> Posted by Jorgen Udvang
> Larry and others, Let's then say that we follow your path and have one
> camera for each use, which in many ways make sense, and let's also say
> that we accept the EVF, even if it's still an experimental device that
> can't be used for focusing o r contrast/colour evaluation.
I expect that varies from camera to camera. I am no fan of the EVF and the month-old camera is the first time I have had one. I have not used it for actual photography, much preferring the monitor that keeps that camera out of my face.
I have however, checked it out in testing. It is actually higher in resolution than the monitor 235,000 pixels as compared to the monitor’s 134,000. Colour matches the monitor exactly, and both match the ambient colour of the scene after doing a proper white balance. Furthermore, the image as seen in the camera closely matches what I see on the highly accurate computer monitor I use for image processing, graphics and animation.
The camera has the analogue of micro-screen focusing with my Nikon F3 screens, and I find that I have no problem whatever manually focusing. On the other hand, I can manually select any of nine areas of the screen for auto-focus and spot exposure reading, which largely overcomes the notorious weaknesses of auto-focus systems.
Like a waist-level finder, a view camera, or the sportsfinder for the Nikon F3, with the swing and swivel monitor my face is liberated from having a camera jammed into it. The moment one gets the camera out of the line of sight, subjects relax and spontaneity returns to the pictures. I have grown to really appreciate the improvement in the content of my work that has occurred with the monitor. This is my issue with the EVF. In bright sunlight photography, it may be useful on rare occasions, if I want to radically change the setup of the camera via the menus. If it had been left off, I would not miss it. The EVF is a total non-factor.
> Shouldn't we then have the best available sensor (within reasonable
> limits) in cameras like the CP 8800 and 8400?
My ideal camera for today would have the sensor of the Dx2 and a 3.5†LCD monitor off a video camera. It won’t be available today however.
Realize that dSLRs are where the big profits are, and no camera manufacturer will compete with itself. The machinery and production lines for SLR manufacture were paid for way back by the 35mm cameras they built. Nikon also supplies bodies to Kodak and Fujifilm. While the digital innards are certainly more costly in some of the dSLRs, the mechanicals are not. Not only do parts work across product lines, but the same machines that make the parts do so too. The same system may be producing mirrors for both the D70 and the D2X, keeping costs minimal.
Given the situation, no camera company is going to produce a Coolpix D2X so long as people will buy a premium priced dSLR that is cheap to make – or relatively so.
I expect as well that a lot of the designers and engineers are not photographers, just as a lot of programmers never use the software they write. It has been a problem that programmers are traditionally much more concerned with the beauty and cleverness of their source-code than with its functionality. I suspect that among the designers, there is prestige in making yet another smaller camera that is nearly impossible to hold steady at low shutter speeds. “Mine is smaller than yours!â€
> Another question is why nobody but KM have launched a 1 MP EVF. It's
> probably more expensive, but these are not cheap cameras. Can it be
> that they don't want people like us buying advanced P&S cameras since
> they will lose the profit from all the expensive (overpriced?) lenses
> that we keep buying?
Yup. However, at 235,000 pixels, there is no problem reading the EVF on my camera. In fact, I would see little practical gain even with the 134,000 pixels of the monitor if it were higher in resolution. I have no problem whatever focusing with it using the pseudo-microgrid assist. I would love a much LARGER screen however, even if it had the same ppi resolution. I have never missed a shot due to the resolution of the screen. There is nothing inherently wrong with a 1MP monitor, but it is mostly a marketing gimmick.
> It's tempting to quote the EOS 350D review on Luminous Landscape last
> week: "Now, if Canon would just hire a few photographers to take
> prototype camera s for a walk around the block before committing to
> some of the more egregious design bloopers that it insists on foisting
> on us,...". I think we can add Nikon to the list here, although they
As I said above, prior to reading this paragraph. Over the past five years the Nikon Coolpix UI has improved immensely. Coupled to the much larger buffer and the much faster embedded processor, each generation shows that people at the other end are at least considering the problems. Of course, one can look back at cameras like the original screw-mount Leicas and Exactas for cameras that were not designed for human use. "We are engineers. The human must fit the machine, not the machine fit the human. Human needs must bend to the needs of the MACHINE!"
If you have studied the Japanese business model, you will find that decisions move up and down the levels of management with consensus being reached each step of the way. As some wag once defined a camel - "A horse designed by a committee".
Being in agreement can mean that the best of all ideas are accepted - or the line of least resistance is taken. I suspect the latter predominates. Never attribute to malice, that which can be more accurately attributed to ignorance or incompetence. No matter what side of the globe there is also a desire to cover one’s butt by not going against the current.
> I will not evaluate which mode makes most sense, but I find it
> absolutely unbelievable that a company like Canon, who has a long
> history both in cameras and in computers and electronics, cannot agree
> with itself what the standard should be.
Ever see a company where the head of IT can NOT intimidate the CEO with a stream of technobabble? (Oracle perhaps, I don’t think that Larry Ellison’s ego can be bent by any force in the universe.)
Heads of non-entrepreneurial companies don’t necessarily have the slightest knowledge about their products. It is their job to keep shareholders smiling and the company running. That rarely has anything whatever to do with the product. So you get house-geeks building geek-stuff for other geeks to appreciate, and marketing-droids to peddle it. In many cases, it may also be of use to consumers - but that is by no means a linear extension.
> In a way, the digital F100 or the FM3d are more symbols than anything
> else. I think the point here is that we don't want a camera that is
> more complicated to use, digital or not, just because "progress" is
> unavoidable. Some of the functionality of the conventional cameras was
> there for a reason. I don't think the reason have changed much.
Epson/Cosina certainly proved that with the amazingly retro R-D1. However, there are two issues that must be separated, and the line of separation is not all that obvious at first glance.
When one buys a digital camera, one not only buys the camera but a supply of film for the life of the camera. As Epson has shown, it is possible to build a 1950s-era, largely mechanical, rangefinder for digital photography. That is really not much of a problem.
It is the virtual film where it becomes complex. I can switch from tungsten to daylight, select one of over 30 built-in colour balancing filters, slow film to fast, saturated film to monochrome, low to high contrast, film with a long shoulder slope, at the touch of a button. I can even control the sharpness. With my camera, I can select 640x480 for my animations, 1MP, 2MP, 3MP, 5MP and 8MP formats along with full resolution but 3:2 ratio like 35mm film. I can shoot uncompressed TIFF, losslessly compressed RAW and JPEGS at 1:2, 1:4, 1:8 and 1:16 compressions depending upon my needs. Yes, they do get used. This versatility comes with a price in complexity.
There are some nice camera features courtesy digital technology as well. I practically cut my teeth on a Weston Master meter. My favorite books as a kid, were by Ansel Adams. I have lived and breathed Zone System almost from the day I first picked up a camera. A live, real-time histogram is heaven. A glance at the monitor and I can dial in my zones like as a film-shooter, I never even dreamed of. Nirvana for the Zone System enabled!
Having a range of effectively stepless shutter speeds from eight seconds to 1/4000th is no big thing now, but having between the lens shutter sync at all speeds is. The sole reason I bought the Bronica system rather than Pentax or Mamiya at the time was between the lens shutters on all the lenses. No focal plane shutter! Of course they only sync to 1/500th, which some focal plane cameras can match now. Then 1/60th was about average.
I have Bulb exposures to ten minutes, but also exposures of 30 seconds, one, two three, five and ten minutes digitally timed. For once I look forward to the season of thunderstorms, though I got some pretty dramatic stuff using the CP5k on bulb. It also has an interval timer should you want to explore time-based phenomena – such as an emerging butterfly or an opening flower, with a number of intervals between 30 seconds and an hour.
Nope, neither the cameras nor any of the camera manufacturers are perfect. However, both are reasonably functional, and have extended the range of my photography considerably. Cameras are designed by people - not beings with superhuman intelligence. No person knows everything, though they might think so upon receiving their engineering degree. Mistakes get made. However, we have the opportunity to research the market and find the best there is from the huge selection of product for our purposes. I have succeeded very well for the moment. I expect in a few years there will be a camera that even more closely reflects my needs.
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
ICQ 76620504
> Larry and others, Let's then say that we follow your path and have one
> camera for each use, which in many ways make sense, and let's also say
> that we accept the EVF, even if it's still an experimental device that
> can't be used for focusing o r contrast/colour evaluation.
I expect that varies from camera to camera. I am no fan of the EVF and the month-old camera is the first time I have had one. I have not used it for actual photography, much preferring the monitor that keeps that camera out of my face.
I have however, checked it out in testing. It is actually higher in resolution than the monitor 235,000 pixels as compared to the monitor’s 134,000. Colour matches the monitor exactly, and both match the ambient colour of the scene after doing a proper white balance. Furthermore, the image as seen in the camera closely matches what I see on the highly accurate computer monitor I use for image processing, graphics and animation.
The camera has the analogue of micro-screen focusing with my Nikon F3 screens, and I find that I have no problem whatever manually focusing. On the other hand, I can manually select any of nine areas of the screen for auto-focus and spot exposure reading, which largely overcomes the notorious weaknesses of auto-focus systems.
Like a waist-level finder, a view camera, or the sportsfinder for the Nikon F3, with the swing and swivel monitor my face is liberated from having a camera jammed into it. The moment one gets the camera out of the line of sight, subjects relax and spontaneity returns to the pictures. I have grown to really appreciate the improvement in the content of my work that has occurred with the monitor. This is my issue with the EVF. In bright sunlight photography, it may be useful on rare occasions, if I want to radically change the setup of the camera via the menus. If it had been left off, I would not miss it. The EVF is a total non-factor.
> Shouldn't we then have the best available sensor (within reasonable
> limits) in cameras like the CP 8800 and 8400?
My ideal camera for today would have the sensor of the Dx2 and a 3.5†LCD monitor off a video camera. It won’t be available today however.
Realize that dSLRs are where the big profits are, and no camera manufacturer will compete with itself. The machinery and production lines for SLR manufacture were paid for way back by the 35mm cameras they built. Nikon also supplies bodies to Kodak and Fujifilm. While the digital innards are certainly more costly in some of the dSLRs, the mechanicals are not. Not only do parts work across product lines, but the same machines that make the parts do so too. The same system may be producing mirrors for both the D70 and the D2X, keeping costs minimal.
Given the situation, no camera company is going to produce a Coolpix D2X so long as people will buy a premium priced dSLR that is cheap to make – or relatively so.
I expect as well that a lot of the designers and engineers are not photographers, just as a lot of programmers never use the software they write. It has been a problem that programmers are traditionally much more concerned with the beauty and cleverness of their source-code than with its functionality. I suspect that among the designers, there is prestige in making yet another smaller camera that is nearly impossible to hold steady at low shutter speeds. “Mine is smaller than yours!â€
> Another question is why nobody but KM have launched a 1 MP EVF. It's
> probably more expensive, but these are not cheap cameras. Can it be
> that they don't want people like us buying advanced P&S cameras since
> they will lose the profit from all the expensive (overpriced?) lenses
> that we keep buying?
Yup. However, at 235,000 pixels, there is no problem reading the EVF on my camera. In fact, I would see little practical gain even with the 134,000 pixels of the monitor if it were higher in resolution. I have no problem whatever focusing with it using the pseudo-microgrid assist. I would love a much LARGER screen however, even if it had the same ppi resolution. I have never missed a shot due to the resolution of the screen. There is nothing inherently wrong with a 1MP monitor, but it is mostly a marketing gimmick.
> It's tempting to quote the EOS 350D review on Luminous Landscape last
> week: "Now, if Canon would just hire a few photographers to take
> prototype camera s for a walk around the block before committing to
> some of the more egregious design bloopers that it insists on foisting
> on us,...". I think we can add Nikon to the list here, although they
As I said above, prior to reading this paragraph. Over the past five years the Nikon Coolpix UI has improved immensely. Coupled to the much larger buffer and the much faster embedded processor, each generation shows that people at the other end are at least considering the problems. Of course, one can look back at cameras like the original screw-mount Leicas and Exactas for cameras that were not designed for human use. "We are engineers. The human must fit the machine, not the machine fit the human. Human needs must bend to the needs of the MACHINE!"
If you have studied the Japanese business model, you will find that decisions move up and down the levels of management with consensus being reached each step of the way. As some wag once defined a camel - "A horse designed by a committee".
Being in agreement can mean that the best of all ideas are accepted - or the line of least resistance is taken. I suspect the latter predominates. Never attribute to malice, that which can be more accurately attributed to ignorance or incompetence. No matter what side of the globe there is also a desire to cover one’s butt by not going against the current.
> I will not evaluate which mode makes most sense, but I find it
> absolutely unbelievable that a company like Canon, who has a long
> history both in cameras and in computers and electronics, cannot agree
> with itself what the standard should be.
Ever see a company where the head of IT can NOT intimidate the CEO with a stream of technobabble? (Oracle perhaps, I don’t think that Larry Ellison’s ego can be bent by any force in the universe.)
Heads of non-entrepreneurial companies don’t necessarily have the slightest knowledge about their products. It is their job to keep shareholders smiling and the company running. That rarely has anything whatever to do with the product. So you get house-geeks building geek-stuff for other geeks to appreciate, and marketing-droids to peddle it. In many cases, it may also be of use to consumers - but that is by no means a linear extension.
> In a way, the digital F100 or the FM3d are more symbols than anything
> else. I think the point here is that we don't want a camera that is
> more complicated to use, digital or not, just because "progress" is
> unavoidable. Some of the functionality of the conventional cameras was
> there for a reason. I don't think the reason have changed much.
Epson/Cosina certainly proved that with the amazingly retro R-D1. However, there are two issues that must be separated, and the line of separation is not all that obvious at first glance.
When one buys a digital camera, one not only buys the camera but a supply of film for the life of the camera. As Epson has shown, it is possible to build a 1950s-era, largely mechanical, rangefinder for digital photography. That is really not much of a problem.
It is the virtual film where it becomes complex. I can switch from tungsten to daylight, select one of over 30 built-in colour balancing filters, slow film to fast, saturated film to monochrome, low to high contrast, film with a long shoulder slope, at the touch of a button. I can even control the sharpness. With my camera, I can select 640x480 for my animations, 1MP, 2MP, 3MP, 5MP and 8MP formats along with full resolution but 3:2 ratio like 35mm film. I can shoot uncompressed TIFF, losslessly compressed RAW and JPEGS at 1:2, 1:4, 1:8 and 1:16 compressions depending upon my needs. Yes, they do get used. This versatility comes with a price in complexity.
There are some nice camera features courtesy digital technology as well. I practically cut my teeth on a Weston Master meter. My favorite books as a kid, were by Ansel Adams. I have lived and breathed Zone System almost from the day I first picked up a camera. A live, real-time histogram is heaven. A glance at the monitor and I can dial in my zones like as a film-shooter, I never even dreamed of. Nirvana for the Zone System enabled!
Having a range of effectively stepless shutter speeds from eight seconds to 1/4000th is no big thing now, but having between the lens shutter sync at all speeds is. The sole reason I bought the Bronica system rather than Pentax or Mamiya at the time was between the lens shutters on all the lenses. No focal plane shutter! Of course they only sync to 1/500th, which some focal plane cameras can match now. Then 1/60th was about average.
I have Bulb exposures to ten minutes, but also exposures of 30 seconds, one, two three, five and ten minutes digitally timed. For once I look forward to the season of thunderstorms, though I got some pretty dramatic stuff using the CP5k on bulb. It also has an interval timer should you want to explore time-based phenomena – such as an emerging butterfly or an opening flower, with a number of intervals between 30 seconds and an hour.
Nope, neither the cameras nor any of the camera manufacturers are perfect. However, both are reasonably functional, and have extended the range of my photography considerably. Cameras are designed by people - not beings with superhuman intelligence. No person knows everything, though they might think so upon receiving their engineering degree. Mistakes get made. However, we have the opportunity to research the market and find the best there is from the huge selection of product for our purposes. I have succeeded very well for the moment. I expect in a few years there will be a camera that even more closely reflects my needs.
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
ICQ 76620504
