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

Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 27th 14, 01:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 2/25/2014 4:02 PM, Joe Makowiec wrote:
On 25 Feb 2014 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, John Turco wrote:

Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally.


They did, from 1957 - 1967:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Retina_Reflex

A cousin had one. I was contemplating buying it from him when I was
looking for my first camera around 1973. (I wound up with an FTb.) Note
the rapid wind lever on the bottom of the body!



I don't consider any of the "Retina" models to be "true" Kodak cameras.
As the Web site you linked to explained, the Retina bodies and lenses
were made by "Kodak AG" (which was a German company and a subsidiary
of U.S.-based "Eastman Kodak").

Kodak AG was originally named "Nagel" and was bought by Kodak, in 1931.

John
  #32  
Old February 27th 14, 01:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 2/25/2014 5:36 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , John Turco
wrote:

This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to
introduce DSLR's,

it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth.

read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also
failed to succeed in the market.


It's a wrong to say that Kodak ignored digital technology.


what's wrong is to say i said that, because i didn't say anything close
to that.

It was a
major player in the P&S market


not really.

early on they had a reasonable share, but that didn't last all that
long.

other companies made more compelling products and their share dwindled.

i gave a link in another post that kodak was losing $60 per camera
sold. that's almost never a good idea.

and also, had already paved the way
for Canon and Nikon, where DSLR's were concerned.


and then kodak wasted a ****load of money on the 14n, slr/n and slr/c.
those were *awful*.

complete waste of money.

kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional
kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy.

kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from
nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all
horrible and that's being kind.

nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money.
kodak lost.


Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally.


incorrect.

kodak made film slrs long ago, such as the retina reflex, which was not
particularly good.

then there was the instamatic slr, a *really* dumb idea. the film in an
instamatic cartridge could not be kept flat enough to obtain the full
quality of an slr.

http://www.bvipirate.com/Kodak/IReflex-1.html

kodak was trying to push instamatic film, which might have been fine
for the consumer market, but it certainly was not for the slr market.
whose bright idea was that??

more recently, the kodak 14n and slr/n were built by kodak using nikon
parts. it was mostly a nikon n80 but not entirely so. what kodak didn't
do with those was buy a nikon shell and stuff kodak electronics into
it, as they did with earlier cameras.

the slr/c version of the slr/n, however, was outsourced to sigma, of
all people. yet another mistake.

and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models.

easyshare was crap, something i also said.


Not crap, and I own quite a few EasyShare cameras.


they were crap compared to other options available. the user interface
was not particularly good, they didn't offer anything compelling over
other cameras, most of which cost less, and the sharing thing was
bizarre.

they were trying to target a specific niche, with a commodity product.

when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt.


Then, using a frequent target of your scorn (i.e., "Sigma"), why hasn't
that questionable firm folded, yet?


because sigma makes a ****load of money on lenses and their lenses
aren't complete crap. they're certainly not as good as nikon/canon, but
they're not total junk.

sigma's older lenses, the ones that used cellophane tape to hold them
together (no joke) were crap, but they don't do that anymore.

the problem i have with sigma is that they are one of the sleaziest
companies around, intentionally lying about the foveon sensor to the
point of violating the laws of physics and mathematics. who wants to do
business with liars?

anyway, if you want crap lenses, look no further than this gem:
http://www.casciola.com/pics/opteka_2705.jpg

notice how well it maintains a parallel axis when extended. if that
camera were any heavier, it would probably snap right off.

the difference with that company is that they sell a *lot* of products,
so a couple of crappy ones aren't a big deal. they're not betting the
farm on that type of product, which is what kodak was doing.

some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't
one of them. it's also not a very good strategy.


It works for Sigma, does it not?


not a good analogy.

sigma's lens sales aren't going away the way film was for kodak.

if sigma's main source of revenue was going away to be replaced by
their cameras, then sigma would have a serious problem. their camera
division loses a lot of money, which means if they were relying on it,
sigma would ultimately go away.

with kodak, film was going away (and kodak knew it), but their cameras
weren't good enough to replace it, especially when they were losing
money on them.

If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the
word "film" in its very name!

big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing
pretty good.


They get a lot of things wrong (e.g., qualty control), it seems.


not really.



Our little sub-thread has dragged on long enough. I'll allow you to
have the last word, but...if you are right, you're simply beating a
dead horse.

John
  #33  
Old February 27th 14, 06:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good


"John Turco" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2014 4:02 PM, Joe Makowiec wrote:
On 25 Feb 2014 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, John Turco wrote:
Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally.


They did, from 1957 - 1967:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Retina_Reflex
A cousin had one. I was contemplating buying it from him when I was
looking for my first camera around 1973. (I wound up with an FTb.) Note
the rapid wind lever on the bottom of the body!


I don't consider any of the "Retina" models to be "true" Kodak cameras.
As the Web site you linked to explained, the Retina bodies and lenses
were made by "Kodak AG" (which was a German company and a subsidiary
of U.S.-based "Eastman Kodak").

Kodak AG was originally named "Nagel" and was bought by Kodak, in 1931.


Gee I'd consider 40 years ownership to be more than sufficient to claim it
as a Kodak product! You do understand how multi-national corporations work
right?
OTOH I don't consider rebadged products built by independent companies or
OEM suppliers as real products of the rebadged company though.
Where they are designed by the badge company and made under license by
independent companies, it's open to debate however.

Trevor.


  #34  
Old February 27th 14, 07:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

In article , John Turco
wrote:

I don't consider any of the "Retina" models to be "true" Kodak cameras.


what is a true kodak camera?

As the Web site you linked to explained, the Retina bodies and lenses
were made by "Kodak AG" (which was a German company and a subsidiary
of U.S.-based "Eastman Kodak").


then it was kodak.
  #35  
Old February 27th 14, 02:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 2/26/2014 6:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-02-25 16:45:26 +0000, nospam said:

aston martin and rolls royce are crap?


Huh!!
So you have personal experience with both?


I just ignored that typical bit of nonsense.



--
PeterN
  #36  
Old March 1st 14, 07:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

In article ,
RichA wrote:

I recall a company back in 1997 Imagek later renamed SiliconFilm that
was pushing that concept. But seemed more like investment baiting scam.


a scam is exactly what it was.

Never fielded a working model for anyone to examine.


of course there wasn't a working model. such a device is not possible.


I thought the idea was some kind of analog version of a sensor? But how it could be
read into memory in an order was a question.


there were many questions, none of which had answers.

silicon film was supposed to be a sensor contained within a 35mm film
cartridge with a tongue that went where the film would have been, had
it been a true film cartridge. it was supposed to convert a film slr
into a digital slr, which at the time, were not at all cheap.

among its many problems include the actual photosites being beneath the
top surface, which includes the bayer filter and antialias filter. for
film, the light sensitive material is the actual surface.

as a result, for the image to be in focus, the module would need to
protrude *into* the mirror box so that the sensor's light sensitive
layer is where the film emulsion would have been, which means the
shutter is almost guaranteed to hit the front part of the sensor.
that's not good and a show stopper right there.

however, assuming that can be avoided, it would also need to be a crop
sensor, which is an issue with a camera designed to be full frame. the
viewfinder will show more than what's captured, and without any
markings to let you know where.

alternately, you'd have to mill out the film gate, which is not an
option for a drop-in conversion (it was for some early hybrids,
however).

they could deal with the focal plane difference as well as the
viewfinder markings if the camera has interchangeable viewfinders, but
not all cameras had that and it's yet another expense for those that
do.

another problem is that there is no sync between the camera and the
module, so it has no idea when you actually take a photo and what
shutter speed you want. that's yet another show stopper.

another issue is if you change iso on the camera, you have to change
iso on the device. perhaps minor, but very annoying.

and where does the battery go? digital sensors don't run on air and
there ain't much space in a camera body to put the electronics *and* a
battery entirely inside the film chamber, so you'd need to run cables
out somehow, which would break the light seal (assuming you can even
close the back).

that means it would also need a custom back, which is not only another
expense, but it limits you to cameras with interchangeable backs *and*
interchangeable finders.

it was complete vaporware.
  #37  
Old March 2nd 14, 07:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 2/26/2014 11:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
"John Turco" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/2014 4:02 PM, Joe Makowiec wrote:
On 25 Feb 2014 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, John Turco wrote:
Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally.

They did, from 1957 - 1967:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Retina_Reflex
A cousin had one. I was contemplating buying it from him when I was
looking for my first camera around 1973. (I wound up with an FTb.) Note
the rapid wind lever on the bottom of the body!


I don't consider any of the "Retina" models to be "true" Kodak cameras.
As the Web site you linked to explained, the Retina bodies and lenses
were made by "Kodak AG" (which was a German company and a subsidiary
of U.S.-based "Eastman Kodak").

Kodak AG was originally named "Nagel" and was bought by Kodak, in 1931.


Gee I'd consider 40 years ownership to be more than sufficient to claim it
as a Kodak product!


Hello, Trevor! Where have you been, these past several months?

You do understand how multi-national corporations work right?


Of course.

OTOH I don't consider rebadged products built by independent companies or
OEM suppliers as real products of the rebadged company though.
Where they are designed by the badge company and made under license by
independent companies, it's open to debate however.

Trevor.


That's the way I feel about the Retina. It is strictly a German item;
hence, it's a "Kodak" in name only.

John
  #38  
Old March 3rd 14, 12:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

In article , John A.
wrote:

I recall a company back in 1997 Imagek later renamed SiliconFilm that
was pushing that concept. But seemed more like investment baiting scam.

a scam is exactly what it was.

Never fielded a working model for anyone to examine.

of course there wasn't a working model. such a device is not possible.

I thought the idea was some kind of analog version of a sensor? But how
it could be
read into memory in an order was a question.


there were many questions, none of which had answers.

silicon film was supposed to be a sensor contained within a 35mm film
cartridge with a tongue that went where the film would have been, had
it been a true film cartridge. it was supposed to convert a film slr
into a digital slr, which at the time, were not at all cheap.

among its many problems include the actual photosites being beneath the
top surface, which includes the bayer filter and antialias filter. for
film, the light sensitive material is the actual surface.

as a result, for the image to be in focus, the module would need to
protrude *into* the mirror box so that the sensor's light sensitive
layer is where the film emulsion would have been, which means the
shutter is almost guaranteed to hit the front part of the sensor.
that's not good and a show stopper right there.

however, assuming that can be avoided, it would also need to be a crop
sensor, which is an issue with a camera designed to be full frame. the
viewfinder will show more than what's captured, and without any
markings to let you know where.

alternately, you'd have to mill out the film gate, which is not an
option for a drop-in conversion (it was for some early hybrids,
however).

they could deal with the focal plane difference as well as the
viewfinder markings if the camera has interchangeable viewfinders, but
not all cameras had that and it's yet another expense for those that
do.

another problem is that there is no sync between the camera and the
module, so it has no idea when you actually take a photo and what
shutter speed you want. that's yet another show stopper.

another issue is if you change iso on the camera, you have to change
iso on the device. perhaps minor, but very annoying.


If it's a drop-in film replacement the camera would presumably read
the sensor's selected ISO setting from the "canister" just like it
does for film. Once it has that, the shutter speed is set by the
camera just like always.


that's likely but you are then stuck with one iso for the entire bunch
of photos, which is a huge step backwards over all other digital
cameras.

and you are ignoring the major problems, such as syncing the actual
shutter actuation with the sensor, shutter/sensor collisions and the
viewfinder issue.

As for when to read out the data, that would happen when the sensor
detects the camera's film advance mechanism working, whether motorized
or manual. That would also let you take advantage of whatever
multiple-exposure capabilities the camera has as well.


which means it would need a mechanical component to detect that,
assuming it was reliable.

and where does the battery go? digital sensors don't run on air and
there ain't much space in a camera body to put the electronics *and* a
battery entirely inside the film chamber, so you'd need to run cables
out somehow, which would break the light seal (assuming you can even
close the back).


It would only have to power the sensor, readout, write-to-memory, and
such. Everything else a camera needs power for - flash, display, etc.
- would be handled by the camera's own battery. That might reduce the
power needs enough to fit the battery into the canister with the
electronics. Especially if you didn't go all-the-way with the
film-simulation thing and had the sensor permanently external to the
canister.


the sensor is external to the canister.

there's not enough space for the electronics with a battery big enough
to run it. about the biggest you could have is a coin battery, which
isn't enough to run it all for very long.

Maybe it could even have a swappable rechargeable cell inside the
canister so you could swap in a charged one when the current one got
low.


sure, just swap the battery after every few photos. that's really going
to make for a compelling product. not.

that means it would also need a custom back, which is not only another
expense, but it limits you to cameras with interchangeable backs *and*
interchangeable finders.

it was complete vaporware.


Oh, yeah, there's definitely not going to be a big market for it ever.


assuming it was even possible, which it is not.

By the time tech progresses enough for it to be practical, dedicated
digital cameras will be dirt cheap.


they already are dirt cheap and have been for years.

entry level slrs have been $500 or thereabouts for about a decade and
do more than this thing could ever do, even if it did work.

But I can see DIY fabrication tech eventually progressing to the point
where a talented hobbyist could someday make such a device so they
could make use of antique pre-digital SLRs. Not anytime that soon, of
course.


it's not possible for a hobbyist to do.
  #39  
Old March 3rd 14, 09:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

In article , John A.
wrote:

But I can see DIY fabrication tech eventually progressing to the point
where a talented hobbyist could someday make such a device so they
could make use of antique pre-digital SLRs. Not anytime that soon, of
course.


it's not possible for a hobbyist to do.


Not now, no. But everything hobbyists can do now was at one time not
possible for hobbyists. The 3D printing thing is just the tip of the
iceberg.


a hobbyist still needs to solve the shutter collision problem and will
likely need to mill out the film gate unless they want a really small
crop factor.

if they do mill out the film gate, they'll need to do it without any
shavings falling into the internals of the shutter mechanism, or they
will have to disassemble the camera to do the milling instead.

Not possible != never will be possible. Confusing the two has been a
much too common error throughout history.


then call it for all intents not possible nor cost effective for
someone who is just a hobbyist.

In any case, the problems with the whole drop-in film-compatible
digital sensor idea might be solved by taking an entirely different
approach, though admittedly something that would be more (perhaps far
more) dependent on future tech advances.

Imagine instead of a digital sensor/reader/memory in a canister + film
form factor, going with erasable & reusable film and an external
reader/eraser. You would load it into the camera just like regular
film, shoot the roll or as much of it as you want, then rewind it and
pop it into the external reader/eraser. The r/e would scan the film,
digitizing the recorded image then erasing the film and returning it
to it's ready-to-load-and-shoot state again.


actually, that's been done with traditional film.

there was a company who made a machine that was basically a film
processing system, much like the ones that exist today, but instead of
producing a negative, it scanned it directly and gave you a cd.

i don't remember its name and searching is giving me way too many false
hits on scanning services, movie conversions, etc.

one of its drawbacks was you did not get the negatives. the film was
destroyed in the processing/scanning. that is probably one reason why
it failed.

this was about 10-15 years ago.

We have negative/slide scanners and such already. Best-practice for
transferring digital photos from a camera to a computer is already to
move the recording medium (memory card) to an external reader rather
than plugging the camera into the comp, so that's not so different.
The one big thing that would need to be developed is the
eraseable/reuseable film.


other than that...

considering that r&d on film has mostly dried up because digital has
long surpassed it, i doubt this will ever come to pass.

the two links you gave are interesting, but there's nothing that
indicates it will produce images comparable to the best films, which
aren't as good as digital anyway.

in other words, what's the point?
 




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
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c rishil Digital Photography 20 March 4th 07 02:27 AM
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c rishil Medium Format Photography Equipment 1 February 21st 07 10:43 PM
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c rishil Medium Format Photography Equipment 0 February 21st 07 07:23 PM
Samsung launches it's first (Pentax) DSLR Rich Digital SLR Cameras 10 February 13th 06 12:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 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.