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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WITH OUT INVESTMENT HOME BUSINESS | onlnemoney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 4th 08 09:14 AM |
WITH OUT INVESTMENT HOME BUSINESS | onlnemoney | Digital Photography | 0 | February 4th 08 09:10 AM |
Work From Without Investment | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | December 8th 07 05:14 AM |
Earn much more frm home with no investment ... | Luckyabdel | Digital Photography | 0 | February 25th 07 02:16 PM |