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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
One upmanship and Canon's claim
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 07:44:22 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com
wrote: : RichA wrote: : : Somehow I suspect Mark is over dramatizing a bit. If Mark carries : himself properly he will have no problems from the local "thugs" : and "gangsters" that fill the wild streets. I know Mark will have : a very safe and enjoyable time. : : I know it's hard to understand if you live in a nice, upscale : community filled with "progressive liberals" who love all mankind, : but at least TRY to stay current. : : http://allafrica.com/stories/200707040216.html : : When you consider incidents on a population/incident ratio the crime : level is much lower than it is in New York, New Orleans, or DC. Mark's : a big boy and he'll be fine. Have you checked the figures lately? I'm not sure New York belongs on that list anymore. Bob |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
One upmanship and Canon's claim
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: Rebecca Ore wrote: In article , "G.T." wrote: This is why religiously following "18-month" rule eliminates technical and financial hardships. It's totally and utterly foolish to keep any dSLR body past its useful life expectancy of 18-months. Very rich, very very rich in more ways than one. It may be that beyond 18 months, the older camera body has almost no resale value. I was re-reading a photography magazine from 1999 when 2.1 MP was considered state of the art and the DSLR was a Nikon F5/Kodak hybrid. That was true, but as the slope of the curve has changed, a top camera bought today, or even two years ago, will hold significant value. I agree. I got my 1D Mark II in summer 2004, sometime after it was first introduced. It still works great, and at the moment better then 1D3's, and still has over half its original value, over 3 years later. The market has matured. Roger This is a good news bad news kind of thing. We bought a 20D 2 1/2 years ago and it is still a very capable camera and holds up very well to the 30D. So it is nice that the camera is not totally obsolete. The down side is that I can’t buy a FF digital for $1500. In the early years the resolution of the cameras I bought went like this, 0.3 MP 1.2 MP 3.2MP and 8MP. Each time going up by a factor of well over 2, that trend ended in 2004, if it had not I would be shooting with a 24MP full frame camera right now and I would have paid about $1000 for it. At least flash memory has continued to fall at a good rate, and even more important hard disk space has gotten way cheaper, otherwise I would be spending more for my disk space then on my photo gear. Scott |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Canned Air (Was One upmanship and Canon's claim)
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 23:16:46 -0700, "Mark˛" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote: : Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote: : It's not advisable to use canned air to clear dust out of a DSLR, : especially on the sensor. : : The only problem with canned air is when you tip the can ... And so Mark passes up another opportunity to tell us how he made out with his 1D3 at Canon's Irvine shop last week. I'm encouraged by that. Mark wasn't at all reticent to say what he thought of the 1D3's autofocus problem and Canon's initially passive reaction to it. His silence now suggests to me that the folks at Irvine found a way to ensure that the AF problem won't spoil his Africa trip. They would almost certainly have asked him not to advertise it widely, lest all 1D3 owners start beating down their door. Bob |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
One upmanship and Canon's claim
Scott W wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: I agree. I got my 1D Mark II in summer 2004, sometime after it was first introduced. It still works great, and at the moment better then 1D3's, and still has over half its original value, over 3 years later. The market has matured. Roger This is a good news bad news kind of thing. We bought a 20D 2 1/2 years ago and it is still a very capable camera and holds up very well to the 30D. So it is nice that the camera is not totally obsolete. The down side is that I can’t buy a FF digital for $1500. In the early years the resolution of the cameras I bought went like this, 0.3 MP 1.2 MP 3.2MP and 8MP. Each time going up by a factor of well over 2, that trend ended in 2004, if it had not I would be shooting with a 24MP full frame camera right now and I would have paid about $1000 for it. I agree. I think there are two things limiting full frame prices: 1)no competition (Canon is it), and 2) cost of a wafer run is still very high. I remember seeing a figure that a 12-inch wafer run costs about $10,000 (if someone knows a better number, please let me know). So how many full-frame sensors fit on a 12-diameter disk (not many). Thus cost per sensor remains high. From one news report I saw, Canon refined the process to get far fewer defects per wafer, thus increasing yield. That allowed the 5D price to be so low. At least flash memory has continued to fall at a good rate, and even more important hard disk space has gotten way cheaper, otherwise I would be spending more for my disk space then on my photo gear. Technology marches fast until a physical limit is reached. For a while we were stuck max 500 GByte drives. That was when the magnetic domain was spread on the surface of a disk like a pancake. Then a couple of years ago, the write vertically through the disk was refined (a process I read about 10 years ago), so now disk drives can go up in size about a factor of 10 or more. I just bought a 1 terabyte USB drive that contains a single 3.5-inch form-factor drive ($440 at Best Buy), a Hitachi (formerly IBM). They will keep dribbling out larger and larger drives, and we should see 5 terabyte drives in a few years. But once a physical limit is reached, there is little room for improvement. With electronic sensors, they are so good, with such high quantum efficiency, there is little room for improvement. We need a new technology, e.g. one that converts each photon to a known energy so we know its precise wavelength. Then we can do away with Bayer filters (or Foveon absorbers) and improve sensitivity 3 to 5x (and our cameras will be imaging spectrometers too). Oh, and make read and thermal noise zero. Roger |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
One upmanship and Canon's claim
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 08:17:03 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote: : But once a physical limit is reached, there is little room for : improvement. With electronic sensors, they are so good, : with such high quantum efficiency, there is little room for : improvement. We need a new technology, e.g. one that converts : each photon to a known energy so we know its precise wavelength. : Then we can do away with Bayer filters (or Foveon absorbers) : and improve sensitivity 3 to 5x (and our cameras will be : imaging spectrometers too). Oh, and make read and thermal : noise zero. IOW, you're hoping for someone to prove that Werner Heisenberg was a crackpot? ;^) Bob |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
One upmanship and Canon's claim
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Scott W wrote: Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: I agree. I got my 1D Mark II in summer 2004, sometime after it was first introduced. It still works great, and at the moment better then 1D3's, and still has over half its original value, over 3 years later. The market has matured. Roger This is a good news bad news kind of thing. We bought a 20D 2 1/2 years ago and it is still a very capable camera and holds up very well to the 30D. So it is nice that the camera is not totally obsolete. The down side is that I can’t buy a FF digital for $1500. In the early years the resolution of the cameras I bought went like this, 0.3 MP 1.2 MP 3.2MP and 8MP. Each time going up by a factor of well over 2, that trend ended in 2004, if it had not I would be shooting with a 24MP full frame camera right now and I would have paid about $1000 for it. I agree. I think there are two things limiting full frame prices: 1)no competition (Canon is it), and 2) cost of a wafer run is still very high. I remember seeing a figure that a 12-inch wafer run costs about $10,000 (if someone knows a better number, please let me know). So how many full-frame sensors fit on a 12-diameter disk (not many). Thus cost per sensor remains high. From one news report I saw, Canon refined the process to get far fewer defects per wafer, thus increasing yield. That allowed the 5D price to be so low. That $10,000 per is about right (but can be as low as a few $000 or 10X higher depending on the process and desired result. But a wafer is just a step ... next is cutting and packaging (albeit lower risks). On a given wafer there will be randomly distributed defects. As the sensors get larger the probability of a defect hit gets larger as well. As sensors get smaller, more sensors "miss" defects. This is why the P&S cameras are so damned cheap ... you get well over 1000 sensors per wafer (I would guess yield at somewhere 'tween 1500 and 2000). For a FF you would be lucky to get 50 ...before defects and packaging steps (which include the RGB mask and possibly microlenses...) (and our cameras will be imaging spectrometers too). Oh, and make read and thermal noise zero. Boltzman says no-can-do. You could always add heat removal but it's unlikely that you can cool an entire portable camera sensor to milli-K levels. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Canned Air (Was One upmanship and Canon's claim)
Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 23:16:46 -0700, "Mark˛" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote: Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote: It's not advisable to use canned air to clear dust out of a DSLR, especially on the sensor. The only problem with canned air is when you tip the can ... And so Mark passes up another opportunity to tell us how he made out with his 1D3 at Canon's Irvine shop last week. I'm encouraged by that. Mark wasn't at all reticent to say what he thought of the 1D3's autofocus problem and Canon's initially passive reaction to it. His silence now suggests to me that the folks at Irvine found a way to ensure that the AF problem won't spoil his Africa trip. They would almost certainly have asked him not to advertise it widely, lest all 1D3 owners start beating down their door. Bob You'e good. -Except that there are still problems. I've wanted to type it all out, but it will take some doing... Long story. Very interesting, though. I'll try to do it today...though I'm REALLY struggling to be ready in time for my flght tomorrow... -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark˛ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
One upmanship and Canon's claim
Mark˛ mjmorgan@cox wrote:
Carrying a handgun would drop me right into an ex-soviet prison... Be secure. Beware of other drivers. Invest into passive security. Never have to worry about bad streets or mud holes or finding no parking space. Never worry about the occasional firefight in the neighbourhood again. Make sure noone will steal your vehicle and escape unnoticed. Sleep asured, knowing that only very professional thieves can enter your vehicle --- and that the police will notice in time. Crush your competition completely. Drive a tank. APDS-ammo optional. -Wolfgang |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
One upmanship and Canon's claim
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 08:17:03 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: : But once a physical limit is reached, there is little room for : improvement. With electronic sensors, they are so good, : with such high quantum efficiency, there is little room for : improvement. We need a new technology, e.g. one that converts : each photon to a known energy so we know its precise wavelength. : Then we can do away with Bayer filters (or Foveon absorbers) : and improve sensitivity 3 to 5x (and our cameras will be : imaging spectrometers too). Oh, and make read and thermal : noise zero. IOW, you're hoping for someone to prove that Werner Heisenberg was a crackpot? ;^) Bob Not at all. ;-) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
One upmanship and Canon's claim
Alan Browne wrote:
(and our cameras will be imaging spectrometers too). Oh, and make read and thermal noise zero. Boltzman says no-can-do. You could always add heat removal but it's unlikely that you can cool an entire portable camera sensor to milli-K levels. It need not violate any physics, and I should have said effectively zero, not absolutely. Read noise in the best consumer cameras is already under 4 electrons at room temperature and reports are reportedly even lower in the 1D Mark III. With more accurate 18-bit converters and on-pixel electronics, 1 electron read noise is possible. Thermal noise keeps getting better with each generation sensor. Cooled CCDs reached the level of one electron/hour thermal dark current a long time ago, and DSLR CMOS dark currents are less than a thousand electrons/hour already at ambient temperatures (and noise is square root dark current). These are great values already, even without any improvements! Line and pixel uniformity is improving too with each generation, but is already outstanding. Most digital camera imaging has noise limited by photon noise, not other sources, so even with improvements, most images will see little difference. Roger |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
interesting claim by Winsor and Newton ... | Lloyd Erlick | In The Darkroom | 0 | March 16th 06 04:04 PM |
Canon's are not noisless | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 39 | July 19th 05 10:23 PM |
Canon's "Err 99" strikes again | Charles Gillen | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | June 19th 05 05:07 PM |
Canon's 20Da | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | May 9th 05 08:01 PM |
Ques- Canon's 70-200 2.8 IS USM | TD | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | October 23rd 03 11:23 PM |