Marty CL

Joined on Sep 23, 2011

Comments

Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

This sort of technology could easily be used by governments to prevent filming of anything that they did not wish to be recorded. Ripe for abuse.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 08:47 UTC as 71st comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (793 comments in total)

Whereas mirrorless offerings by Sony, Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic have failed to spur market titans Canon and Nikon into a serious mirrorless effort, I suspect that Hasselblad's new X1D may now give them pause. Whether or not Hasselblad's new offering will reach the iconic status among professionals as did their 500C----it does put more pressure on Nikon and Canon to innovate.

The camera history is replete with examples of leading companies who have failed to innovate and to meet the market demand. Zeiss-Ikon, Rollei, Voigtlander, Contessa, Konica and Minolta are iconic names that have disappeared from the camera business (Minolta of course was swallowed by Sony after they lost a patent infringement suit).

Is 2016 the year that we see a different direction from Canon and Nikon?

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 11:57 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies

Hmm. $1,000 smart phones with the Red Dot.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 11:08 UTC as 6th comment
On article Gear of the Year Part 4: Dale's pick - Samsung NX1 (408 comments in total)

If the rumors are true, maybe this camera will ultimately hit the market as a Nikon.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2015 at 17:54 UTC as 76th comment | 2 replies

Sounds like Samsung's photographic division really is about to pull the plug.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2015 at 21:18 UTC as 150th comment | 10 replies
On article Nikon announces development of flagship D5 DSLR (442 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: What would be interesting would be actual innovation - something unexpected. Like a 15M-dot EVF so no more mirror required. Or something like slo-mo 4K video. (120fps maybe?) Or dual sensor: it can internally switch between two different sensors, presumably a sensor carrier would slide side-to-side; that would revolutionize things. I've never heard that proposed but would clearly be disruputive and relatively easy to do; do they even try to think originally?

But we know nothing even remotely close to innovation will happen but rather it'll be a full 8% improvement over the D4's AF performance and that's about it. :(

As an owner of several Nikon DSLRs and an Olympus OM D E-M10---is know the strengths and weakness of both types of cameras. And while having a size and weight advantage--there are still compromises and limitations with electronic view finders as well as focus issues for sport usage and as well as general low light issues.

Unless and until all of these mirrorless compromises are resolved--why would Nikon or Canon, for that matter--risk such performance issues with their flagship camera?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 16:14 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1511 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty CL: As an owner of several Leica film cameras and a compact digital camera, I understand and appreciate the mystique of the Red Dot. But in terms of filling a need in the market, I'm hard pressed to understand the rationale for the Leica SL.

The draw of mirrorless cameras is their compact size and lighter weight. They certainly, in general, are not purchased because of lower prices and superior performance (as compared to DSLRs).

If this camera's target market ends of being wealthy camera enthusiasts--so be it. It's their money. But if the intent is truly to compete in the professional market--then why mirrorless?

It is true that decades ago, Leica's film SLR efforts were not successful in competition to the Nikon F (both in lack of system flexibility and price competition), but this is a new era.

Has Leica addressed all of the current inherent performance limitations of mirrorless cameras? Are we about to see a great leap forward in this field?

Yes, I agree. The point is: are we there yet in terms of mirrorless performance equalling or surpassing DSLRs?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 21:37 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1511 comments in total)
In reply to:

LFPCPH: Does this camera fall under the category CSC ( Compact System Camera ) like most other mirrorless cameraes - just wondering.... You may use the like button if you think it does.

On the basis that you state, I think it will be interesting to see-if in a year's time---if professionals are actually using the camera in significant numbers.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 18:16 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1511 comments in total)
In reply to:

PazinBoise: So many people here seem to be of the mindset that if a product doesn't appeal to them it must be stupid and they can't fathom who would pay for that kind of money for this kind of camera.

Leica is a niche company and their customer base either loves the brand, loves the designs, loves the look they produce, or simply loves the exclusivity of their products. Regardless of what is their customer's driving factor to buy is what we do know is they can afford it.

Their products are like exotic luxury cars, they aren't meant for the masses. There may be other cars that offer better value to performance however that's not the point of buying one.

But I think a lot of people would like to understand the rationale for this camera and how the company sees this in relationship with the rest of the market.
Is this truly intended to be a camera for professionals?

I guess only time will tell.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 18:13 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1511 comments in total)

As an owner of several Leica film cameras and a compact digital camera, I understand and appreciate the mystique of the Red Dot. But in terms of filling a need in the market, I'm hard pressed to understand the rationale for the Leica SL.

The draw of mirrorless cameras is their compact size and lighter weight. They certainly, in general, are not purchased because of lower prices and superior performance (as compared to DSLRs).

If this camera's target market ends of being wealthy camera enthusiasts--so be it. It's their money. But if the intent is truly to compete in the professional market--then why mirrorless?

It is true that decades ago, Leica's film SLR efforts were not successful in competition to the Nikon F (both in lack of system flexibility and price competition), but this is a new era.

Has Leica addressed all of the current inherent performance limitations of mirrorless cameras? Are we about to see a great leap forward in this field?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 18:10 UTC as 164th comment | 9 replies

These types of stories always bring out the posts of DSLRs vs mirrorless. In fairness, we must acknowledge that technical advancements in mirrorless cameras benefit the industry as a whole and ultimately the consumer. But its premature to write the epitaph of DSLRs.

The current advantage of mirrorless is compactness and weight savings, but there is little cost advantage and DSLRs still produce superior images over a wider range of shooting situations (sports, low light shooting, current superiority of OVF vs EVF ).

As an owner of both types, I have personally experienced the advantages and limitations of both types of camera.

But it's hard to believe that mirrorless technology won't eventually find its way into the top level of cameras produced by Canon and Nikon. But for that the happen, ultimately, mirrorless technology must solve all of it's perceived weaknesses. Because in the final analysis, all that matters is the quality of the photos produced.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 11:18 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

Simon Elwell: I've found that fewer people want to see good photos of events and places. I was at a wedding recently. For many years I've taken a camera to weddings, shooting the things that the official photographers don't - the people watching, the children playing etc. But everyone at this recent wedding had a smartphone - everyone was snapping away. Everyone had their own record.
I posted my pictures on Flickr and the bride and groom were delighted with the alternative perspective - as is often the case; but I can't help feeling that most of the guests already had a smartphone version of what I'd shot - not as well composed, not as high res, not as ... well you name it. But enough to mean they're not interested in someone else's pictures.

I've had similar experiences. I wonder sometimes if I'm the only one carrying a dedicated camera to an event.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 18:59 UTC

Even the most sophisticated of cameras have
"program" mode. So I'm not sure if "complexity is the real issue--or is it bulk of some of these cameras and lack of convenience? Smart phone photos can usually be quickly posted to social media websites. No so with many of the higher end cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 18:56 UTC as 159th comment
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 II: What you need to know (140 comments in total)

I recently bought the first generation E-M10 and I love it. The EVF is very clear and shows the continue improvement in the technology. I find the auto focus satisfactory for my needs and the camera body is both compact and lightweight (but the body feels very sturdy). I also currently own a Nikon D610 which gives me suburb pictures--but the body is quite chunky and heavy (but I love the full frame sensor results)--but it is too heavy to carry on walking trips or for sight seeing.

There really is no longer such thing as an "all around camera" --different cameras for different needs and situations. But mirrorless is definitely making inroads to DSLRs. The truth of the matter that the small camera companies (at least those with smaller market share) innovate in the mirrorless area because THEY HAVE TO---in order to stay relevant.

But sooner or later, the DSLR titans Canon and Nikon will have to deal with this new technology in a serious way--"innovate or perish".

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 11:32 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies

Undoubtedly, every story published on the issue of mirrorless vs DSLR capability is going to generate a lot of emotion in both camps. As an owner/user of both a DSLR (Nikon D610) and mirrorless (Olympus OM-D E-M10) its clear to me that the continual technological advances in mirrorless is closing the gap with DSLRs.

While DSLRs still do out sell mirrorless by roughly 2.5 to 1--its a bit premature to signal the burial of DSLRs. But as EVF's continue to improve both in low light use and refresh rate--the burden of weight and manufacturing costs are challenges that DSLR makers (principally Nikon and Canon) will have to confront---and the sooner the better.

Both Nikon and Canon do have legacy lens issues to deal with in terms of backwards compatibility with new technology. But as a history lesson, it is wise to remember that rangefinder cameras and TLRs went from dominance in the 1950's to virtual obsolescence.

No technology is sacrosanct.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 17:54 UTC as 182nd comment | 1 reply
On article Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras (447 comments in total)

Clearly, Sony's intent is to challenge Nikon and Canon in the full frame market. The question is how will these two titans respond to this challenge. Those companies with a smaller share of the camera market have had to innovate in order to stay relevant.

Currently DSLRs out sell mirrorless by 3.8 times--but the future of mirrorless lies in it cost of production and the ability to make smaller, lighter weight cameras. At present people don't buy mirrorless because of price savings or superior image quality (and superior viewfinder images). But as technology marches on, Canon and Nikon will have stay abreast by incorporating mirrorless technology. Otherwise, they will find themselves outflanked by Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, etc . The same happened as digital progressed enough to challenge film cameras.

Ask Zeiss Ikon--which was a camera titan until competition and technology from Japan drove them from the camera market in 1972.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 21:05 UTC as 88th comment
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1076 comments in total)
In reply to:

skysi: I'm sure an awesome camera, but the ugliness of it!

Ugly? Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think it's a very handsome camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 17:09 UTC

I think real convergence won't take place until electronic viewfinders reach full operational and capability parity with optical view finders. Owning both multiple DSLRs and multiple mirrorless cameras--each has it's pros and cons--but its clear (no pun intended) that electronic viewfinders---at present-- cannot operate effectively in low light situations.

I don't think any camera, in this day and age, is really an all purpose camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 17:48 UTC as 54th comment | 6 replies
On article Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II (1118 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty CL: I think this a very interesting announcement and as Sony and other companies introduce other advancements--it's good for consumers and good for the industry as a whole. Since the 1920's---we've seen photography advance in similar fashions and we've seen winners (surviving companies) and losers (those who went out of business or were merged into bigger companies). It's just the way advances in technology works.

What is distressing is the increasingly angry posts--both in defense of mirrorless and criticism of DSLRs and the companies who make them.

As a user of both DSLRs and mirrorless---I appreciate BOTH systems for their respective advantages. But to claim that DSLR makers are in a death spiral is a bit premature. According to CIPA.JP, Jan- April DSLR shipments out number mirrorless by 3.8 times. With a smaller base, mirrorless will naturally show larger percent changes.

Very well said, 57even. There are formats which were popular in their day but now gone (TLR cameras) and brands which were household names over the last 90 years which are likewise out of the camera business---Contessa, Zeiss-Ikon, Voigtlander, Rollei, Konica, Yashica, Minolta--which folded for either economic reasons or failure to innovate.

As to your comment regarding Canon and Nikon---I think you are correct. I suspect that we'll see something along the lines of full frame mirrorless or some sort of innovation along with lines of more advanced pellicle mirrors. My guess is the former than than the latter--as much for economic reasons as technical. Both have millions of legacy lens users to think about.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 13:58 UTC
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »