Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:37:07 +1100 dj_nme wrote:

| It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
| NX lenses.
| If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
| dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
| for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
| This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
| lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
| In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
| the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
| camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.

I'd like to have the leaf shutters. The focal plane shutter could be a plus,
but I would generally not use it. This is where a lot of cameras break.

Once the camera has been on the market a while, I suspect it is likely there
will be 3-rd party adapters around for other lens systems, which would work
for lenses for APC-S and larger coverage.


| What would be nifty is if Samsung produces an NX to KAF adapter which
| has a screw drive for Pentax K AF lenses.
| Even an adapter For using Pentax K SDM AF lenses on an NX seems like a
| good idea (to me).

Or other manufacturers. But what Samsung will make is likely to be more
limited.


| Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
| with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
| plane shutter in SLRs).
|
| There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
| the Samsung NX cameras will have.
| I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
| built into the NX camera body.

No matter what kind of shutter it has, it has to remain open for the EVF to
work. When the picture is taken, it closes, the sensor is cleared, it opens
for the exposure time and closes again, the sensor is read out, and it opens
again. You'll see black flashes or still frames in the EVF.

I still prefer the leaf shutter. It's cheaper per shutter. It's expensive
only if you have a lot of lenses (this isn't the Samsung market, at least not
yet). The leaf shutter has no wiping effect for high speed motion. And it
can syncronize to a flash at higher speed (a focal plane shutter has to open
all the way before a flash can be fired). Leaf shutters are also more reliable
and less noisy. High end professional lenses with leaf shutters can have the
shutters replaced if they do fail, saving very expensive optics.


| Interesting idea, but I'm not overly convinced about in-lens shutters.
| It restricts the type of lenses which can be used, EG: no pinhole.

You can put a leaf shutter on a pinhole. You can put it behind or in front.
All shutters were leaf shutters before the flippin' mirror cameras came along.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:13:08 -0600 Bob wrote:

| All this talk about where the shutter should
| be has me confused. This isn't an SLR. When
| would the shutter be closed? It seems to me
| that since it's not an SLR, it is intrinsically
| shutterless. The shutter time would just be
| the time between sensor dumps.

That's an electronic shutter. And it is doable. Just store selected frames
of what is essentially a video stream. However, you either have to use a
more expensive sensor, or live with the highlight streaks of cheaper sensors.
Ideally, any camera should support this mode, running in video mode and storing
frames when the shutter is pressed, whether the video stream itself is stored
or not. The stored single frame can be in full resolution while the video is
more compressed at lower resolutions like 1920x1080.

The future market _should_ (IMHO) consist of cameras that all serve both the
still frame at high resolution, and video at reduced compatible resolution,
with people simply making choices about which box shape they find to be easier
to handle. Then I'd expect to see some cameras show up that can morph (think
of Transformer toys) from one shape to another. Others will probably just
have addable grips to handle them in various ways.

I still want a leaf shutter so I can control the light exposure on the sensor.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Ron Hunter wrote:

And some find that having spent a lot of money for a product, based on
bias against another product, their product really doesn't do the job
better.


There is no point paying for something better that you won't ever have
the skills to use.


After about 60 years using Kodak products, I have never had a negative
experience with their cameras.


Perhaps you (or your eyes) are too old to tell the difference?


Given that they still sell more cameras
and photographic products than any other company (last time I checked),
I believe I have the weight of the world on my side in this one.


Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest
chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers
daily."

McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds
burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily
good.

The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.

wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:37:07 +1100 dj_nme wrote:

| It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
| NX lenses.
| If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
| dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
| for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
| This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
| lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
| In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
| the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
| camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.

I'd like to have the leaf shutters. The focal plane shutter could be a plus,
but I would generally not use it. This is where a lot of cameras break.

I have a distinct feeling that what you'd like and what Samsung will
actually produce won't meet up.
Only a limited number of high-end medium format camera systems use
interchangeable leaf-shutter lenses and it would be extremely surprising
if Samsung went down that route.

Once the camera has been on the market a while, I suspect it is likely there
will be 3-rd party adapters around for other lens systems, which would work
for lenses for APC-S and larger coverage.

If all that's required is a simple metal-ring type adapter, then they
could very well start showing up in the first few weeks.
If it requires a complex shutter or other electronics, don't hold your
breath waiting for it to appear.

| What would be nifty is if Samsung produces an NX to KAF adapter which
| has a screw drive for Pentax K AF lenses.
| Even an adapter For using Pentax K SDM AF lenses on an NX seems like a
| good idea (to me).

Or other manufacturers. But what Samsung will make is likely to be more
limited.

An adapter to use Pentax SDM lenses would be the simplest of the two,
because SMD lenses have their focus motor in-built.
All it would require extra is a shutter (assuming that there isn't one
built into the NX body) in the empty space usually taken up by the
reflex mirror.

| Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
| with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
| plane shutter in SLRs).
|
| There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
| the Samsung NX cameras will have.
| I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
| built into the NX camera body.

No matter what kind of shutter it has, it has to remain open for the EVF to
work. When the picture is taken, it closes, the sensor is cleared, it opens
for the exposure time and closes again, the sensor is read out, and it opens
again. You'll see black flashes or still frames in the EVF.

The Panasonic DMC-G1 has a focal plane shutter which closes at the end
of an exposure, but (of course) stays open all other times and even when
the camera is turned off.
Some silly people don't bother reading manufacturer information or
reviews and assume that because they can see the sensor when they change
lenses (camera on or off) that there isn't a shutter built into it.

I still prefer the leaf shutter. It's cheaper per shutter. It's expensive
only if you have a lot of lenses (this isn't the Samsung market, at least not
yet).

It makes each lens dearer to manufacture and the camera itself less
adaptable.

The leaf shutter has no wiping effect for high speed motion. And it
can syncronize to a flash at higher speed (a focal plane shutter has to open
all the way before a flash can be fired). Leaf shutters are also more reliable
and less noisy.

So the Leica cloth focal plane shutter is noisy, is it?
Are you sure about that?

High end professional lenses with leaf shutters can have the
shutters replaced if they do fail, saving very expensive optics.

Just like camera bodies can have shutters replaced.
It's either the lens or in the body which goes to get repaired.
Either way, it's out of action until repaired or replaced.

| Interesting idea, but I'm not overly convinced about in-lens shutters.
| It restricts the type of lenses which can be used, EG: no pinhole.

You can put a leaf shutter on a pinhole. You can put it behind or in front.
All shutters were leaf shutters before the flippin' mirror cameras came along.

Not true, there was the Thornton-Pickard roller blind shutter.
Essentially a similar design to a cloth focal plane shutter, except that
it was originally sold to be fitted on the front element of a camera lens.

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:

| Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest
| chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers
| daily."
|
| McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
| doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds
| burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily
| good.
|
| The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.

Especially since they don't actually make, or even design, most of them,
anymore. I used to prefer Kodak film over other brands. Since I quit
using film, I have no preference in that area.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:59:11 +1100 dj_nme wrote:
| wrote:
| On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:37:07 +1100 dj_nme wrote:
|
| | It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
| | NX lenses.
| | If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
| | dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
| | for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
| | This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
| | lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
| | In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
| | the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
| | camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.
|
| I'd like to have the leaf shutters. The focal plane shutter could be a plus,
| but I would generally not use it. This is where a lot of cameras break.
|
| I have a distinct feeling that what you'd like and what Samsung will
| actually produce won't meet up.

In the area of cameras, except for convenience P&S, I'd say that is true.
Canon and Nikon are the current ones that would, in my price range.


| Only a limited number of high-end medium format camera systems use
| interchangeable leaf-shutter lenses and it would be extremely surprising
| if Samsung went down that route.

For film, you had to have the focal plane shutter in SLR. The leaf shutter
had to be open (if present) and the focal plane shutter closed, while
composing. Digital changes that around. Now a focal plane shutter is not
required for SLR. You can get by with just a leaf shutter, or even none at
all. Now it makes more sense (again) to have leaf shutters in lenses. And
the focal plane shutter just doesn't add that much, if anything at all, to
a digital camera that has a leaf shutter. The only reason to have digital
cameras with focal plane shutters is for compatibility with lenses that do
not have leaf shutters, when the electronic shutter is not desired.


| Once the camera has been on the market a while, I suspect it is likely there
| will be 3-rd party adapters around for other lens systems, which would work
| for lenses for APC-S and larger coverage.
|
| If all that's required is a simple metal-ring type adapter, then they
| could very well start showing up in the first few weeks.
| If it requires a complex shutter or other electronics, don't hold your
| breath waiting for it to appear.

Someone will figure it out. It depends on issues like patents and such.
It would be for the consumer's advantage to have an open system that many
companies can make things for.


| The Panasonic DMC-G1 has a focal plane shutter which closes at the end
| of an exposure, but (of course) stays open all other times and even when
| the camera is turned off.
| Some silly people don't bother reading manufacturer information or
| reviews and assume that because they can see the sensor when they change
| lenses (camera on or off) that there isn't a shutter built into it.

I've read that the FP shutter is more easily damaged than the sensor, which
has an optical cover over it for filtering out IR, anyway.


| I still prefer the leaf shutter. It's cheaper per shutter. It's expensive
| only if you have a lot of lenses (this isn't the Samsung market, at least not
| yet).
|
| It makes each lens dearer to manufacture and the camera itself less
| adaptable.

A new camera maker (like Samsung) isn't going to get all that much of a
high end consumer or pro-sumer market unless they make a wide range of
quality lenses. Lenses are what count. The shutter is a small fraction
of the cost of all but kit lenses which I am sure would sport the cheapest
shutters.


| The leaf shutter has no wiping effect for high speed motion. And it
| can syncronize to a flash at higher speed (a focal plane shutter has to open
| all the way before a flash can be fired). Leaf shutters are also more reliable
| and less noisy.
|
| So the Leica cloth focal plane shutter is noisy, is it?
| Are you sure about that?

That may be the exception. So everyone that likes FP shutters and hates the
noise should switch to Leica?

I'm considering the bulk of the higher end camera market. Leica is certainly
very high end, well respected, and highly desired. But I'm looking at what
will replace the SLR market over the next 10 to 20 years. Leica is not what
I see doing that.


| High end professional lenses with leaf shutters can have the
| shutters replaced if they do fail, saving very expensive optics.
|
| Just like camera bodies can have shutters replaced.
| It's either the lens or in the body which goes to get repaired.
| Either way, it's out of action until repaired or replaced.

Right. But shutters are just not that often going in for repair. Leaf
shutters less so in proportion to their existance, not counting the cheap
low end junk (but who ever sends junk in to be repaired).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:

| Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest
| chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers
| daily."
|
| McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
| doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds
| burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily
| good.
|
| The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.

Especially since they don't actually make, or even design, most of them,
anymore. I used to prefer Kodak film over other brands. Since I quit
using film, I have no preference in that area.


Well, I do still use some film, and it's all Kodak, because I prefer it
over other brands. Kodak's film standards may have slipped a little,
but that's hardly surprising given film's transition from mass market to
niche product.

But Kodak's digital products are extremely disappointing. At one point
they were ahead of the curve, with good quality products such as the
DC210, but since then their standards have dropped to rock bottom.

I understand why people show loyalty to the Kodak brand, but that
loyalty should not blind them to the company's precipitous decline from
film's market leader to digital's pariah.

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:09:40 +0000, Bruce wrote:

wrote:

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:

| Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest |
chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers |
daily."
|
| McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
| doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds |
burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily |
good.
|
| The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.

Especially since they don't actually make, or even design, most of them,
anymore. I used to prefer Kodak film over other brands. Since I quit
using film, I have no preference in that area.


Well, I do still use some film, and it's all Kodak, because I prefer it
over other brands. Kodak's film standards may have slipped a little,
but that's hardly surprising given film's transition from mass market to
niche product.

But Kodak's digital products are extremely disappointing. At one point
they were ahead of the curve, with good quality products such as the
DC210, but since then their standards have dropped to rock bottom.

I understand why people show loyalty to the Kodak brand, but that
loyalty should not blind them to the company's precipitous decline from
film's market leader to digital's pariah.

Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing' to
do. Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the
DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still
running. I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm
not saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different
things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces
decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series,
but that does not make their entire product line junk.

ray wrote:

Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing' to
do.


Knocking junk is perfectly valid, regardless of brand. Lots of Samsung
digital cameras are junk. Some Sony, some Olympus, some Pentax are
junk. It has nothing to do with brand. If they are junk, they are
junk, regardless of the name on the front.


Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the
DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still
running.


I apologise, I meant the DC210. Nothing that followed the DC210 was any
good; the first retrograde step was the DC280 and it has been downhill
ever since.


I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm
not saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different
things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces
decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series,
but that does not make their entire product line junk.


Kodak obviously satisfies a certain market. Thanks to their illustrious
past, Kodak are still able to trade on a reputation that has certainly
not been supported by their digital cameras for many years now.

But you won't find anyone who is serious about their photography using
Kodak digital cameras, and that speaks volumes.

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:54:45 +0000, Bruce wrote:

ray wrote:

Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing'
to do.


Knocking junk is perfectly valid, regardless of brand. Lots of Samsung
digital cameras are junk. Some Sony, some Olympus, some Pentax are
junk. It has nothing to do with brand. If they are junk, they are
junk, regardless of the name on the front.


Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the
DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still
running.


I apologise, I meant the DC210. Nothing that followed the DC210 was any
good; the first retrograde step was the DC280 and it has been downhill
ever since.


I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm not
saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different
things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces
decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series,
but that does not make their entire product line junk.


Kodak obviously satisfies a certain market. Thanks to their illustrious
past, Kodak are still able to trade on a reputation that has certainly
not been supported by their digital cameras for many years now.

But you won't find anyone who is serious about their photography using
Kodak digital cameras, and that speaks volumes.

So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent Kodak
camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any personal
experience at all.

At least that puts yours remarks in perspective.