choo-choo shots certainly are not adequate at any angle.

    >
    > Please reply to the right person. You did not reply to what _I_ said.


    Alan can't resist stalking tony. But he'll say it ain't stalking.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, May 14, 2010
    #19
  20. On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:47:09 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    >> Please replyto the right person. You did not reply to what _I_ said.

    >
    > Darn, I can't find the usenet rule book. Does it say I have to reply to
    > what _U_ said?


    It's in your logics rule book. But I don't expect you to find that either.

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 14, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dallas

    PHOTO CONTEST - Win Big $ $ $

    Dallas, Nov 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    372
    Leicaddict
    Nov 9, 2003
  2. Eduardo Carrocio

    A great marketing idea for Microsoft's next big Windows release

    Eduardo Carrocio, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    412
    The Ghost In The Machine
    Jul 16, 2004
  3. JJ
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    775
    Guess Who
    Sep 9, 2003
  4. Aaron J. Bossig

    Mini-DVDs: The Next Big Thing(TM)

    Aaron J. Bossig, May 19, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    408
    Bill Vermillion
    May 20, 2005
  5. Alan Browne

    Next (the other next) Gen "DVD" storage

    Alan Browne, May 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    500
    Iain Laskey
    May 31, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page