WOA - that Pana L1 looks good!!!!

[Erik Magnuson]

circular argument. electronic cameras that controlled f-stop
pre-existed af cameras and cameras with electronic contacts in the
lens mount.

No, I'm pointing out that both implementations exist. However, the ones that still have mechanical aperature control do so for backwards compatibility not because they think it's the best way to design a lens.

you will find a lot of older
cameras that control aperture through the dof-link.

How exactly do you think the new Panasonic is going to work? Do you think that they changed the 4/3 mount to add a mechanical coupling lever? No way. The ring on the lens is just another electronic control wheel. So, to answer your question: could the designers of all electronically controlled lenses do the same (e.g. put the control on the lens instead of on the body?) Yes, they could but they don't. Why not? Well, they disagree with you on ergonomics. (And I agree with them. I'd much rather control my aperture with my right and and leave my left hand supporting the bulk of the lens to maintain shooting stance.)

--
Erik

 

[nickleback]

know how my friend's d70 figures out if
the lens is locked in to the right aperture or not?

a mechanical linkage.

Not if the lens is G (which includes all DX lenses).

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[nickleback]

ok, maybe you were listening. but i think, accidentally, you've
illustrated my point. but the emphasis on "simplest" instead of
"mechanical." the design is simple.

...from a mechanical perspective. If it works for your hands, that's great, but it is an accident. The camera designers weren't thinking hands, they were thinking gears.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Erik Magnuson]

i demostrated that there were older cameras
that controlled f-stop from the body for p and s modes, and could
have easily had the new controls without any electronics.

One last time: while those cameras could (and some did) have the ability to control the lenses from the body, the lenses still had to be backaward compatible with cameras that did not have this capability. Similarly, some film/MF cameras did do away with the "conventional" shutter dial. (The Canon A-1 comes to mind.) However, the "conventional" placement was originally dictated by mechanical restrictions. Designers now have the freedom to put the control wherever it makes sense.

right, and enough customers want THIS kind of manual control too.

Yes, it takes all kinds. It's a sign of a maturing market that this sort of diversity is taking place.

--
Erik

 

[nickleback]

i'm also willing to bet that the g-series triggers the
same mechanical link.

How much would you like to lose, er I mean bet?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[arachnophilia]

No, I'm pointing out that both implementations exist. However, the
ones that still have mechanical aperature control do so for
backwards compatibility not because they think it's the best way to
design a lens.

well, what is the "best" way to design a lens? is battery usage a factor? is reliability?

what's best for the company, often, is to force people into buying newer stuff from them. it often has very little to do with what's better. most of the electronics in cameras is simply unneccessary.

How exactly do you think the new Panasonic is going to work? Do you
think that they changed the 4/3 mount to add a mechanical coupling
lever? No way. The ring on the lens is just another electronic
control wheel.

the focus and zoom appear to be mechanical. i'm not sure about the aperture.

So, to answer your question: could the designers of
all electronically controlled lenses do the same (e.g. put the
control on the lens instead of on the body?) Yes, they could but
they don't. Why not? Well, they disagree with you on ergonomics.

actually, try the reverse compatibility argument again. that old nikon camera i was mentioning will continue to help illustrate my point. for the p and s modes, the lens had to be on the minimum aperture. this was so the dof lever had the full range of movement. anything else would give you an error message.

this is the same standard adopted in newer cameras. it means that for a lot of normal use, the aperture ring is not used, and can't be used. the next step from that was to just lock it in, and control it elsewhere (since people got used to not touching their control), and the step after that was to remove it entirely.

it really has very little to do with ergonomics. think about where your hands are when you shoot. isn't one of them on the lens?

(And I agree with them. I'd much rather control my aperture with my
right and and leave my left hand supporting the bulk of the lens to
maintain shooting stance.)

how bulky are your lenses? mine (even my zooms) are pretty small, and don't need much support. and since they're all metal and glass, they're a good deal heavier than the modern equivalents.

if you're using a really heavy long lens... get a tripod.

 

[arachnophilia]

One last time: while those cameras could (and some did) have the
ability to control the lenses from the body, the lenses still had
to be backaward compatible with cameras that did not have this
capability.

no they didn't. these cameras are still around, and people still use them. you think nikon cares that you can't use a g or dx lens on an fm? no, buy a new camera.

Similarly, some film/MF cameras did do away with the
"conventional" shutter dial. (The Canon A-1 comes to mind.)
However, the "conventional" placement was originally dictated by
mechanical restrictions. Designers now have the freedom to put the
control wherever it makes sense.

yes, i mentioned such cameras above. you were wondering what that had to do with anything.

 

[arachnophilia]

i'm also willing to bet that the g-series triggers the
same mechanical link.

How much would you like to lose, er I mean bet?

considering that the d70 doesn't function unless the mechanical link is triggered?

 

[Erik Magnuson]

the newer one takes a
combination of two separate controls (usually on opposite sides of
the camera).

You need to tell us about all of these awkward DSLRs you're finding. Exactly which ones make this this hard?

you'd have the change asa in the same way, too. it's a
product of the different format.

Right. It's as easy as changing the ISO. Again, list the DLSRs that make this hard.

sure they would. heck, my rb takes a bunch of different sized
backs. 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5, i think 6x8... and a polaroid. don't like
that option?

And you changed backs while looking through the viewfinder? Changing back is easier than changing image size on a DSLR? What was your point again?

there's always cropping, and other printing options.

Cropping and printing are the same options for either format. Why bring them up?

You really feel the need to change size/wb while looking through
the viewfinder?

no, i really don't. you said it, not me.

on every dslr i've ever messed with, you have to hold a button and turn one of the wheels. same for wb, and size. not very practical, and IMPOSSIBLE to do while looking through the viewfinder.

So, if you don't ever need to do this, why was it such a big deal that it's "IMPOSSIBLE" (emphasis yours) to do?

--
Erik

 

[arachnophilia]

...from a mechanical perspective. If it works for your hands,
that's great, but it is an accident. The camera designers weren't
thinking hands, they were thinking gears.

i don't know where you got this idea. grabbing my old school camera, the shutter speed dial falls exactly between my thumb and fore finger. the aperture ring is right where my left hand is placed. wrapping my hand around my camera, the distance from where my hand rests to the lens mount is the exact length of my fingers. my entire hand fits just barely on the camera, and the strap fits direct between my first and middle finger.

that's a heck of an accident.

however, i have to flex my fingers in strange ways to work the wheels of a new camera. the curved grip never fits my hand.

i think the older designers were thinking elegant, simple, ergonomic designs. i don't know what the new designers are thinking, but elegant and simple seem to have fallen by the wayside. and the ergonomics just don't work for me.

 

[arachnophilia]

You need to tell us about all of these awkward DSLRs you're
finding. Exactly which ones make this this hard?

well, most of the nikon ones for a start. i wasn't saying it was unusable, or unlearnable. just that it's not an improvement on the old controls, and hardly and argument better and more ergonomic design.

You really feel the need to change size/wb while looking through
the viewfinder?

no, i really don't. you said it, not me.

on every dslr i've ever messed with, you have to hold a button and turn one of the wheels. same for wb, and size. not very practical, and IMPOSSIBLE to do while looking through the viewfinder.

So, if you don't ever need to do this, why was it such a big deal
that it's "IMPOSSIBLE" (emphasis yours) to do?

Wouldn't you prefer to be able to do this w/o taking your eye from the viewfinder > (as opposed to a top mounted dial.)

i was just mentioning that your claim was impossible. not that it was a big deal. i don't mind looking at my camera to check my settings -- you seemed to think it was a big deal to keep your camera glued to your cheek. not me.

 

[nickleback]

i'm also willing to bet that the g-series triggers the
same mechanical link.

How much would you like to lose, er I mean bet?

considering that the d70 doesn't function unless the mechanical
link is triggered?

What do you think the electrical contacts of G lenses are used for?

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[nickleback]

i'm also willing to bet that the g-series triggers the
same mechanical link.

How much would you like to lose, er I mean bet?

considering that the d70 doesn't function unless the mechanical
link is triggered?

What do you think the electrical contacts of G lenses are used for?

And regardless, since this obstensibly about a 4/3rds camera, why not show me where the mechanical aperture linkage is on the 4/3rds mount.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[arachnophilia]

What do you think the electrical contacts of G lenses are used for?

i would assume the same thing the electrical contacts on every other lens are used for: telling the camera the max/min aperture, focal length, and telling the lens to af, and what ap to use.

if there's an override with the electrical contacts, why have the mechanical one at all on the other lenses? and one that is actually used by the camera?

 

[arachnophilia]

this has gotten incredibly far off topic. that has nothing to do with anything.

the original argument was that such a control layout was ergonomically bad and was mandated by mechanical linkages. i showed that the control layout was not mandated by mechanical linkages, because mechanical linkages were capable of controlling the aperture of the lens from the camera body with mechanical means -- and thus could have used the modern layout.

the 4/3 system does not mechanically link, so the argument is irrelevant anyways. they can put their controls whereever they like, and CHOSE to put them in the older style. and lots of us are saying "THANK YOU!"

 

[Erik Magnuson]

well, what is the "best" way to design a lens?

All new mounts that have not worried about backward compatibility have gone electronic.

is battery usage a factor?

Not really on a modern DSLR that can commonly go 500-1000 shots before needing a battery change.

is reliability?

What about reliability? Have any data?

the focus and zoom appear to be mechanical.

Manual focus/zoom are the rule with most DSLRS, so I'm again unsure of your point here.

i'm not sure about the aperture.

I gave you a big hint. You can be pretty sure on this.

it really has very little to do with ergonomics. think about where
your hands are when you shoot. isn't one of them on the lens?

Yes, but not usually on the back of the lens which is the traditional place for the aperture ring.

if you're using a really heavy long lens... get a tripod.

Then my hand will be either on the top of the lens or the top of the tripod foot (as recommended for best long-lens tripod technique.) Still nowhere near the aperture ring.

--
Erik

 

[honza_pl]

I bet it will be expensive Sure more than $2000 - look at DMC-LC1 ...

 

[krusadr]

ah, but is it as quiet as a leica m, like the oly e-1?

things are looking good for 4/3 today. =)

Do you think so? It's obvious that this 4/3 endorsement by Leica is a last-ditch desperation move.

Show me a single Leica user who thinks otherwise.

Crop factor sensors were used as a stop gap while fabrication economics were refined for FF sensors. Canon has overcome that hurdle. Now the next challenge is shifting the large file sizes of high-res FF sensors. Probably Canon's new Digic processor will hande 25MP files with good FPS.

heck they probably have Digic 4 working with 30MP at 10FSP in testing.

Soon(ish) the $1500 dSLR will have a FF sensor. The only cameras with cropped sensors will be the sub $500 market.

If you don't believe me, consider this. The 5D is a non-pro spec body with a FF sensor. With the rebates it is currently available for under $3000. That camera has 12 MP and digic2 but a future model with 22mp and digic 3 won't cost more to produce. And boy will that model ever sell. The price will fall below $2000.

Photographers will be able to crop that cameras shots in PP and achieve the same reach as the crop-factor cameras.

Which part of my post do you think is wrong? It's the march of progress and it's coming very, very soon. My prediction is probably a new 1 series, 22 MP, 8.5 fps FF at the $5000 to $6000 price point within 9 months and a lower-spec 5D type body with the same sensor and 4fps at $3000 price point. Within 12 months those prices will have dropped to $4000 and $2200 respectively.

Actually I think we at the point where we will be held back by Canon's model release roadmap strategies in their monopoly position rather than any technological or economic holdbacks. Come on Nikon - time to get into FF. perhaps Sony will suprise us with a FF dSLR debut.

Either way 4/3 s will have to compete at the low end which means no pro features and bad noise as they try and cram more pixels in.

--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'

 

[arachnophilia]

All new mounts that have not worried about backward compatibility
have gone electronic.

yes, they have. why? maybe it's simpler to build the af and exposure controls as one unified chip-contact system?

Not really on a modern DSLR that can commonly go 500-1000 shots
before needing a battery change.

one of my film slr's goes 5-10 years before needing a battery change (and it takes watch batteries). my other other film slr doesn't take batteries at all.

What about reliability? Have any data?

well, let me know if your dslr is still working 20 years from now.

the focus and zoom appear to be mechanical.

Manual focus/zoom are the rule with most DSLRS, so I'm again unsure
of your point here.

not manual, MECHANICAL. there is a difference.

it really has very little to do with ergonomics. think about where
your hands are when you shoot. isn't one of them on the lens?

Yes, but not usually on the back of the lens which is the
traditional place for the aperture ring.

even my (physically) longest lens is not much longer than the width of my hand. if you're using huge lenses... get a tripod. your pictures will be better because of it anyways.

if you're using a really heavy long lens... get a tripod.

Then my hand will be either on the top of the lens or the top of
the tripod foot (as recommended for best long-lens tripod
technique.) Still nowhere near the aperture ring.

or the focus ring, or the zoom ring, in that second example. but i'm not shooting birds from half a mile. i tend to use a wide or normal lens, and the controls are all right were i need them.

 

[RJackson]

I bet it will be expensive Sure more than $2000 - look at
DMC-LC1 ...

The LC1 was about $1500 retail two years ago. I don't think you're going to see this camera top that price. I'd guess about $1500 retail with the lens. When they first come out they'll probably sell for retail and within three months the price will drop by 30% or so. Just my guess. Any other takers?

-Rob