What would "no compromise" be like?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The other day, someone asked me to look at a pair of 7x50mm binoculars
    they had bought "on sale" from $50.00 to $10.00. Since I hate most
    binos I've used below $500, (too many optical and mechanical
    compromises) I figured what I was in for would be horrible. Sure
    enough, in addition to just about the worst Chinese mechanics, they
    used cardboard cones inside to effectively cut the lenses down from
    50mm effective aperture to about 20mm. Why? Because the front lenses
    weren't achromatic. The view was horrible.

    But I started to wonder what we ever buy that isn't a compromise on
    some level? Is a Nikon D3s a compromise? Sure it is. It's too large
    and the converters in it are cheap and the dust sealing is low-
    industrial grade. You want better? You have to jump the price up by
    about 2x and go medium format, at least for the converters. Are the
    medium formats compromised? Sure, the lenses are too slow and not
    very good and the bodies aren't weather-sealed. So much so that some
    firms looking for the best from these sensors have designed and have
    had built one-off lenses for them.

    By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
    at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
    less, but with superior functionality and lenses.

    How good should such a camera be made? Until the increases in quality
    of function and optics only offer incrementally better improvements in
    image quality and performance. That would be no-compromise.

    Next time you pick up a camera, and handle it, ask yourself what could
    be done to make it work better. A good place to start would be with
    focusing. Is it truly a requirement that a DSLR be a HULK just to
    have decent phase-based tracking focus or could they put that focusing
    in a D5000 body? Could Nikon make a camera the size of the D3100 but
    with a good body? Would you buy a flat, rectangular body size of a
    D300 but with a FF sensor and an EVF? The best DSLR grip is on the
    Olympus E-5. Could they put that style of grip on a better DSLR?
    Could you buy DSLRs or other higher-end cameras with custom grips that
    fitYOUR hands, like you can get with a $2000 competition handgun?
     
    RichA, Mar 2, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
    >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
    >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.



    I'm glad you mentioned Leica. The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
    will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.

    And it won't cost you $30k.
     
    Bruce, Mar 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
    > >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
    > >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.

    >
    > I'm glad you mentioned Leica.  The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
    > will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.
    >
    > And it won't cost you $30k.


    Well, it and four lenses might, depending on the lenses. Hopefully,
    their rear LCD display won't be as bad as the cheap ones on $200 point
    and shoots, which the current one is. I love Leica though. They'll
    sell you a $2000 optional sapphire screen for the cheezy LCD!!
     
    RichA, Mar 2, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
    >> >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
    >> >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.

    >>
    >> I'm glad you mentioned Leica.  The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
    >> will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.
    >>
    >> And it won't cost you $30k.

    >
    >Well, it and four lenses might, depending on the lenses.



    Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?
     
    Bruce, Mar 2, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Mar 2, 11:01 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:


    > Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?


    It's the compromise between all possible lenses and the real world.
    Just one of many that could be reached.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Mar 2, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
    > >> >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
    > >> >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.

    >
    > >> I'm glad you mentioned Leica. The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
    > >> will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.

    >
    > >> And it won't cost you $30k.

    >
    > >Well, it and four lenses might, depending on the lenses.

    >
    > Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?


    Most Leica shooters use primes, I figure 4 would be a bare minimum.
     
    Rich, Mar 2, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Mar 2, 2:30 pm, Truman <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:18:13 -0600, Truman <> wrote:
    > >On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:38:23 -0800 (PST), Vance <>
    > >wrote:

    >
    > >>On Mar 2, 11:01 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >>> RichA <> wrote:
    > >>> >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >>> >> RichA <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?

    >
    > >>It's the compromise between all possible lenses and the real world.
    > >>Just one of many that could be reached.

    >
    > >>Vance

    >
    > >Why do you say that? You'd just steal them and not worry about costs.

    >
    > >Not unlike how you steal photos from anyone. Like this photo from someone
    > >else for example.

    >
    > >http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/V982p2v7LkZWlRi3YMP0Mg?feat=dire....

    >
    > >When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly states
    > >"Vance Lear".

    >
    > >Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted by
    > >someone else.

    >
    > >http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=08262

    >
    > >With this copyright notice also clearly stated at the beginning of that
    > >page: "Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
    > >Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any purpose."

    >
    > >I guess you fail to understand the meaning of the word "any".

    >
    > >Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.

    >
    > >You might as well steal all the lenses you want too. It's right up your
    > >alley. Heck, you probably already do.

    >
    > Well, that was a silly thing for me to say. Whatever would you need lenses
    > for when all you do is steal others' photography.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    That's okay, Sparky, you're a silly person. You're just keeping it
    real and that's all anyone has a right to expect.

    Truman, huh? Kudo's on the disguise, dude, I almost didn't recognize
    you. I don't know tipped me off, just intuition I guess, but the
    disguise is so good that no one else will notice and I won't tell.
    (snicker)

    Your 'Special Friend' (cue the Animaniacs theme),

    Vance :)
     
    Vance, Mar 3, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >On Mar 2, 9:57 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
    >> >> >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
    >> >> >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.

    >>
    >> >> I'm glad you mentioned Leica. The nearest thing to "no-compromise"
    >> >> will be a 29 MP Leica M10 and some Leica glass.

    >>
    >> >> And it won't cost you $30k.

    >>
    >> >Well, it and four lenses might, depending on the lenses.

    >>
    >> Where did the requirement for four lenses creep in?

    >
    >Most Leica shooters use primes, I figure 4 would be a bare minimum.



    Several years ago, Leica conducted a survey of Leica owners to try to
    establish - among other things - how many Leica lenses each owned. The
    answer was on average more than one, less than two. I can't recall
    the exact figure but I think it was less than 1.5.

    For many people, the Leica experience is about picking the one focal
    length you need and getting the best out of that lens. Most choose a
    50mm as their first/only lens, although the 35mm is not far behind.

    I know quite a few Leica users with two lenses. The most common
    combination is 21mm/50mm with 21mm/35mm also popular. I have heard
    that 21mm/90mm is also quite popular. Several people I know use three
    lenses, 21/35/50mm or 21/35 or 50/75 or 90mm.

    I don't know anyone else who uses the combination I have: 24mm, 35mm,
    50mm and 90mm. I also have 21mm Zeiss and 15mm Voigtlander lenses. I
    chose this selection because they suit the subjects I shoot.

    Each of my lenses is among the very best performers in the Leica
    range. For example, the 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M is diffraction limited
    at f/2.8 in the centre and at f/4 across the frame, which is a sublime
    optical achievement.

    There is no need to stop down to improve its optical performance.
    Indeed, when you stop down the performance gets slightly worse. No
    better 24mm lens has ever been made - the newer 24mm f/1.4 is faster,
    but not better, and the 24mm f/3.8 is cheaper but not better. ;-)

    I have been tempted to sell my Leica gear several times in the last
    couple of years, but its value keeps going up. The value of my lenses
    has doubled since I bought them.
     
    Bruce, Mar 3, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    shiva das Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce <> wrote:

    > Rich <> wrote:
    >


    <snip>

    > >
    > >Most Leica shooters use primes, I figure 4 would be a bare minimum.

    >
    >
    > Several years ago, Leica conducted a survey of Leica owners to try to
    > establish - among other things - how many Leica lenses each owned. The
    > answer was on average more than one, less than two. I can't recall
    > the exact figure but I think it was less than 1.5.
    >
    > For many people, the Leica experience is about picking the one focal
    > length you need and getting the best out of that lens. Most choose a
    > 50mm as their first/only lens, although the 35mm is not far behind.
    >
    > I know quite a few Leica users with two lenses. The most common
    > combination is 21mm/50mm with 21mm/35mm also popular. I have heard
    > that 21mm/90mm is also quite popular. Several people I know use three
    > lenses, 21/35/50mm or 21/35 or 50/75 or 90mm.
    >
    > I don't know anyone else who uses the combination I have: 24mm, 35mm,
    > 50mm and 90mm. I also have 21mm Zeiss and 15mm Voigtlander lenses. I
    > chose this selection because they suit the subjects I shoot.
    >
    > Each of my lenses is among the very best performers in the Leica
    > range. For example, the 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M is diffraction limited
    > at f/2.8 in the centre and at f/4 across the frame, which is a sublime
    > optical achievement.
    >
    > There is no need to stop down to improve its optical performance.
    > Indeed, when you stop down the performance gets slightly worse. No
    > better 24mm lens has ever been made - the newer 24mm f/1.4 is faster,
    > but not better, and the 24mm f/3.8 is cheaper but not better. ;-)
    >
    > I have been tempted to sell my Leica gear several times in the last
    > couple of years, but its value keeps going up. The value of my lenses
    > has doubled since I bought them.
    >


    I guess I have more than average, but I've been building my Leica
    collection since 1983

    4 bodies: IIIf (screw mount) M6, MP, CL

    Lenses (there is some duplication between my screw mount lenses and my
    M-series): 21, 28 35/2 Asph, 40C, 50, 75/1.4, 90, 135
    Cosina/Voigtlander: 12mm, 15mm

    I rented the 24mm once and really didn't like the results. I have 2 21mm
    lenses -- 21/4.0 Super Angulon (Screw Mt.) and 21/2.8 Elmarit (M); and
    my 28/6.3 is screw-mount and the first 28mm lens Leica made. It has
    wacky MTF curves and is a lot of fun to use on the M6/MP with an
    adapter. Fully coupled to the rangefinder.

    Even though I have all sorts of other systems, from Minox 8mm to 8" x
    10" view camera, Leica M remains my all-time favorite. If I ever get
    serious about this whole digital thing I'll start out by renting an M9
    -- or M10 if I wait too long.
     
    shiva das, Mar 3, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Peter N Guest

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:06:06 +0000, bugbear
    <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > Engineering design involves making choices.
    > There are always compromises.
    > Enjoy.



    > BugBear


    No compromise would be the ability to enjoy the nice people here
    without having to put up with Rich.

    --
    from my Droid
     
    Peter N, Mar 3, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:00:38 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >The other day, someone asked me to look at a pair of 7x50mm binoculars
    >they had bought "on sale" from $50.00 to $10.00. Since I hate most
    >binos I've used below $500, (too many optical and mechanical
    >compromises) I figured what I was in for would be horrible. Sure
    >enough, in addition to just about the worst Chinese mechanics, they
    >used cardboard cones inside to effectively cut the lenses down from
    >50mm effective aperture to about 20mm. Why? Because the front lenses
    >weren't achromatic. The view was horrible.
    >
    >But I started to wonder what we ever buy that isn't a compromise on
    >some level? Is a Nikon D3s a compromise? Sure it is. It's too large
    >and the converters in it are cheap and the dust sealing is low-
    >industrial grade. You want better? You have to jump the price up by
    >about 2x and go medium format, at least for the converters. Are the
    >medium formats compromised? Sure, the lenses are too slow and not
    >very good and the bodies aren't weather-sealed. So much so that some
    >firms looking for the best from these sensors have designed and have
    >had built one-off lenses for them.
    >
    >By no-compromise, what we could have (instead of a silly titanium M9
    >at $30k, for example) would be a camera for around the same price or
    >less, but with superior functionality and lenses.
    >
    >How good should such a camera be made? Until the increases in quality
    >of function and optics only offer incrementally better improvements in
    >image quality and performance. That would be no-compromise.
    >
    >Next time you pick up a camera, and handle it, ask yourself what could
    >be done to make it work better. A good place to start would be with
    >focusing. Is it truly a requirement that a DSLR be a HULK just to
    >have decent phase-based tracking focus or could they put that focusing
    >in a D5000 body? Could Nikon make a camera the size of the D3100 but
    >with a good body? Would you buy a flat, rectangular body size of a
    >D300 but with a FF sensor and an EVF? The best DSLR grip is on the
    >Olympus E-5. Could they put that style of grip on a better DSLR?
    >Could you buy DSLRs or other higher-end cameras with custom grips that
    >fitYOUR hands, like you can get with a $2000 competition handgun?


    Well, you could probably have one exactly like you describe made to
    order, but don't expect them to compromise on the price.
     
    John A., Mar 4, 2011
    #11
  12. On 3/4/2011 9:09 AM, John A. wrote:
    > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:00:38 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The other day, someone asked me to look at a pair of 7x50mm binoculars
    >> they had bought "on sale" from $50.00 to $10.00. Since I hate most
    >> binos I've used below $500, (too many optical and mechanical
    >> compromises) I figured what I was in for would be horrible.


    Odd. I bought a few years ago at K's (a cheapo chain) a set of 7x40 binocs
    and they were just fine. Not great, but fine. Mechanically they
    worked nicely and were exactly as expected for a pair of cemented
    achromat objectives.

    Later I found a pair of expensive B&L binocs lying on a pile
    of ice beside the Hulahula River in Alaska. They were supposedly
    watersealed, and despite having sat for at least one winter outdoors
    were fine except for fog on the two air-glass surfaces of
    one of the triplet objectives. That wiped off easily and they worked
    fine. These are 8x50 binocs. I found the price and it was like
    $400. I still use these as my main binocs, though I would MUCH
    rather have a nice pair of 8x25 ones since my elderly eyes don't
    need the extra weight of 8x50s.

    The image was no different in quality from the $50 ones, though
    of course they may well have actually needed the triplet objectives
    to be "as good" as doublets at 7x40. The 7x40s would not
    have withstood a year out in the Arctic winter.

    I have looked through 9x50 Japanese binocs with a CaF2 element
    and yes, they are stunningly better. They had better be at $3000.

    Doug Mcdonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Mar 4, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Mar 4, 10:29 am, Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    > On 3/4/2011 9:09 AM, John A. wrote:


    >
    > I have looked through 9x50 Japanese binocs with a CaF2 element
    > and yes, they are stunningly better. They had better be at $3000.
    >
    > Doug Mcdonald


    The main problem with most binoculars isn't the objective lens colour
    correction because you don't need much for a 50mm lens with a
    relatively wide focal ratio, the problem are the eyepieces. Some
    brands have done a good job (Fuji) but for the most part, bino
    eyepieces are still of modest quality and uncorrected at the edges.
     
    Rich, Mar 4, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Mar 2, 5:29 pm, Truman <> wrote:

    [Snipped as inane]
    >
    > It must be senility, or just plain stupidity, there can be no other
    > reasons. Though whatever the reasons, they have badly blown-up in your own
    > stupid face.
    >
    > Don't you have some photos you need to go steal for the next SI entries? Or
    > did you already submit your latest thefts.- Hide quoted text -
    >


    Two shots are in so far, though I think I might have a replacement for
    one of them by the end of the day. Just depends on how many minutes I
    want to put into coming up with an image. This one could be good,
    that one could be good, you know the type of thing. Decisions,
    decisions.

    I know one is in and I will assume Bowser has the other.

    The M&M's, though... that's tougher. There are 10's of thousands of
    M&M's shots out there and to come up with one that may not be a great
    shot, but sufficiently unlike the vast majority that it wouldn't be
    considered as even similar and (probably) even been seen before could
    take some time. I'm pretty sure that by midnight of today's date
    I'll have one, maybe more than one, but the madate is only for three.
    Oh, well.

    By the way, the 'Special Friend' sign-off didn't and doesn't imply
    'mentally deficient.' In fact, I have posted on this forum in what I
    think was an objective defence on your behalf that it is my belief
    that your I.Q. does, or would, score in the 'normal' to 'low normal.

    Because your time is so valuable and I like you, I really do, let me
    help you conserve that valueable resesource. You are going to post:

    1. The shots are crap. You say that about everyone's shots. of
    course. However, maybe you should take the time to repeat it because
    it's like your theme song and where would T.V. shows be without the
    theme music. It Pavlovian, really, how hearing the theme music primes
    the audience's expectations and motivates them to watch. Behavioral
    psych 101. On second thought, leave it in as an essential ingredient
    to the experience and that makes the time well spent.

    2. My shots are stolen.

    Okay, the 'craps shot' thing is essential because you have put so much
    work into what marketing people would probably call 'branding'. The
    stolen shot claim is like putting make-up on a pig. No matter how
    good the make-up job is, anything closer than the most casual
    inspection is going to reveal a pig. Save your time and put it to
    some good use and actually make specific comments on the SI images.
    With your self-asserted accomplishments in art, etc., it should be
    easy and without them reasonable people could have doubts.

    I saw your 'pre-empitve' posting on the quality of the SI images which
    are still to be posted. Strategically masterful!! If, sometime in
    the future, things get arranged the right way, I'll take the
    opportunity to teach you a potentially more effective way to do the
    same thing. Maybe not, though.

    Anyway, I have submitted two images to SI and there is potentially a
    third. I have at least equalled your ability to prognosticate by
    predicting way before hand what you will post, so you don't get any
    points for posting it, though you will, along with a rational. I will
    even go a little further and predict that there is a strong
    possibility that you won't post some form of 1 or 2 above because you
    will claim you don't jump through hoops. At least I'm predicting
    something so semantically similar that there would be no practical
    difference. [I'm not going to mention that you could ignore my images
    all togther an prove me wrong, it'll be our secret].

    Your Special Friend,

    Vance
     
    Vance, Mar 4, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:57:03 -0600, Truman <>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:22:17 -0800 (PST), Vance <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Your Special Friend,
    >>
    >>Vance

    >
    >I was right, "mentally deficient" is the correct translation for "special
    >friend". All you are now is just a low-life photo-thief in everyone's eyes.
    >The only one who doesn't see that is you. Doesn't matter what images you
    >ever submit anywhere. EVERYONE now knows that you stole them from someone
    >else.
    >
    >The trouble with trying to educate morons like you is that they don't
    >realize they ARE morons.
    >


    I'm a bit lost on this. As I understand it, Vance has - or had - some
    photo up that is also up somewhere else under someone else's name. If
    it is the same photo, how do we know who "stole" from whom?

    How do we know Vance uses only one name? After all, "Truman" is only
    one of a thousand used by you.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Mar 4, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 14:46:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:24:14 -0600, Truman <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:15:52 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Unfortunately, what I see in those URLs does not 'prove' that anyone
    >>>has stolen the photo.

    >>
    >>Ah, again he proves he's nothing but an idiot. For you to not see something
    >>so simple, you are indeed nothing but an ignorant, stupid, lying troll.
    >>
    >>I shall expect no less in every one of your posts.
    >>
    >>

    >I would be interested to know if other people see something different
    >from what I see and, if so, why.


    I don't know what you see, but I don't see any indication of theft of
    an image.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Mar 5, 2011
    #16
    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. AeoN
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    437
  2. Guenter Fieblinger

    Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?

    Guenter Fieblinger, Feb 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    926
    Guenter Fieblinger
    Mar 2, 2004
  3. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    442
    Allan
    Mar 24, 2005
  4. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    409
    Allan
    Jul 27, 2005
  5. ~BD~
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    629
Loading...

Share This Page