Erik Magnuson

Erik Magnuson

Lives in United States Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Has a website at http://www.pbase.com/maderik
Joined on Dec 29, 2000
About me:

This is what I'd like to appear on my public 'posters (sic)
profile.'

Comments

Total: 218, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

cknapp61: The article states..."the lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO, White Balance or any other image setting, and the need to indicate a crop in the viewfinder if anything less than a full frame sensor is used, are all difficult to get around"..

Really, in 2013? One could not design the device to accept NFC inputs from a smartphone to adjust ISO,WB etc., and use the smartphone as a "review screen" via wi-fi? As for indicating crop factors, easy fix, since many of our film cameras have removable focus screens like the Nikon F1, etc.

It is a curse being smart and good looking, unfortunately, I am mostly broke financially...as MeaLoaf says..."Two outta three ain't bad....".

A outline turns your center-weighted meter into pure averaging. Even worse, the meter is influenced by light outside of the image area. Either way your big viewfinder is now effectively much smaller and less accurate.

A Retina would be poor choice for such an implementation. Masking the VF would be difficult and unless you have a big-C, it's already tiny and dim. Putting a bright, shiny digital sensor near a lens that's not coated to handle those reflections is also problematic. At least the Retina's count down interlock means you can handle buffer limits reasonably. For the number of times you'd actually use it, simply shooting film and having it scanned is a digital option you still have.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

fhe: QV-10 cannot possibly have been the first consumer digital camera. My dad had a roundish one with a name like Sony? IOS (impossible to google nowadays) which stored data on 2.5" disks. It must have been at least a couple of years before 1995.

Still Video Cameras (like the Canon ION) recorded images as video scan lines similar to a paused tape - technically not digital.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

nunatak: It's still a good idea for those folk who enjoy the novelty of shooting classic film gear. It presents them with another opportunity to rant why film is much better.

The bigger question is why stuff newer generation technology into a decades old product — unless it's strictly for show?

Most important would be a "ready for next shot" light (on DSLRs, implemented as a buffer count.) There would be no automatic interlock as you get when you hit the end of a roll of film and taking shots that were never recorded would be pretty annoying.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

Ferling: While I can understand the negative comments with some users in regards to digital today. In 2000, there was still a huge film user base, and this would have been viewed as a novel, "endless film" toy and seen some sales. I would have loved to try this out and keep the T90, T70 and FTBn going. I have a lot of FD glass that could use some new life, and would most likely get one just for that reason.

It was never for the FTb class camera, only for those newer cameras that supported full communicating data backs. If you don't have any way to coordinate the shutter and the sensor, then you end up with hacks that compromise quality or handling. For example, to control noise you need to reset/clear the sensor just before the exposure starts.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

CharlesGordon: I like the idea of being able to stuff this into the smaller cameras that were far more common in the film days. Although, in the past couple years there seems to be an awakening that some of us just want the bigger sensor, not the bigger body.

Film was flat in both XA and Rollei. The main reason they could be so small was that the lenses could be small because film still works with large angle off-axis rays.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

cknapp61: The article states..."the lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO, White Balance or any other image setting, and the need to indicate a crop in the viewfinder if anything less than a full frame sensor is used, are all difficult to get around"..

Really, in 2013? One could not design the device to accept NFC inputs from a smartphone to adjust ISO,WB etc., and use the smartphone as a "review screen" via wi-fi? As for indicating crop factors, easy fix, since many of our film cameras have removable focus screens like the Nikon F1, etc.

It is a curse being smart and good looking, unfortunately, I am mostly broke financially...as MeaLoaf says..."Two outta three ain't bad....".

One, your NFC has to work through the metal camera back and it will add regulatory compliance costs. Two, you run into volume vs. price vs. development cost issues put integrate NFC.. Three, mask the screen more than just a little and metering (which works off the screen) will be way off. If it were easy, it might have been done.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

rsf3127: putting the sensor and a battery inside a filma camera is not that difficult.
I would also manage to attatch a cellphone to the back of the camera and make it a LCD linked wirelessly or wiredly to the digital back.
Then I coud switch iso, wb and all the stuff on the lcd screen.

It's not difficult -- for a small, low performance sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 18:32 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1333 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sviz: Since this is basically a 40MP sensor, I don't understand why Canon didn't make it output a 40MP image, instead of combining the information from pairs of photosites and output a 20MP image. Can someone explain me?

Because the sub-pixels are under the same microlens and the same color filter. Also since the pixels are split in half, subpixels are no longer square requiring extra interpolation to get a normal image. There is no point in 40MP from this sensor because the amount of extra spatial information (i.e. detail) would negligible.

Posted on Aug 17, 2013 at 17:19 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1333 comments in total)
In reply to:

Christoph Stephan: "why bother with the bulk of an SLR?" Simply, framing with the screen at arms length
1. negates any advantage image stabilisation may offer, and this gets even worse with huge telephoto lenses like te EF 100-400mm L IS
2. is still a pain in bright light making composition - the essence of creative photography - guesswork
3. Optical finders consume less battery power than screens and EVF. Battery empty - no photos.

For me the EOS M and other viewfinderless garbage will always be a cup which I will let pass by, give me an SLR with decent OVF anytime.

It doesn't help your argument to mistate things: only if you are rather far-sighted w/o corrective lenses do you need to hold & frame with a rear LCD at arms length. You can brace you elbows against your body. Holding a camera incorrectly is not a negative on the camera -- plenty of people don't hold SLRs correctly.

Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 18:10 UTC
In reply to:

Erik Magnuson: This is mostly a "duh". 21 elements in 16 groups (Nikon) or 23 elements in 19 groups (Canon) means these are some of the most complex lenses in common use.

If any element or group gets knocked out of whack, you have an optical issue - just look at all of the adjustment points on these lenses. If the element groups that move are large/heavy, that adds stress. BTW, 24-70mm zooms that move like you suggest are also high on the failure list.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

Neeneko: I am kinda saddened at people taking so much glee in a product failing. Lytro at least took a chance and did something different rather then the 'go faster stripes' that DSLR manufacturers have been putting out lately.

I suspect the problem is less that it did not appeal to professionals, and more it was not a good status symbol for 'prosumers', too many of whom seemed to have an emotional stake in the technology not catching on.

I doubt professionals cared too much one way or the other. They are generally too busy actually getting work done.

Because even at the beginning, the hype far exceeded the reality. Creating images that are interesting with multiple focal planes is difficult - even more so with the limitations of this device which required a lot of relative depth difference. It just did not match how or what people shoot. Perhaps if they'd made it more "selfie" friendly then they might have had something. A viewer could then refocus on the photo-bomber or detritus in the background. Each selfie would have become a defacto scavenger hunt!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

Artak Hambarian: Rallyfan mention something very interesting. Why Lytro does not advertise the capability of creating a one shot stacked focus pictures? That is an amazing feature. It may be realised both in camera and via post processing. One shot means that you have perfect set of pictures to focus stack.

Probably because a shot with everything in focus looks a lot like any small sensor camera stopped down to f/8 and resized down to Lytro dimensions. Refocusability is at least unique - pan focus at low resolution is not.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 15:23 UTC

This is mostly a "duh". 21 elements in 16 groups (Nikon) or 23 elements in 19 groups (Canon) means these are some of the most complex lenses in common use.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 12:41 UTC as 67th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Jim: The Nikon V1/J1 series doesn't pass the test of obviousness. Interchangable lenses with a small sensor just don't go well together. If you're going to change lenses you might as well have a larger sensor without much of a penalty in size. This camera, like the Pentax Q7, just makes no sense. When the price point is factored in, it just lame. It's almost as if Nikon didn't do any target marketing before releasing this product line.

"are extremely popular" - I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 16:38 UTC
On Pentax Q7 Review preview (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Great Review. I really didn't even know this camera existed until I saw the review. I love the fact that the camera and lenses are small and both really are not that expensive.

Then I compared the image quality to the LX7. When you factor in how fast the LX7's lens is and the fact that it can be had for less than $300 it isn't even a contest.

That is without even considering the Sony RX100 II. The Pentax is an awesome camera and great design. However, it just simply can't compete when Panasonic has been practically giving the LX7 away.

The RX100 and LX7 have lenses that are just as fast or faster than the 01 prime. The 06 zoom takes the camera well out of the pocketable range. If you want a narrow FOV on a tripod, attach a camera to a spotting scope. The Q niche is smaller than the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

wallbreaker: they can keep the 1 but make it retractable faster lens to compete with RX100

That would be a Coolpix. Somewhere someone said that Nikon should have made the 1 a higher-end coolpix (with price to match) and the Coolpix A the start of a new line of niche compacts (e.g. Nikon 28ti of film days.)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: The mirrorless bubble seems to be bursting (or at least showing holes), and Nikon is likely the first of several traditional camera companies to scale back production of MILCs. Although the Nikon 1 system managed to put Nikon in 4th place in the overall worldwide mirrorless market, perhaps enthusiasts are realizing that other than smaller size, there are few real advantages to investing in pricey MILC systems that ultimately don't outperform their DSLRs. It's a pity as the Nikon 1 managed to innovate in some areas where others MILCs weren't able to.

But Nikon is not a large conglomerate like a Sony or Panasonic who can make up for poor sales and unprofitable MILC systems with revenue from other divisions.

Does "selling mirrorless just fine" include making a profit? If Nikon was doing as "well" as Olympus, would they consider it a success or failure? MILC has stalled in growth but does not appear to have reached enough share for profitability. Olympus has little choice, u4/3 mirrorless is all the hope they have left, sink or swim. Nikon has alternatives and it makes sense for it to consider them.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

Grahamjs: I bought a Nikon 1 V1 and lenses to use as a system to use when walking.
I still take the D800 E and 14-24 and 24-70 with me, but end up only using the V1. This camera is very much misunderstood, and takes superb RAW files that unless mega cropping is required are almost as good as the D800E in good daylight conditions. The speed and feel of the camera make it a joy to use.
I guess that everybody has been brainwashed to think that a camera with a smallish sensor is rubbish, and here lies the problem for the Nikon 1 system.
If only people would try them, they would find that this is not the case.
Look at Steve Huffs website and read what he and others say about the V1.
To combat this misguided view on the 1 System, Nikon needs to start with the COOLPIX A, add a viewfinder A La Lumix GX7 and fit a normal Nikon DX lens mount to take interchangeable lenses.

Most cameras can handle good daylight conditions with no mega cropping, so that's damning with faint praise. The Nikon sits in an uncomfortable niche: not as pocketable as an RX-100, and not as good a value or system camera as the low-end DSLR This does not mean the Nikon 1 is a bad camera or takes bad images, just that Nikon did not get the price/feature/capability mix right for the world market in an era of declining sales.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 14:33 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: I am sorry but I don't see anything that any sony, panasonic or various others couldn't accomplish, and with auto focus.

So is it not there or do you just not see it? I assume you at least watched it full size and unscaled. It may not be persuasive unless you also have a direct comparison or a lot of experience with how those other cameras would handle shadow noise and clipping points for those lighting conditions. Or how easy/hard it was to do the color grading and other post processing to get that output.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 20:50 UTC
On Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review article (1201 comments in total)
In reply to:

Opinionator: Let's face it the game is changing very quickly, but this is all to reminiscent of programming changes prior to global adoption of social media contrivances. It's like the 1950's post war kitchen filled with electronic refriges and soon a dish washer. Yes Betty White will be able to have her maid cook, clean and prepare the guests quarters in rapid fashion with improved results. But is it better than a 5D III or D800E? And where's the perfectly executed zoom from wide angle to an equivalent 200mm FF? And make that prime. For under a grand. I'm sorry but this is more replacement technology than a genuine bargain or improvement. Catchy. Yes. Game changing. No.

If you are carrying 3 or 4 lenses heavy enough to give you back pain, then you are likely carrying lenses that have no u4/3 equivalent.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 13:26 UTC
Total: 218, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »