Eduardoo
Lives in
Quito, Ecuador
Has a website at
http://www.pbase.com/eduardoo/birds_of_ecuador
Joined on
Oct 25, 2006
|
Comments
 |  |
| Hanging In by Domenick Creaco from My Best Photo of the Week | big wave by Limburg from Sailing Boats |
I like #3. The contrast between the miserable houses against a background of modern buildings surelly tells a story.
It surely is one sexy camera. It's the operation that makes me wonder: the leaked top photo shows the mode dial in the M setting, and the speed dial in the 1/3 setting. The top LCD shows a speed of 1/125. Where on earth does that speed come from?
Also what happens if the mode dial is set to S and the speed dial is set to 1/125? Who wins?
Too soon to know, of course, but makes you wonder.
Donnie G: Now that I have seen it, I'm happy to be able to say, NICE JOB NIKON! Folks, if you're going to do retro SLR design, then you need to copy Nikon's approach, which simply put, is to pay strict attention to the details. Both Nikon and Fujifilm have shown that they know how to create cameras that are works of art in themselves, as well as being functional tools. And no, I haven't backed off of my prediction that the Nikon Df will be priced above the Sony A7 but below the Nikon D610. I stand by my guess of a body only price of USD $1800. This is a camera created for artists, new, old, amateur, or pro. It is not a niche camera. I'm betting it will have wide appeal even among the mirrorless ILC crowd.
And no, Canon isn't likely to copy this trend. Canon, Nikon, Ricoh Pentax, etc., are all very different companies with very different approaches to their product and business strategies. :)
JackM +1
Eduardoo: I am afraid this camera is not simple enough for my taste. Why a PSAM dial? And so many buttons...
If you select the S mode with the dial, what happens with the speed dial? Does it stop working?
I hope the functionality logic is not a mess.
@NCB: If you select the S mode you are telling the camera that you are going to chose the aperture.
I am afraid this camera is not simple enough for my taste. Why a PSAM dial? And so many buttons...
If you select the S mode with the dial, what happens with the speed dial? Does it stop working?
I hope the functionality logic is not a mess.
pinecone: Hello All,
I'm trying to update to the new firmware however the file size is larger then what's stated. It's 33.9 mb rather then 32.2 mb. Would any one have any idea why or solutions to this?
Thanks!
I worked with the IBM 360 and 1130 computers: 16KW (K words) total, punched cards and 5MB hard disks. Glad to know I am not the oldest guy here :-)
So, if a byte was less than 8 bits before that, there was no ASCII nor EBCDIC standards, right? How was a character represented back then?
Regards, Eduardo.
pinecone: Hello All,
I'm trying to update to the new firmware however the file size is larger then what's stated. It's 33.9 mb rather then 32.2 mb. Would any one have any idea why or solutions to this?
Thanks!
So, when you request 1 MB, you actually get 2 ^ 20 bytes, as you acuratelly calculated. Of course no one made such requests in the early days because there was not that amount of memory available.
pinecone: Hello All,
I'm trying to update to the new firmware however the file size is larger then what's stated. It's 33.9 mb rather then 32.2 mb. Would any one have any idea why or solutions to this?
Thanks!
Yes, my calculation was wrong, thx for correcting it. In the binary system, 8 bits = 1 byte. Two or four bytes constituted a word in the first computers. So when you requested memory to the operating for your applications, you alway got a number that was a power of 2 for efficiency reasons. So it was always 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 512 or 1024. This last number constituted 1Kb. According to Wikipedia much has changed since then, and there are actually different quantities that are considered a MB. (I am a prehistoric programmer, as you can see). But it definitely is not a Windows thing. 1024 is actually 2 ^ 10.
pinecone: Hello All,
I'm trying to update to the new firmware however the file size is larger then what's stated. It's 33.9 mb rather then 32.2 mb. Would any one have any idea why or solutions to this?
Thanks!
1 MB = 1024 bytes x 1024 bytes
This is not a Windows thing. That has been so since the dawn of computers. It has to do with the binary base used. 1024 = 2 to the power of 32.