I didn't watch the interview until after reading the comments, so I was surprised that Joel Grey came across so much more reasonable than he's being portrayed in the comments. You all should have known that he knows his stuff because even though he's not a techie, he's long been more than an actor. Ever since Cabaret, he's also been a camera.
> "Cabaret", both the show and film, are based upon the 1951 Broadway play "I Am a Camera", which was based upon Christopher Isherwood's book "Goodbye to Berlin" which is part of "The Berlin Stories." That book begins with the quote, "I am a camera with its shutter open, quite passive, recording, not thinking." http://robertwilliamsofbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2012/02/cabaret-with-liza-minnelli-joel-grey.html
And by the way, the interview wasn't "with New York radio station WNYC", but with WNYC's Leonard Lopate. Here's a link to the full, nearly 14 minute audio interview : http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2009/jul/28/
Jared Huntr: Instead of deleting entire threads, how about locking it from further updates, with a final post by the moderator on why the thread was locked.
It doesn't make sense to delete and entire thread's worth of valuable information just because of a few troublemakers. Also, it would provide insight as to why some threads are deleted and others not (when they seem to contain the same violations). Having the moderator provide justification also keeps the system honest so that there is some consistency.
The moderators have long had the ability to lock forums (ie, making them read-only), and also are/were able to prune thread branches instead of deleting entire threads. There have been cases where entire threads were deleted when most of the early posts were positive contributions. I can only assume that in these cases the entire threads were deleted because the moderating tools aren't particularly well written and it might take much more effort to selectively prune than to uproot the entire thread in one quick yank.
Ann Chaikin: What is the point of rating users? Is it a contest? I can see filtering out those who just want to be trolls but other than that... why?
How sure are you that this won't make things worse? It could replace generally ineffective moderating with what we've already seen in the forums, cliques of users that quickly figure out how to game the system and punish those that they disagree with or dislike. Have any steps been taken to try to prevent this or what could devolve into 'Lord of the Flies' behavior?
Guidenet: I think there is no excuse for leaving out modern sonic ring focusing motors in a new lens today, especially at this price point. Giving old technology a new name doesn't help except for the fan faithful. These days, we demand that a modern Sigma lens have HSM (their name for sonic ring type). We demand that Tamron's newest be USD (same thing). Nikon owners require all new lenses be AFS. Canon owners have long required USM (ultra sonic motors).
Pentax and Sony have been slow to adopt probably because it is expensive. Only Pentax's top "Star" lenses seem to have SDM (Sonic Drive Motor). There maybe one or two others, but they are just now moving that way. Their two new medium format models of course use the newer technology.
So what's the excuse for not using modern sonic ring motors in a new $900 lens from Olympus? The lens isn't that small. A good AF design would be worth it even if it required a little more width to handle it. Most excuses are going to not make much sense really.
I've only noticed AF getting noisy when geared motors are used and they're underpowered for the size of the lens. So lenses that made a lot of noise when used on Nikon's smaller bodies like the D50, D70 and D80 became less loud when mounted on a D300, and they became even quieter on a D700 or D3. But with Nikon's AF-S lenses, whether they're the tiny CX lenses designed for the J1/V1 or the much larger lenses like the 70-200mm f/2.8, they all focus silently on the little J1/V1 as far as I can tell, whether the camera is using PDAF or CDAF, and the focus speed is determined not by the Silent Wave (ring) Motor size but by the camera's CPU. This has been observed when teleconverters are used, and the camera NEEDS to be aware that there's a TC between the lens and the camera, and it uses that information to slow down the AF speed, otherwise AF performance would suffer.
That's news to all of the mirrorless J1/V1 owners, since they only AF with native CX lenses which are all AF-S designs, as well as Nikon's AF-S DSLR lenses, and when they focus, whether using PDAF or CDAF, they do it silently. If that 12-60mm lens is loud and annoying, it's a poor design and not at all typical of AF-S (sonic ring) lenses. At least none of Nikon's are noisy and I've used more than a dozen of them.
> Maybe it wasn't chosen because it was cheaper and easier to implement. I hope those who think this is a good idea are not just going on blind faith of the brand faithful.
Heaven forbid. I'm surprised that 75mm being pretty long for a portrait lens wasn't mentioned. While 50mm through 200mm lenses can be used on full frame bodies, portrait lenses are usually 85mm and 105mm, and the Olympus 75mm is equivalent to 150mm, not exactly the first choice of portrait photographers. I think that your hope is misGuided [excuse the pun :)]
> I think the way a motor racks in and out for a particular type of AF is semiconductor controlled and can work regardless. Sonic ring is silent, accurate and fast compared to other systems. Moreover, it has an instant clutchless manual override which is welcome.
It _can_ be faster, but just as with geared motors, AF-S lenses are sometimes designed to operate more slowly, in order to allow more precise and accurate focusing. This is true for Nikon's latest AF-S 50mm and 85mm lenses.
> I might be wrong. This indeed might be a rare case where the old technology micro motor is a better solution technologically.
>> There is actually a ring-shaped brushless-type normal zoom that autofocuses on M43: the Four Thirds 12-60. Users report the sound is so disconcerting and the focus performance so bad that it's a good move to use it as a manual focus optic. Basically, ring-type focus motors are a poor choice on mirrorless.