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 D600 a compromise but ok
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:13:25 +1200, Me wrote:
: On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote: : Yes, it has a FF sensor, 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not : suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, D7000 body : ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 body) but for someone : who needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The kit lens, if it's as good : as the 16-85DX for $600 should be good though. : : Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600 : but built-in wireless and GPS. I admit to being confused by this. Built-in GPS is a specialty feature about which most users will care little (sorry, Alan!), and built-in wireless is useful only to photojournalists, most of whom will NOT buy the 6D. Bob |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
On 20/09/2012 1:45 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:13:25 +1200, Me wrote: : On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote: : Yes, it has a FF sensor, 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not : suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, D7000 body : ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 body) but for someone : who needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The kit lens, if it's as good : as the 16-85DX for $600 should be good though. : : Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600 : but built-in wireless and GPS. I admit to being confused by this. Built-in GPS is a specialty feature about which most users will care little (sorry, Alan!), and built-in wireless is useful only to photojournalists, most of whom will NOT buy the 6D. Many posters in DPReview's Canon 5D forum seem to be mercilessly bashing the 6D. The "beginner level" D600 is copping some flak in the Nikon forums too. Jeesh Neither wireless nor GPS should add much to the production cost these days. Neither necessarily use much power either, if new smartphones are an indicator. May as well have it, Nikon's accessory GPS thing is a crazy price. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:35:20 +1200, Me wrote:
: On 20/09/2012 1:45 p.m., Robert Coe wrote: : On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:13:25 +1200, Me wrote: : : On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote: : : Yes, it has a FF sensor, 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not : : suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, D7000 body : : ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 body) but for someone : : who needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The kit lens, if it's as good : : as the 16-85DX for $600 should be good though. : : : : Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600 : : but built-in wireless and GPS. : : I admit to being confused by this. Built-in GPS is a specialty feature about : which most users will care little (sorry, Alan!), and built-in wireless is : useful only to photojournalists, most of whom will NOT buy the 6D. : : Many posters in DPReview's Canon 5D forum seem to be mercilessly bashing : the 6D. The "beginner level" D600 is copping some flak in the Nikon : forums too. Jeesh : Neither wireless nor GPS should add much to the production cost these : days. Neither necessarily use much power either, if new smartphones are : an indicator. May as well have it, Nikon's accessory GPS thing is a : crazy price. I'll bash it if it doesn't have autofocus microadjustment. And if it really is just a FF 60D, maybe it doesn't Bob |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
In article , Robert Coe
wrote: : Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600 : but built-in wireless and GPS. I admit to being confused by this. Built-in GPS is a specialty feature about which most users will care little (sorry, Alan!), and built-in wireless is useful only to photojournalists, most of whom will NOT buy the 6D. gps is not a specialty feature at all and most users will find it far more convenient than having to deal with an external gps or trying to match tracklogs to photos. having wifi makes getting photos to the computer much easier too. i don't know why camera makers have been slow to adopt either of those. neither cost all that much. they could leave them off on the entry level cameras, however, on a midrange and certainly high end, they should be standard. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
nospam wrote:
gps is not a specialty feature at all and most users will find it far more convenient than having to deal with an external gps or trying to match tracklogs to photos. having wifi makes getting photos to the computer much easier too. All of that is indeed true. i don't know why camera makers have been slow to adopt either of those. neither cost all that much. they could leave them off on the entry level cameras, however, on a midrange and certainly high end, they should be standard. Yes, the actual cost is peanuts, as far as just the parts added. There are some problems which aren't at all obvious. Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a significant part of the camera's internal case be non-metal. Fine for a consumer model, but not at all easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera. (And in Nikon's case, putting something in a low level body that isn't in the high end models just does not fit their marketing model.) Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular. For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front of the camera! That just isn't worth implementing. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: gps is not a specialty feature at all and most users will find it far more convenient than having to deal with an external gps or trying to match tracklogs to photos. having wifi makes getting photos to the computer much easier too. All of that is indeed true. i don't know why camera makers have been slow to adopt either of those. neither cost all that much. they could leave them off on the entry level cameras, however, on a midrange and certainly high end, they should be standard. Yes, the actual cost is peanuts, as far as just the parts added. There are some problems which aren't at all obvious. Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a significant part of the camera's internal case be non-metal. no it doesn't. it just needs a radio-transparent aperture for the antenna. Fine for a consumer model, but not at all easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera. it's not that hard, certainly a lot easier than designing an 11 fps shutter mechanism or a 51 point autofocus. (And in Nikon's case, putting something in a low level body that isn't in the high end models just does not fit their marketing model.) they can skip it in the low end models, since the target market probably doesn't care about those features. plus, sometimes they do offer a feature on a low end body that's not on a higher end body, such as non-ai lens compatibility on the motorless bodies. Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular. For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front of the camera! that might sound good on paper, but it's totally wrong. That just isn't worth implementing. actually, it is. there are a number of existing products that do exactly that and work just fine, in any direction. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: gps is not a specialty feature at all and most users will find it far more convenient than having to deal with an external gps or trying to match tracklogs to photos. having wifi makes getting photos to the computer much easier too. All of that is indeed true. i don't know why camera makers have been slow to adopt either of those. neither cost all that much. they could leave them off on the entry level cameras, however, on a midrange and certainly high end, they should be standard. Yes, the actual cost is peanuts, as far as just the parts added. There are some problems which aren't at all obvious. Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a significant part of the camera's internal case be non-metal. no it doesn't. Don't be making absolute assertions about something you have no knowledge of... it just needs a radio-transparent aperture for the antenna. Which of course, also has to be large enough to not cause it to be highly directional. For 2.4GHz Wifi that's not small in relation to a camera body. For example, a half inch wide by one inch long window at the back of the camera simply will not radiate energy towards the front. It is also exacerbated by the fact that virtually all Access Points use vertically oriented antennas. Hence laying an antenna along the bottom or top of a camera doesn't work well because that alone amounts to a roughly 30 dB signal loss due to polarity. If internal it pretty much will have to be located on one end of the camera, where it needs to be at least about half an inch removed from the metal case. (Look at the Nikon WT-4 unit mounted on a D4.) It can be done, and I do expect to see some models soon enough. But it's not quite as simple as it appears. Fine for a consumer model, but not at all easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera. it's not that hard, certainly a lot easier than designing an 11 fps shutter mechanism or a 51 point autofocus. Well, since it isn't hard, just why is it that nobody has yet to do it? Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular. For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front of the camera! that might sound good on paper, but it's totally wrong. I presume, given that comment, that you don't have much experience with antenna design. I'm not going to go into it, but trust that a camera body made of metal is multiple wavelengths across, and forms a very nice RF shield through which 2.4Ghz RF from a Wifi transmitter simply does not pass. The effect is a *very* directional antenna. That just isn't worth implementing. actually, it is. there are a number of existing products that do exactly that and work just fine, in any direction. Name just one then! Mind you, inside a ruggedized metal case, not another plastic consumer body. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: There are some problems which aren't at all obvious. Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a significant part of the camera's internal case be non-metal. no it doesn't. Don't be making absolute assertions about something you have no knowledge of... you don't know what knowledge i have of it, and if only you would do the same... it just needs a radio-transparent aperture for the antenna. Which of course, also has to be large enough to not cause it to be highly directional. For 2.4GHz Wifi that's not small in relation to a camera body. For example, a half inch wide by one inch long window at the back of the camera simply will not radiate energy towards the front. put one antenna on the front and one on the back. next? It is also exacerbated by the fact that virtually all Access Points use vertically oriented antennas. actually, it varies. some of the newer base stations have internal antennas and it's not easy to tell what the orientation is. Hence laying an antenna along the bottom or top of a camera doesn't work well because that alone amounts to a roughly 30 dB signal loss due to polarity. If internal it pretty much will have to be located on one end of the camera, where it needs to be at least about half an inch removed from the metal case. (Look at the Nikon WT-4 unit mounted on a D4.) mounted where? the wt-4 looks like it clips on your belt, and is ridiculously overpriced too. $1000??? what the hell are they smoking? and it doesn't even support 802.11n!! http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...s/25365/WT-4A- Wireless-Transmitter.html http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/...4-wireless-tra nsmitter.jpg you might be thinking of the wt-5: http://www.dxomark.com/itext/hands-on_Nikon_D4/Nikon_D4_3.jpg http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...s/27046/WT-5A- Wireless-Transmitter.html anyway, take a look at an ipod touch, there's your horizontal 1" long, 1/2" high aperture, and on one side only: http://km.support.apple.com/library/...OS/HT1353/HT13 53_ipodtouchlate2009.jpg http://tidbits.com/resources/2012-09/iPod-touch-colors.png the new ipod nano is similar, with the antenna at the bottom: http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/64/2012-ipod-nano.jpg It can be done, and I do expect to see some models soon enough. But it's not quite as simple as it appears. it's not as difficult as you make it out to be. Fine for a consumer model, but not at all easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera. it's not that hard, certainly a lot easier than designing an 11 fps shutter mechanism or a 51 point autofocus. Well, since it isn't hard, just why is it that nobody has yet to do it? because camera makers have the mistaken idea that they should charge extra for external wifi and gps attachments, and charge ridiculous amounts too. $1000 for a wt-4 is absurd. Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular. For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front of the camera! that might sound good on paper, but it's totally wrong. I presume, given that comment, that you don't have much experience with antenna design. I'm not going to go into it, but trust that a camera body made of metal is multiple wavelengths across, and forms a very nice RF shield through which 2.4Ghz RF from a Wifi transmitter simply does not pass. The effect is a *very* directional antenna. i presume, given that comment, that you don't have much experience with existing products that are made of metal and have a small rf aperture, and they work just fine. more on that below. you can spout all the theory you want, but existing products prove that there are quite a few people who know a lot more about antenna design than you do. That just isn't worth implementing. actually, it is. there are a number of existing products that do exactly that and work just fine, in any direction. Name just one then! Mind you, inside a ruggedized metal case, not another plastic consumer body. why stop at just one? that would be too easy. just about all apple products are made of metal, including: powerbook g4 titanium (discontinued) powerbook g4 aluminum (discontinued) macbook pro macbook pro with retina display (different design than macbook pro) mac mini mac pro imac aluminum iphone 2g (discontinued) iphone 5 ipod touch ipod nano (latest version) ipad the powerbook g4 titanium had the antenna in the bottom section, the powerbook g4 aluminum moved the antenna to the lid and the macbooks moved the antenna into the hinge. other products have the antenna behind a plastic piece. here are some photos of the products listed above: powerbook g4 aluminum, with the wifi antenna on the lid: http://www.menyhart.net/wp-content/u...PowerBook-G4-1 2-inch_2.jpg imac aluminum, with the wifi/bluetooth antenna hidden behind the apple logo: http://images.apple.com/imac/images/design_hero1.jpg both the wifi-only and wifi+3g ipads have the wifi/bluetooth antenna hidden behind the apple logo, and the wifi+3g ipad on the right adds a plastic piece at the top for the 3g cellular radio (4g in current model, this photo is an older model): http://assets.ilounge.com/images/uploads/ipad-pre-review-1.jpg on the mac mini, the wifi/bluetooth antenna is in the bottom: http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mac.png?w=640 http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpr...-shot-2010-06- 15-at-1-39-23-am.png?w=640 i'm sure you'll say none of this can work, yet it does. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: There are some problems which aren't at all obvious. Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a significant part of the camera's internal case be non-metal. no it doesn't. Don't be making absolute assertions about something you have no knowledge of... you don't know what knowledge i have of it, and if only you would do the same... When you make statements like that one, it is very clear that you've never worked with antennas. it just needs a radio-transparent aperture for the antenna. Which of course, also has to be large enough to not cause it to be highly directional. For 2.4GHz Wifi that's not small in relation to a camera body. For example, a half inch wide by one inch long window at the back of the camera simply will not radiate energy towards the front. put one antenna on the front and one on the back. next? Yeah, now you've got not just one big hole in the metal shield, you've got two! You just don't understand what the problems with these designs actually are. It is also exacerbated by the fact that virtually all Access Points use vertically oriented antennas. actually, it varies. some of the newer base stations have internal antennas and it's not easy to tell what the orientation is. They're all vertical. Hence laying an antenna along the bottom or top of a camera doesn't work well because that alone amounts to a roughly 30 dB signal loss due to polarity. If internal it pretty much will have to be located on one end of the camera, where it needs to be at least about half an inch removed from the metal case. (Look at the Nikon WT-4 unit mounted on a D4.) mounted where? the wt-4 looks like it clips on your belt, and is Typo on my part, I meant the WT-5. The WT-4 won't even work with a D4. ridiculously overpriced too. $1000??? what the hell are they smoking? and it doesn't even support 802.11n!! http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...s/25365/WT-4A- Wireless-Transmitter.html http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/...4-wireless-tra nsmitter.jpg you might be thinking of the wt-5: http://www.dxomark.com/itext/hands-on_Nikon_D4/Nikon_D4_3.jpg http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...s/27046/WT-5A- Wireless-Transmitter.html Of course, because that is the mating unit to the D4. anyway, take a look at an ipod touch, there's your horizontal 1" long, 1/2" high aperture, and on one side only: http://km.support.apple.com/library/...OS/HT1353/HT13 53_ipodtouchlate2009.jpg http://tidbits.com/resources/2012-09/iPod-touch-colors.png Well, that's what I said it takes! But you are not showing something embedded in a ruggedized metal case intended to keep RF out either. So I'm not sure what your point is. the new ipod nano is similar, with the antenna at the bottom: http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/64/2012-ipod-nano.jpg It can be done, and I do expect to see some models soon enough. But it's not quite as simple as it appears. it's not as difficult as you make it out to be. Well apparently it is, since nobody is doing it! Fine for a consumer model, but not at all easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera. it's not that hard, certainly a lot easier than designing an 11 fps shutter mechanism or a 51 point autofocus. Well, since it isn't hard, just why is it that nobody has yet to do it? because camera makers have the mistaken idea that they should charge extra for external wifi and gps attachments, and charge ridiculous amounts too. $1000 for a wt-4 is absurd. The WT-4 of course has been around for a few years now. But do take a look at various the WU-1 units that Nikon is now making for a variety of DSLR models. They cost $60. Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular. For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front of the camera! that might sound good on paper, but it's totally wrong. I presume, given that comment, that you don't have much experience with antenna design. I'm not going to go into it, but trust that a camera body made of metal is multiple wavelengths across, and forms a very nice RF shield through which 2.4Ghz RF from a Wifi transmitter simply does not pass. The effect is a *very* directional antenna. i presume, given that comment, that you don't have much experience with existing products that are made of metal and have a small rf aperture, and they work just fine. more on that below. You still aren't showing an intelligent discussion. There is a huge difference between an iPhone and a Nikon D4 camera body. You should have noticed... you can spout all the theory you want, but existing products prove that there are quite a few people who know a lot more about antenna design than you do. The *lack* of existing products similar to the designs you say are easy proves they aren't easy. There are in fact now more than a couple cameras that have a GPS or WIFI built in, and not one of them has the kind of metal case that a top of the line Canon or Nikon DSLR has. That just isn't worth implementing. actually, it is. there are a number of existing products that do exactly that and work just fine, in any direction. Name just one then! Mind you, inside a ruggedized metal case, not another plastic consumer body. why stop at just one? that would be too easy. just about all apple products are made of metal, including: powerbook g4 titanium (discontinued) powerbook g4 aluminum (discontinued) macbook pro macbook pro with retina display (different design than macbook pro) mac mini mac pro imac aluminum iphone 2g (discontinued) iphone 5 ipod touch ipod nano (latest version) ipad Now you are just being silly. the powerbook g4 titanium had the antenna in the bottom section, the powerbook g4 aluminum moved the antenna to the lid and the macbooks moved the antenna into the hinge. other products have the antenna behind a plastic piece. here are some photos of the products listed above: powerbook g4 aluminum, with the wifi antenna on the lid: http://www.menyhart.net/wp-content/u...PowerBook-G4-1 2-inch_2.jpg imac aluminum, with the wifi/bluetooth antenna hidden behind the apple logo: http://images.apple.com/imac/images/design_hero1.jpg both the wifi-only and wifi+3g ipads have the wifi/bluetooth antenna hidden behind the apple logo, and the wifi+3g ipad on the right adds a plastic piece at the top for the 3g cellular radio (4g in current model, this photo is an older model): http://assets.ilounge.com/images/uploads/ipad-pre-review-1.jpg on the mac mini, the wifi/bluetooth antenna is in the bottom: http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mac.png?w=640 http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpr...-shot-2010-06- 15-at-1-39-23-am.png?w=640 i'm sure you'll say none of this can work, yet it does. They work, but not one of them presents the same engineering problems that putting WIFI into a Nikon D4 or a Canon 1DX does. And that is exactly why neither Canon or Nikon managed to do it. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D600 | Me | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 22nd 12 10:43 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | Digital Photography | 63 | July 10th 12 02:07 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 12 07:27 PM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 12 01:35 AM |