A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sony's Oly investment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 6th 12, 04:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Sony's Oly investment

On 2012-10-05 19:47:08 -0700, RichA said:

On Sep 28, 9:28Â*am, Alan Browne
wrote:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/...cquire-stake-i...

orhttp://tinyurl.com/c67hlfn

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*"The two companies will also consider cooperating in d

igital
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* cameras, they said."

So we shouldn't expect any fruit from this union for digital cameras for
some time. Â*At the glacial pace of Japanese ventures we may see
something in a few years or more.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
Â* were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*

Â* Â* Â* Â*-Sir John A. Macdonald

Remember the Star Trek episode where the lunatic and the hippies
landed on planet Eden and all the fruit was poisoned?


No!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #12  
Old October 7th 12, 08:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Paul Ciszek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default Sony's Oly investment


In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...
That's just component supply.


The sensor is the most important component in a camera...


The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
quality).


The "weakest link" is always going to be the "most important"
component, in the sense that improvments to the limiting component
are going to have to most greatest effect on the image quality.
A lot of cameras do not have optics good enough to exploit a higher
pixel count, to pick one classic example. For such cameras,
improving the optics is the only way to improve the image. I
once owned a compact camera that, in closeup mode, could resolve
details down to one pixel. It could actually have benefited from
more pixels.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

  #13  
Old October 10th 12, 10:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sony's Oly investment

Paul Ciszek wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne


That's just component supply.


The sensor is the most important component in a camera...


The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
quality).


The "weakest link" is always going to be the "most important"
component, in the sense that improvments to the limiting component
are going to have to most greatest effect on the image quality.


True, but that's beside the point.

A lot of cameras do not have optics good enough to exploit a higher
pixel count, to pick one classic example. For such cameras,
improving the optics is the only way to improve the image. I
once owned a compact camera that, in closeup mode, could resolve
details down to one pixel. It could actually have benefited from
more pixels.


The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
sensor.

With a weak lens ... well, even a good sensor won't help you.

Put a "coke bottle bottom" in front of a D800, and put a good
lens in front of a 2 MPix sensor. Guess wich one will give a
usable result.

-Wolfgang
  #14  
Old October 10th 12, 07:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
jdanield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Sony's Oly investment

Le 10/10/2012 11:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg a écrit :

Put a "coke bottle bottom" in front of a D800, and put a good
lens in front of a 2 MPix sensor. Guess wich one will give a
usable result.


the result will ba at best what deserve tha worst element

jdd

  #15  
Old October 10th 12, 07:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Sony's Oly investment

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg says...
The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
sensor.


The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #16  
Old October 10th 12, 09:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sony's Oly investment

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:01:09 +0200, jdanield wrote:

Le 10/10/2012 11:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg a écrit :

Put a "coke bottle bottom" in front of a D800, and put a good
lens in front of a 2 MPix sensor. Guess wich one will give a
usable result.


the result will ba at best what deserve tha worst element

Text messaging on a mobile 'phone again?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #17  
Old October 11th 12, 01:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Sony's Oly investment


"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg says...
The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
sensor.


As always, the "weakest link in the chain" rule applies. Why on earth use
crap lenses with good bodies/sensors, or vice versa?


The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.



Actually with many good lenses costing as much as good bodies, there's often
not much difference in replacing either.

Trevor.


  #18  
Old October 19th 12, 12:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sony's Oly investment

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg says...
The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
sensor.


The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.


It's as easy to replace the sensor as to replace the lens.
Buy a new body. They're becoming cheaper every hour. Look at
the prices of bodies first made 5 years ago if you don't belive me.

Now, good lenses keep their value for a long time, if you don't
damage them. And often are many times the price of a small
up-to-date body with a good sensor.


You seem to advocate the strategy of using low quality lenses on
high-end bodies and replace the lenses after some years (when
the body's worth little). That's rubbish. If you want to go
cheap to test the waters, buy a used, older body and kit lenses
(say 18-55 + 55-200). See what you like. See what you miss.
Then make an informed decision which lenses to buy (if any)
and of what quality and speed they are needed to be. If your
body works for you, no need to upgrade it.

Anyway, as I see it, the last few years have brought body
improvements in
- adding 20+ MPix sensors, for which you really want high
quality glasses, and which most people simply don't need,
- adding higher usable ISO ratings (Sports, available
darkness shooting, ...) for which you want fast (wide
aperture) lenses anyway
- movie mode, the usefulnes of which is limited to
a) professional movie makers with focus pullers & co
b) specialized needs
c) "for fun" projects with little budget and no problems when
restricted to one focal length and focussing distance
because otherwise a consumer camcorder is much better.
And for proper using the movie mode you really want non-focus
breathing, parfocal lenses, which cost an arm and a leg, an
external monitor, proper mikes and co and so on.
- peripheral systems like AF, which you may need to be top notch
(then you need an expensive top of the line body) or which work
OK for you anyway.

You'll note that about everything that directly impacts the image
wants a good or excellent (and expensive) lens to be worth the
body, but you'll still make almost the same quality (a few less
MPix and not at ISO 6.400) with lesser bodies. Which was my point.


-Wolfgang
  #19  
Old October 19th 12, 06:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
R. Mark Clayton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default Sony's Oly investment


"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg says...
The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
sensor.


The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.


It's as easy to replace the sensor as to replace the lens.
Buy a new body. They're becoming cheaper every hour. Look at
the prices of bodies first made 5 years ago if you don't belive me.

Now, good lenses keep their value for a long time, if you don't
damage them. And often are many times the price of a small
up-to-date body with a good sensor.


Agree.

Would you buy this one second hand from Felix?

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/10/wa...risingly-cute/

looks like a rather nice 200mm f2.8 although the article says it is a zoom.


You seem to advocate the strategy of using low quality lenses on
high-end bodies and replace the lenses after some years (when
the body's worth little). That's rubbish. If you want to go
cheap to test the waters, buy a used, older body and kit lenses
(say 18-55 + 55-200). See what you like. See what you miss.
Then make an informed decision which lenses to buy (if any)
and of what quality and speed they are needed to be. If your
body works for you, no need to upgrade it.


Anyway my current problem is that I have quite a lot of rather nice glass,
but a FF digital body is ££££, as opposed to £££ for an APS size one. If I
had wanted APS, I would have bought the Minolta Vectis SLR!


Anyway, as I see it, the last few years have brought body
improvements in
- adding 20+ MPix sensors, for which you really want high
quality glasses, and which most people simply don't need,
- adding higher usable ISO ratings (Sports, available
darkness shooting, ...) for which you want fast (wide
aperture) lenses anyway
- movie mode, the usefulnes of which is limited to
a) professional movie makers with focus pullers & co
b) specialized needs
c) "for fun" projects with little budget and no problems when
restricted to one focal length and focussing distance
because otherwise a consumer camcorder is much better.
And for proper using the movie mode you really want non-focus
breathing, parfocal lenses, which cost an arm and a leg, an
external monitor, proper mikes and co and so on.
- peripheral systems like AF, which you may need to be top notch
(then you need an expensive top of the line body) or which work
OK for you anyway.

You'll note that about everything that directly impacts the image
wants a good or excellent (and expensive) lens to be worth the
body, but you'll still make almost the same quality (a few less
MPix and not at ISO 6.400) with lesser bodies. Which was my point.


-Wolfgang



  #20  
Old October 20th 12, 03:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sony's Oly investment

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Wolfgang


The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
sensor.


The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.


It's as easy to replace the sensor as to replace the lens.
Buy a new body. They're becoming cheaper every hour. Look at
the prices of bodies first made 5 years ago if you don't belive me.


Now, good lenses keep their value for a long time, if you don't
damage them. And often are many times the price of a small
up-to-date body with a good sensor.


Agree.


Would you buy this one second hand from Felix?


http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/10/wa...risingly-cute/


No.
1. I got one. (Mine needs quite a bit of microfocus adjust
for f/2.8.)
2. It's probably misaligned by now. It'd need a full factory
service first.
3. I fear the front lens and back lens is badly dinged by now
and would need to be replaced.


looks like a rather nice 200mm f2.8 although the article says it is a zoom.


It is. See the 2 black broad rings? Focus ring and zoom ring.


You seem to advocate the strategy of using low quality lenses on
high-end bodies and replace the lenses after some years (when
the body's worth little). That's rubbish. If you want to go
cheap to test the waters, buy a used, older body and kit lenses
(say 18-55 + 55-200). See what you like. See what you miss.
Then make an informed decision which lenses to buy (if any)
and of what quality and speed they are needed to be. If your
body works for you, no need to upgrade it.


Anyway my current problem is that I have quite a lot of rather nice glass,
but a FF digital body is ££££, as opposed to £££ for an APS size one. If I
had wanted APS, I would have bought the Minolta Vectis SLR!


Sell your glass, buy a FF body. As Alfred found, "it is easy
to replace the lens". :-)

-Wolfgang
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WITH OUT INVESTMENT HOME BUSINESS onlnemoney 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 4th 08 10:14 AM
WITH OUT INVESTMENT HOME BUSINESS onlnemoney Digital Photography 0 February 4th 08 10:10 AM
Work From Without Investment [email protected] Digital Photography 0 December 8th 07 06:14 AM
Earn much more frm home with no investment ... Luckyabdel Digital Photography 0 February 25th 07 03:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.