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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 01:27 AM |
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c | rishil | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 1 | February 21st 07 09:43 PM |
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c | rishil | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | February 21st 07 06:23 PM |
Samsung launches it's first (Pentax) DSLR | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | February 12th 06 11:29 PM |