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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:37:07 +1100 dj_nme wrote:
| It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for | NX lenses. | If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system | dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter | for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it. | This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX | lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead. | In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build | the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system" | camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses. I'd like to have the leaf shutters. The focal plane shutter could be a plus, but I would generally not use it. This is where a lot of cameras break. Once the camera has been on the market a while, I suspect it is likely there will be 3-rd party adapters around for other lens systems, which would work for lenses for APC-S and larger coverage. | What would be nifty is if Samsung produces an NX to KAF adapter which | has a screw drive for Pentax K AF lenses. | Even an adapter For using Pentax K SDM AF lenses on an NX seems like a | good idea (to me). Or other manufacturers. But what Samsung will make is likely to be more limited. | Focal plane shutters would be possible, but | with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal | plane shutter in SLRs). | | There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter | the Samsung NX cameras will have. | I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's | built into the NX camera body. No matter what kind of shutter it has, it has to remain open for the EVF to work. When the picture is taken, it closes, the sensor is cleared, it opens for the exposure time and closes again, the sensor is read out, and it opens again. You'll see black flashes or still frames in the EVF. I still prefer the leaf shutter. It's cheaper per shutter. It's expensive only if you have a lot of lenses (this isn't the Samsung market, at least not yet). The leaf shutter has no wiping effect for high speed motion. And it can syncronize to a flash at higher speed (a focal plane shutter has to open all the way before a flash can be fired). Leaf shutters are also more reliable and less noisy. High end professional lenses with leaf shutters can have the shutters replaced if they do fail, saving very expensive optics. | Interesting idea, but I'm not overly convinced about in-lens shutters. | It restricts the type of lenses which can be used, EG: no pinhole. You can put a leaf shutter on a pinhole. You can put it behind or in front. All shutters were leaf shutters before the flippin' mirror cameras came along. -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:13:08 -0600 Bob wrote:
| All this talk about where the shutter should | be has me confused. This isn't an SLR. When | would the shutter be closed? It seems to me | that since it's not an SLR, it is intrinsically | shutterless. The shutter time would just be | the time between sensor dumps. That's an electronic shutter. And it is doable. Just store selected frames of what is essentially a video stream. However, you either have to use a more expensive sensor, or live with the highlight streaks of cheaper sensors. Ideally, any camera should support this mode, running in video mode and storing frames when the shutter is pressed, whether the video stream itself is stored or not. The stored single frame can be in full resolution while the video is more compressed at lower resolutions like 1920x1080. The future market _should_ (IMHO) consist of cameras that all serve both the still frame at high resolution, and video at reduced compatible resolution, with people simply making choices about which box shape they find to be easier to handle. Then I'd expect to see some cameras show up that can morph (think of Transformer toys) from one shape to another. Others will probably just have addable grips to handle them in various ways. I still want a leaf shutter so I can control the light exposure on the sensor. -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
Ron Hunter wrote:
And some find that having spent a lot of money for a product, based on bias against another product, their product really doesn't do the job better. There is no point paying for something better that you won't ever have the skills to use. After about 60 years using Kodak products, I have never had a negative experience with their cameras. Perhaps you (or your eyes) are too old to tell the difference? Given that they still sell more cameras and photographic products than any other company (last time I checked), I believe I have the weight of the world on my side in this one. Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers daily." McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily good. The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
| Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest | chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers | daily." | | McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That | doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds | burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily | good. | | The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong. Especially since they don't actually make, or even design, most of them, anymore. I used to prefer Kodak film over other brands. Since I quit using film, I have no preference in that area. -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
ray wrote:
Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing' to do. Knocking junk is perfectly valid, regardless of brand. Lots of Samsung digital cameras are junk. Some Sony, some Olympus, some Pentax are junk. It has nothing to do with brand. If they are junk, they are junk, regardless of the name on the front. Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still running. I apologise, I meant the DC210. Nothing that followed the DC210 was any good; the first retrograde step was the DC280 and it has been downhill ever since. I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm not saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series, but that does not make their entire product line junk. Kodak obviously satisfies a certain market. Thanks to their illustrious past, Kodak are still able to trade on a reputation that has certainly not been supported by their digital cameras for many years now. But you won't find anyone who is serious about their photography using Kodak digital cameras, and that speaks volumes. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:54:45 +0000, Bruce wrote:
ray wrote: Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing' to do. Knocking junk is perfectly valid, regardless of brand. Lots of Samsung digital cameras are junk. Some Sony, some Olympus, some Pentax are junk. It has nothing to do with brand. If they are junk, they are junk, regardless of the name on the front. Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still running. I apologise, I meant the DC210. Nothing that followed the DC210 was any good; the first retrograde step was the DC280 and it has been downhill ever since. I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm not saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series, but that does not make their entire product line junk. Kodak obviously satisfies a certain market. Thanks to their illustrious past, Kodak are still able to trade on a reputation that has certainly not been supported by their digital cameras for many years now. But you won't find anyone who is serious about their photography using Kodak digital cameras, and that speaks volumes. So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent Kodak camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any personal experience at all. At least that puts yours remarks in perspective. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus's u4/3rds should nail a few P&S coffins | RichA[_3_] | Digital Photography | 16 | December 12th 08 03:08 AM |
20D NAILS IT ! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 17 | September 4th 06 08:58 PM |
20D NAILS IT! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 20 | September 2nd 06 01:20 AM |