Camera makers need to come unstuck from three things:

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 11, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Fixed ISO values of 100, 200, 400. Most if not all have already
    done this and offer interim values as a choice and even finer values
    in semi-auto modes like intelligent ISO, etc. How about a continuous
    motion dial that would allow you to set exposure via the ISO and leave
    the shutter speed and aperture of the lens fixed? A kind of manual
    intelligent ISO
    2. Maximum apertures on lenses that follow the old formula, f1.4,
    f2.8, f4.0 etc. No reason why they can't offer interim values, it
    might even work into a marketing tool like having a sensor with 10%
    more pixels. For instance, a continuous aperture zoom from 18-55 at
    f3.5. Cheaper than an f2.8 and lighter, but not dog-slow like an
    f3.5-5.6, which is what we see nowadays.
    3. Sensor sizes. There is and has been no need to stick to fixed
    sizes with digital sensors. There is no reason a company couldn't
    release a larger than FF sensor, and still keep the camera
    manageable. A 50% increase in sensor area would allow for a nice
    resolution jump, or better noise control, depending on the pixel count
    and although it would mean a new lens group, Leica did it, so how
    tough could it be?
    P.S. Nikon is very likely to release a sub-4/3rds sensor size in an
    interchangeable lens camera in the next few months.
     
    RichA, Aug 11, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    What the f$ck for? Fractions less than 1/3 stop don't matter. Your
    Nikon has Auto ISO - just set it to manual exposure with auto ISO on,
    and it already does what you suggest as a "new" feature in an auto mode,
    or switch auto-ISO off and press the ISO button and use the command dial
    button to set exposure via ISO manually.
    There's a 16-35 F4 Nikkor, and several Canon f4 fixed aperture zooms.
    Why not f3.5? Well, why not f3.75428698465. Stated maximum apertures
    are usually nominal not exact anyway.
    Well there's been a very good reason really. APS-C for sensor cost
    reasons, with now a large range of OEM and third party lenses designed
    for that format, and 35mm using old and newly released 35mm format lenses.
    A 50% increase in sensor /area/ makes SFA difference to anything, but
    creates a niche orphaned (for general use) product, like APS-H.
    There's plenty of good reasons IMO to stick to a few standard formats in
    interchangeable lens cameras.
    According to ... ?
     
    Me, Aug 11, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    It has been very tough indeed for Leica, with sales of the Leica S2
    and its lenses falling way below expectations. I don't think any
    other manufacturer would want to follow Leica down that route.

    Hasselblad, Mamiya and Pentax had the right idea, using legacy medium
    format systems to launch larger-than-35mm digital SLRs. Leica didn't
    have a legacy system, so they chose do something completely different.
    It does not appear to have been a good choice.
     
    Bruce, Aug 12, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:56:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : <singularly idiotic ideas snipped>
    :
    : >3. Sensor sizes. There is and has been no need to stick to fixed
    : >sizes with digital sensors. There is no reason a company couldn't
    : >release a larger than FF sensor, and still keep the camera
    : >manageable. A 50% increase in sensor area would allow for a nice
    : >resolution jump, or better noise control, depending on the pixel count
    : >and although it would mean a new lens group, Leica did it, so how
    : >tough could it be?
    :
    :
    : It has been very tough indeed for Leica, with sales of the Leica S2
    : and its lenses falling way below expectations. I don't think any
    : other manufacturer would want to follow Leica down that route.
    :
    : Hasselblad, Mamiya and Pentax had the right idea, using legacy medium
    : format systems to launch larger-than-35mm digital SLRs. Leica didn't
    : have a legacy system, so they chose do something completely different.
    : It does not appear to have been a good choice.

    Which should surprise no one, not even Rich. MF cameras are aimed primarily at
    professionals, and the last thing a professional photographer needs is to have
    to learn a new system of image sizes and zoom ranges. Many people find it hard
    to do: we still have contributors to these newsgroups who insist on thinking
    in "full-frame equivalents", even if their last FF camera was a rangefinder
    Contax. To a piecework photographer, time spent on nonproductive activity can
    be money lost, and they're understandably reluctant to take it on, even to
    accommodate a fine old name like Leica. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 14, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    With all you know about business and cameras it's amazing that you
    haven't created your own company and simply taken over.
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 6, 2010
    #5
  6. I usually don't read the trite crap you post. But here:
    ALREADY DONE.
    ALREADY DONE.
    ALREADY DONE.

    Back to the killfile with you.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 8, 2010
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.