mandm: If ‘every DSLR tested has inaccuracies in AF’ and ‘user-calibration’ can correct it. Why wasn’t this a problem with AF film SLR cameras that had/have no user-calibration?
a) They did. Little screws to move the AF block and the pentaprism block. Many digital cameras still have these.
b) One of my cameras is a Nikon F801. This was one Nikon's first AF cameras and yet became a 'classic' and was highly regarded.
The AF is simple, just a single central sensor. It is acceptable, but close comparison between pentaprism and af reveals that there are significant random errors (front and back, balanced, so not calibration).
Even so, it takes much effort to 'see' the difference in the viewfinder (i.e. AF is more accurate than MF unless extreme care is taken in focussing), so in the day it did seem wonderful ;-)
Michael MacGillivray: This article and the comments that follow are why today’s quality assurance is less than stellar. In the 1970’s, I was in my 20’s and purchased a number of different cameras. They were built like tanks and none of them were sent in for repairs. We didn’t have a “… hope I get a good copy” mentality, or a wait for firmware to correct design flaws. That was taken care of by camera companies BEFORE they shipped product.
It’s time to put the fan boy mentality in the trash when it comes to consumer electronics. Nikon has had a number of defective releases and should hardly be cheered for removing the D750 from shelves. Of course, this issue isn’t unique to Nikon, though they seem to have moved to the head of the ‘issues’ pack. Articles like this -- that put a “what’s the big deal?” handle on the thing, should be called on it. I appreciate the fact that DP Review, no doubt, was embarrassed by their initial rating after another botched launch.
This is not my experience. I was also using SLR's and I did have a couple of faulty ones. More to the point, the ones that 'worked' were full of 'problems' like this.
At the time we didn't notice so much, but I still use film cameras alongside my digital ones, and it make me realise just how much imaging quality has improved ;-)
I have owned numerous consumer grade digital cameras since 2003 (still do!), I have never had to send one in for repair.
Anybody who believes camera quality was better in the day is suffering from a serious bout of nostalgia!
Whilst I imagine big telephoto lenses will continue to have IS built in, most lenses need no built in OS.
This does make developing lenses quicker, and the end products cheaper. It's also an advantage when using legacy lenses.
Seems to me that this upgrade is, indirectly, targeted at resolving Sony's major handicap, the limited lens portfolio.
I have often seen straps attached a Manfrotto type QR, I don't know if this is a third party product or a standard feature, but very popular round these parts.
These things are beginning to get a bit tiresome. We are all by now well aware that phones now have decent compact cameras incorporated, and we know reasonable IQ can be obtained with compact camera.
So here is a service of monkeys in Thailand, why do we care what was used to take the pictures?
I don't think this camera is Nikon's enthusiast mirror less.
I think they will launch an A7 like camera using the same on chip phase detection and focus tracking technology that has been developed in the one series but in a compact SLR like body with traditional Nikon DSLR like commands and menus. And it will use standard Nikon lenses with an extension tube as well has having new lenses available (especially wide angle and small primes) which can take maximum advantage of the reduced flange distance.
And they will start selling this after the D810 sales surge.
They do not want the '1' series to be mixed up with the larger sensor cameras, so they are just treading water making 'enthusiast' variations in order to bide time.
But I don't see anything here that could not be done by simply panning inside a single image from a high resolution camera.
I understand the concept of trying to sell phones by throwing in a decent camera, but this project seems to be highlighting the limitations.
Not to mention the fact that if you really did want to do something like this it would have been quicker easier and cheaper to use industrial imaging systems.
Thumbs up to the technical boffins who achieved this riduclous achievement; tripe and onions to the marketing execs who percieved it!
But I don't see anything here that would have been different had they not had light field cameras, except that the image quality would have been better had they not used it.
I always imagined a light field camera being useful for making better images from shots that must be caputured on the fly, such as photojournalism or snapshots.
When doing setup or planned shots, I imagine a professional choosing just the right lens for the job, and getting the best image quality.
It seem's remarkebly similar to a Nex camera.
It would be interesting to see if you unscrewed the lens mounting flange and put an E mount one in it's place whether the electrical contacts would work ;-)
Of course this would also mean that a full frame version is just round the corner...no doubt machined from a solid block of titanium.
Oh dear, I'm afraid you really have failed to understand the basic concepts here; it is all connected.
The density of the solid aluminum has been calibration in such a way as to distort the space time continuum; this allows curved light to fall onto the sensor in a linear fashion.
Not only, the machined surface of the body acts much like multicoating on lenses, and by avoiding reflections of the quantum field it is possible avoid chromatic aberrations.
Of course this only works with the jpeg images that have been elaborated within this special worm hole INSIDE the camera body.
If you choose to elaborate the images externally you will either need to use software correction, or use the soon to be released cast iron wizard of Oz based tablet with a body that is capable of simulating the same gravitational field.
I've never liked the Dx format much; it has always seemed to me to be a compromise between not being particularly small and not achieving top quality.
I think it would be a wonderful idea if Nikon were to concentrate their mirrorless lineup on CX and a (yet to come) mirrorless FX format.
Maybe this is what they are doing. And maybe they don't want to make their road map clear.
ssh33: Capitalism? I love capitalism! Capitalism is the the right to private property, the right to own. Adobe wants to take that right away from me. I can't own the tools I use, I can't even open my content that I spent countless hours on if I stop paying Adobe. In essence I don't own the fruits of my labor. Really?
What I CAN do is embrace the competition.
Here is a CONSTRUCTIVE suggestion: after a year of payments I own what I paid for - if I stop paying, you stop the updates. Fair?
Maybe you have not understood the meaning of Capitalism.
Capitalism is not the right to private propety, that is recognised by all but the most perverse and/or extreme instances of communism.
Capitalism is like a game of Monopoly, if I own all the stations then you cannot take a train without paying me rent.
Likewise Adobe, being in a dominant market position, can do whatever they feel is most advantagous to them. And they may earn as much money as they can doing it, irrespective of their costs.
Anti trust exits to stop full monopolies, but all that means is that competitors exists. Clever corporations can ensure that there are 'competitors' but they are effectively not competitive ;-)
They most straightforward technique, and difficult to legislate against, is simply offering awesome career prospects and salaries for outstanding key players in competitor companies.
OttoVonChriek: I think if I were professional this would not bother me at all.
As a hobbyist I do not like the idea. It is obliging you to pay continuously. Most hobyist have a limited and possibily quite variable budget, They would normally decide wether they would prefer to spend thier money on a PS ugrade or a new lens.
Additionaly, the time spent on hobbies can vary. I have been through periods when my photography has been limited to family events and such. And hobbies may suffer from force maggiore...imagine a family member is seriously ill, you have little time for hobbies and maybe things are tight financially.
OK, you 'suspend' your subscription, but that means you can't do anything at all with your files until you resubscribe for at least a month.
This seems a poor deal for many, if not most, hobbyists.
On the other hand, I am not a PS user...but I have been ripped of **twice** by Corel, so maybe hobbyists cannot get a better deal esewhere.
1) I purchased a new camera and needed to upgrade to get the RAW support. Days later a new version was released. I wondered wether I was eligable for a few upgrade. No reply to emails requests (normal fo Corel). Eventually phoned up, nobody was available because in sales conference. Two more dud calls. Finally, a response...YES, you can get a free upgrade up to one month. Catch, you had to request it within a month....and 1 month had just passed (after being fobbed off by the same person on the phone for a couple of weeks).
2) I also used Bibble, I was pleased when Corel aquired them....maybe the two would be integrated. Alas no. About 3 months after the merger computer went titsup. I had original install package, licensing and billing info on backup storage, but I could not activate the new install because the Bibble site had been frozen and just pointed to the After shot site. But Corel took no interest in the problem, they said I should go to the Bibble site...loop.
I think if I were professional this would not bother me at all.
I would of thought that uncompressed video streams would be of interest to professional video production. Such situations would certainly call for seperate audio mixing and recording.
It's difficult to imagine the situation where you want top quality video but are content with the compromises that a DSLR body would inevitably offer.
munro harrap: In practice it is very limited because there is no VR. A long lens for wide-angle use is always bad. You forget that length too easily. The 24-70 Canon and Nikon lenses for full-frame rack out to their longest length at their widest setting- as do the 28-85 Nikkor and other older designs, and this means you are HERE using in effect a non-stabilized 70-200 SIZE glass to achieve 27-55mm effect-your in-stability is increased .Regardless of its speed that you cannot use most of the time, that is an extraordinarily long barrel for a 27-55mm lens- a zoom length of precious little use anyway!!
Wait till they IS it!!
When people talk about needing VR for long lenses I always thought they were talking about the focal length, not the physical length of the barrel.
In my ignorance, I thought things became critical with telephoto because a small movement of the camera means a large movement at the subject end!
I must of been confused, allthougth barrel length does not seem to bother me, I place my left hand under the lens.
This is good photography.
This is bad photojournalism.
Peter Heckert2: It is to consider, light does not come in from an recticular angle as shown in the advertisement images above.It comes from all angles with bright lenses and if aperture or focal length (zoom factor) changes, the angles will change. So it must be much more complicated and sophisticated, if this should be an universal sensor for ILS cameras.
I suspect it is for webcams and cellphones only.
Four thirds standards require telecentric lenses
What an excellent idea. And like all the best ideas, so incredibly simple!
I suspect the reason we are seeing this approach being applied first on four thirds is because it is easier to do with highly telecentric optics which characterise four thirds systems.
Enougth of this romantiscism.
Online shops, and most discount outlets, don't offer good advice, are not staffed by photographers, do not let you try things out, and if things don't work it's a nightmare.
Small shops are exactly the opposite, and the prices are not much higher either. But people do not buy from them.
I wonder how many romantics in this thread actually purchase from local stores by preference?