D2H and E1 relation

[littlebabylon]

do you think the coming D2H and E1 are in the same market segment and serve for the same target customers?

as Nikon will launch the D2H in the coming October. do you think more or less will be a barrier for Olympus to re-entry to the professional SLR market?

just a discussion in marketing view

rgds
--
Kevin

 

[BJN]

The E-1 spec is 3 frames per second for 12 frames vs. the D2H's 8 frames per second for 40 frames. The D2H by virtue of sheer speed is targeted at action/sports photographers. I'm not sure who the E-1 is targeted at, but it's not the D2H's market segment.

--
BJN

 

[Roger Beckett]

The E-1 spec is 3 frames per second for 12 frames vs. the D2H's 8
frames per second for 40 frames. The D2H by virtue of sheer speed
is targeted at action/sports photographers. I'm not sure who the
E-1 is targeted at, but it's not the D2H's market segment.

--
BJN

Your so right 1/4000 is too slow for action....NOT

Some of the best action/sports photographers have answered, when asked how many continuous shots they take, "one". Remember the days of film, my Nikon would shoot a max of 5 frames/sec.

Action/sport photography calls for quick shutters and fast lens'.

12 frames/sec will help an average photographer "capture the moment" but a good pro doesn't need it.
--
Roger

 

[digital_ray_of_light]

I think knowing the sport you are shooting may be more important than 8fps. If you know your sport, you can anticipate the action. 3fps with a 12 image buffer gives about 4 seconds of action per burst. While not as impressive as the D2H, it is workable.

The E-1 spec is 3 frames per second for 12 frames vs. the D2H's 8
frames per second for 40 frames. The D2H by virtue of sheer speed
is targeted at action/sports photographers. I'm not sure who the
E-1 is targeted at, but it's not the D2H's market segment.

--
BJN

Your so right 1/4000 is too slow for action....NOT

Some of the best action/sports photographers have answered, when
asked how many continuous shots they take, "one". Remember the
days of film, my Nikon would shoot a max of 5 frames/sec.

Action/sport photography calls for quick shutters and fast lens'.
12 frames/sec will help an average photographer "capture the
moment" but a good pro doesn't need it.
--
Roger

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Some of the best action/sports photographers have answered, when
asked how many continuous shots they take, "one". Remember the
days of film, my Nikon would shoot a max of 5 frames/sec.

Now - why did your Nikon then have 5 frames/sec? When only
one is needed?

I don't believe this a minute. I have read several interviews with
sports photographers - they are lyric over faster cameras, both fps
and the actual lag time. It is not only the exposure time that
is important - tha lag is also - and the blackout time.

I don't think that sports/action photographers in common
will be impressed by 3 fps. Some will think it is OK of course.

Roland

 

[Jim Attfield]

... I think the thread was agout FPS, not shutter speed.

Presumably the 'good pro' can only take one shot since by the time he has the tripod assembled and the flash powder mixed he only has time to put the 4 x 5 film slide in once before the action is over?

I hate to break it to you but using currently available technology to it's maximum doesn't make anyone 'average' any more than it's use would make one 'good'.

It's always been about the 'eye' and if 12 fps for 40 frames gets you a better chance of using it then I say well done!

There are no prizes awarded for least shots fired to get 'the' pic, only for getting it.

It's no skin off my nose if it takes one or thirty shots, so let's not do the 'I'll get that shot in one' thing, IMHO it's really not important. I'm not an N fan but kudos to Nikon for putting operational issues above pixel frenzy and reminding us that there is more to a DSLR than astronomical pixel counts, a lesson Oly would not appear to have to learn.

Jim

The E-1 spec is 3 frames per second for 12 frames vs. the D2H's 8
frames per second for 40 frames. The D2H by virtue of sheer speed
is targeted at action/sports photographers. I'm not sure who the
E-1 is targeted at, but it's not the D2H's market segment.

--
BJN

Your so right 1/4000 is too slow for action....NOT

Some of the best action/sports photographers have answered, when
asked how many continuous shots they take, "one". Remember the
days of film, my Nikon would shoot a max of 5 frames/sec.

Action/sport photography calls for quick shutters and fast lens'.
12 frames/sec will help an average photographer "capture the
moment" but a good pro doesn't need it.
--
Roger

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

You could think of it as a poor man's 1Ds. $5000 buys a lot of extra stuff.
J.

do you think the coming D2H and E1 are in the same market segment
and serve for the same target customers?

as Nikon will launch the D2H in the coming October. do you think
more or less will be a barrier for Olympus to re-entry to the
professional SLR market?

just a discussion in marketing view

rgds
--
Kevin

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/

 

[littlebabylon]

You could think of it as a poor man's 1Ds. $5000 buys a lot of
extra stuff.

an interesting point

kevin

 

[Jono Slack]

... I think the thread was agout FPS, not shutter speed.

Presumably the 'good pro' can only take one shot since by the time
he has the tripod assembled and the flash powder mixed he only has
time to put the 4 x 5 film slide in once before the action is over?

I hate to break it to you but using currently available technology
to it's maximum doesn't make anyone 'average' any more than it's
use would make one 'good'.

It's always been about the 'eye' and if 12 fps for 40 frames gets
you a better chance of using it then I say well done!

About the eye - certainly, I think the implication was that with a lot of experience of your sport, then shooting single shot rather than continuous can produce better results, in that the really good guy can anticipate the action and catch it to the hundredth of a second (whereas, shooting continuous you are only going to get it to 1/12th - assuming you can shoot 12 shots a second).

There are no prizes awarded for least shots fired to get 'the' pic,
only for getting it.

It's no skin off my nose if it takes one or thirty shots, so let's
not do the 'I'll get that shot in one' thing, IMHO it's really not
important. I'm not an N fan but kudos to Nikon for putting
operational issues above pixel frenzy and reminding us that there
is more to a DSLR than astronomical pixel counts, a lesson Oly
would not appear to have to learn.

But surely Olympus have learned this too - the E1 is 5mp - it would appear that they've put their efforts into 'better' pixels rather than 'more' pixels.

kind regards
jono slack

Jim

The E-1 spec is 3 frames per second for 12 frames vs. the D2H's 8
frames per second for 40 frames. The D2H by virtue of sheer speed
is targeted at action/sports photographers. I'm not sure who the
E-1 is targeted at, but it's not the D2H's market segment.

--
BJN

Your so right 1/4000 is too slow for action....NOT

Some of the best action/sports photographers have answered, when
asked how many continuous shots they take, "one". Remember the
days of film, my Nikon would shoot a max of 5 frames/sec.

Action/sport photography calls for quick shutters and fast lens'.
12 frames/sec will help an average photographer "capture the
moment" but a good pro doesn't need it.
--
Roger

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Jono Slack]

HI Roland

Some of the best action/sports photographers have answered, when
asked how many continuous shots they take, "one". Remember the
days of film, my Nikon would shoot a max of 5 frames/sec.

Now - why did your Nikon then have 5 frames/sec? When only
one is needed?

I don't believe this a minute. I have read several interviews with
sports photographers - they are lyric over faster cameras, both fps
and the actual lag time. It is not only the exposure time that
is important - tha lag is also - and the blackout time.

If you are shooting at 8 frames a second, then the 'nearest' you are going to get to the perfect shot is 1/8th second - but for the really experienced photographer, he may be able to anticipate the perfect moment to 1/100th second or better - in which case he will be better off shooting single shot - mind you, he's gonna want another single shot to be ready as fast as is humanly possible

I think that this is what Roger is talking about, and it doesn't mean that a sports photographer won't like a faster camera, as it will allow him to shoot more single shots in a given space of time.

Of course, there are others (and situations) where shooting a stream of shots and hoping you've caught that perfect shot is the way to go.

I don't think that sports/action photographers in common
will be impressed by 3 fps. Some will think it is OK of course.

quite agree with you here - mind you, you're paying about twice as much for your fps here.

kind regards
jono slack

Roland

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[JamesM]

A poor man's 1ds? I think that is a bit of a stretch - resolution alone differeing.

Truth is, I am not sure WHAT to compare the E-1 to. I do not think that this is a bad thing, necessarilly. Let us just not create false comparisons.

How about the E-1 is a first generation non-traditional format camera with great build quality and ergonomics? That seems like the place to start.

-JM

You could think of it as a poor man's 1Ds. $5000 buys a lot of
extra stuff.

an interesting point

kevin

--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com

 

[digital_ray_of_light]

A poor man's 1ds? I think that is a bit of a stretch - resolution
alone differeing.

that's why "poor mans" 1Ds... Lower price lower features.

Truth is, I am not sure WHAT to compare the E-1 to. I do not think
that this is a bad thing, necessarilly. Let us just not create
false comparisons.

How about the E-1 is a first generation non-traditional format
camera with great build quality and ergonomics? That seems like
the place to start.

-JM

You could think of it as a poor man's 1Ds. $5000 buys a lot of
extra stuff.

an interesting point

kevin

--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com

 

[Jim Attfield]

... in agreement here, Jono!

My personal choice is the one 'right' shot, not a machine gunned series and for that you need experience of your subject, I agree, or a lot of luck but... each to his/her own.

As to the pixels, I was trying to make the point that Oly seem to have recognised that lesser better pixels make for a more balanced DSLR - good for them - but I think I phrased it poorly

Too much Pinotage, methinks!

Be well...

Jim

Jono Slack wrote:
--- SNIP! ---

important. I'm not an N fan but kudos to Nikon for putting
operational issues above pixel frenzy and reminding us that there
is more to a DSLR than astronomical pixel counts, a lesson Oly
would not appear to have to learn.

But surely Olympus have learned this too - the E1 is 5mp - it would
appear that they've put their efforts into 'better' pixels rather
than 'more' pixels.

kind regards
jono slack

--- SNIP! ---

 

[Roland Karlsson]

If you are shooting at 8 frames a second, then the 'nearest' you
are going to get to the perfect shot is 1/8th second - but for the
really experienced photographer, he may be able to anticipate the
perfect moment to 1/100th second or better - in which case he will
be better off shooting single shot - mind you, he's gonna want
another single shot to be ready as fast as is humanly possible

The 'farthest' you will get is 1/8th second and the
'nearest' 0 seconds, with an average of 1/16 second.

It would be nice to have a reference to some
"proof" that good photographers can manage 1/100
second. That sounds nearly too good to be true.

Just to give a reference. Let us take a fast car
that travels at 50 m/s (180 km/h). At 1/100
second this car travels 0.5 meters. Is it possible
for a good photographer to hit that 0.5 meter
in a consistent way? This could be tested! Have
this been made?

Just to give another reference. The typical lag for
a fast SLR camera is in the order of 50 milliseconds,
i.e. you lose 1/20 second just from lag. The D2H,
which is a very fast camera, has a shutter lag of 37 ms.
This the good photographer has to compensate for if
he shall hit 1/100 second. Sounds hard to do.

Roland

 

[Roger Beckett]

The 'farthest' you will get is 1/8th second and the
'nearest' 0 seconds, with an average of 1/16 second.

It would be nice to have a reference to some
"proof" that good photographers can manage 1/100
second. That sounds nearly too good to be true.

Just to give a reference. Let us take a fast car
that travels at 50 m/s (180 km/h). At 1/100
second this car travels 0.5 meters. Is it possible
for a good photographer to hit that 0.5 meter
in a consistent way? This could be tested! Have
this been made?

Just to give another reference. The typical lag for
a fast SLR camera is in the order of 50 milliseconds,
i.e. you lose 1/20 second just from lag. The D2H,
which is a very fast camera, has a shutter lag of 37 ms.
This the good photographer has to compensate for if
he shall hit 1/100 second. Sounds hard to do.

Roland

If the Nikon is blasting off 12 frames a second how would you follow a racing car as it impacts against a wall, when the image is being taken the mirror is up, i.e. you cannot see through the viewfinder, or does it slap up and down, hope it's built well and there is no dust.
--
Roger

 

[Jorgen Bergfors]

It would be nice to have a reference to some
"proof" that good photographers can manage 1/100
second. That sounds nearly too good to be true.

Well, compare this to a musician. If you played as much as 1/16 second off the beat, it would sound totally unmusical.

If the tempo is 120 beats per minute, a 16th note is 1/8 second. For a good "swing" feel, you have to delay some of the 16th notes just the right amount. A good drummer can play the groove within less than 5 milliseconds. That's 1/200 second.

I'm sure a good photog can nail an event within 1/100 second, when he see it coming. It requires practice of course.. This is one thing that separates really good photogs from the rest.

Jorgen

 

[Roland Karlsson]

If the Nikon is blasting off 12 frames a second how would you
follow a racing car as it impacts against a wall, when the image is
being taken the mirror is up, i.e. you cannot see through the
viewfinder, or does it slap up and down, hope it's built well and
there is no dust.

Good question.

Let us do some math - the blackout time for the D2H I
think was 80 ms and the speed was 8 fps. Then, the
mirror is flapping up and down - black 80 ms and picture
40 ms. So - you would see 1/3 of the time.

Most cameras would not survive that for long, I sure
hope that D2H does.

Roland

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Well, compare this to a musician. If you played as much as 1/16
second off the beat, it would sound totally unmusical.
If the tempo is 120 beats per minute, a 16th note is 1/8 second.
For a good "swing" feel, you have to delay some of the 16th notes
just the right amount. A good drummer can play the groove within
less than 5 milliseconds. That's 1/200 second.

This is probably right. I am not sure that delaying
a beat and exactly matching a visual impressiion is
the same thing. Can the drummer hit his drums
when a car passes some marks on a wall with 5 ms
accuracy?

I'm sure a good photog can nail an event within 1/100 second, when
he see it coming. It requires practice of course.. This is one
thing that separates really good photogs from the rest.

I don't believe this. The camera takes 1/25 second (or more) from
pushing the button until opening the shutter. The photographer
must compensate 40 ms while hitting with 10 ms accuracy.

I might be wrong - please prove me so.

NOTE - the D2H has a 120 ms delay beteen pictures. This
means that the there is a 8 percent probability to hit the
moment within 1/100 second, just by pure chance. The
photographer must be better than this 8 percent to be better
than the 8 fps camera.

Roland

 

[Peter Herth]

I think the point with the speed is not that a pro photograph just keeps the shutter pressed in the hope to catch an event, aiming fo the right time should give better chances. The point is, that taking one image takes 120 msec, while something like 300 msec on a camera like the E-1. That simply means that the camera may be ready to shoot again 200 msec faster and that can make a difference in certain situations.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

I think the point with the speed is not that a pro photograph just
keeps the shutter pressed in the hope to catch an event, aiming fo
the right time should give better chances. The point is, that
taking one image takes 120 msec, while something like 300 msec on a
camera like the E-1. That simply means that the camera may be ready
to shoot again 200 msec faster and that can make a difference in
certain situations.

Yes - of course, but ...

... I know for certain that I hear continous operations from
the pro photographers cameras when something BIG is
happening.

I can compare to Quake 3. A rocket launcher fires 2 times a second,
you have to time it yourself, you can do better. Just firing all the
time and you will not hit a thing. A plasma rifle fires 5 times a second,
you just push the trigger. Not even the best players times plasma balls
at 5 times a second.

It would be nice with some facts now. Do anyone know how
good a pro photographers can be - can he or can he not time
better than the D2H in contionous mode? Can or can he not
hit 1/100 second accuracy? Has anyone done enay meassurements?

Roland