If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
First "true" digital rangefinder camera
On 26/02/2015 22:24, Bill W wrote:
On 26 Feb 2015 12:34:06 GMT, Sandman wrote: Konost is going to release a full frame digital rangefinder camera in 2016 http://konost.com/?page_id=6654 Dubbing it the "The World’s First True Digital Rangefinder", which seems to be in relation to the rangefinder is also a digital sensor. It looks a bit neat, and will take Leica lenses, so.. your move, Leica? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xCskVNOZQ As others have said, it probably has no chance. From their site: "The Konost Camera aims to bring back the lost experience of photography- taking time to think, focus and compose before taking the perfect image." That's all very nice, as long as the only thing you ever do is static shots, with plenty of time to get things set. Worse yet, who *wants* to take the time "to think, focus and compose", and why would that assure the "perfect image"? Or even any improvement over what comes from any other quality camera? Either way, if you're into that stuff, today's cameras have an 'M' setting on that dial. I would accept that the thinking does apply to me to an extent. I tend to take some pictures almost as a reflex, thinking that it might in some way capture the moment, with the electronics doing something clever. Of course, it doesn't. The worst example of this is at live events. Some people seem to take almost continuous footage with their phones. Likely never used. For some people, being 'dragged back' screaming and kicking is a valid marketing ploy. Sort of related, I see that handwriting is being taken off the curriculum of some US and Scandinavian schools, and is being considered here in the UK. We'll see how long it takes before this 'outmoded' method of recording information is reclaimed. -- Cheers, Rob |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
First "true" digital rangefinder camera
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: For my part, I would love my SLR to have available some variation of an old-fashioned split-image ground glass for precision manual focussing. what for, when live view is *far* more accurate and *far* more flexible?? Either you have never used such a screen or you are joking. wrong on both. manual focus with live view is so much better it's not even funny. there's *no* going back. Not so. It hasn't got the acuity. nonsense. it has far, far more acuity than ground glass ever could, especially with a hidpi display and because it can be zoomed. it's no contest. it's in another league entirely. plus, if the camera has a tilt/swivel display and/or the ability to use an external display, it's even *more* powerful. macro work does not often offer comfortable vantage points and not being restricted to the viewfinder is fantastic. not only that, but because it's focusing off the actual sensor that will be taking the photo, there will *never* be alignment issues. ever. But a suitable ground glass screen will tell you more about whether things are in focus or not than any rear display will show. nonsense. you can zoom in to where one pixel on the sensor is one pixel on the display. nevertheless, there are such screens available for some slrs. unfortunately, there are significant drawbacks with modern lenses. Not for the D750 I understand. d1, d2h/hs/xs and d3 could: https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9288#D3 Not to mention http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/d800en.htm and several others. well there you go. however, it's a complete waste of time and money. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
First "true" digital rangefinder camera
In article , RJH wrote:
Sort of related, I see that handwriting is being taken off the curriculum of some US and Scandinavian schools, and is being considered here in the UK. We'll see how long it takes before this 'outmoded' method of recording information is reclaimed. it won't be. it's no longer needed. why do people hate change so much? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
First true rangefinder
In article ,
Sandman wrote: Nikon recently released the "Df", which was meant to be a photographers camera, where you would (or at least on paper, could) get more hands-on access to the controls. the best hands-on access are control wheels under the user's fingers, not a shutter knob on top and aperture ring on the lens. I agree about the shutter knob, but I rather like aperture controls on the lens. To each his own. The Df combined it though, and you can use either, but not seamlessly enough. The shutter knob can be set to "1/3 steps" leaving control over to the finger dial, but there is no "auto" on the ISO knob. an aperture ring on the lens is less ergonomic, less accurate, makes for mechanically more complex lenses which are also harder to weather seal and there's no way to maintain aperture when swapping lenses. a control wheel fixes all of those shortcomings. plus, recent lenses don't even have aperture rings. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
First
In article ,
Sandman wrote: Eric Stevens: For my part, I would love my SLR to have available some variation of an old-fashioned split-image ground glass for precision manual focussing. nospam: what for, when live view is *far* more accurate and *far* more flexible?? Eric Stevens: Either you have never used such a screen or you are joking. wrong on both. manual focus with live view is so much better it's not even funny. there's *no* going back. On a SLR, using live view for focusing is a very cumbersome process, where you have to remove the camera from your eye, press a live view button, then use the magnifying button to zoom in on the live view, all the while holding a heavy camera with maybe a heavy lens almost at arms length. he wants to use it for 'precision manual focusing' which means on a tripod, otherwise there can be no precision. usually this is done with macro shots, and live view is *perfect* for that, especially with an external display. nobody is suggesting live view for handheld shots (although it can work in some cases). The only time I use live view for focusing is when I record video using a tripod (in the studio). Otherwise, I always use the optical viewfinder and the focus indicator. A focusing screen would be quite helpful at times. waste of time. plus, if the camera has a tilt/swivel display and/or the ability to use an external display, it's even *more* powerful. macro work does not often offer comfortable vantage points and not being restricted to the viewfinder is fantastic. Sure, there are places where the live view is awesome, but for most shots - at least for me - it isn't. Now, the EVF in my Sony A7 is pretty awesome in this regard, since it also has focus peaking, which is really accurate. And the EVF is currently one of the best ones, even though I still prefer a OVF. focus peaking is yet another advantage. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
First "true" digital rangefinder camera
On 02/27/2015 02:42 AM, RJH wrote:
snip That's all very nice, as long as the only thing you ever do is static shots, with plenty of time to get things set. Worse yet, who *wants* to take the time "to think, focus and compose", and why would that assure the "perfect image"? Or even any improvement over what comes from any other quality camera? Either way, if you're into that stuff, today's cameras have an 'M' setting on that dial. I would accept that the thinking does apply to me to an extent. I tend to take some pictures almost as a reflex, thinking that it might in some way capture the moment, with the electronics doing something clever. Of course, it doesn't. The worst example of this is at live events. Some people seem to take almost continuous footage with their phones. Likely never used. For some people, being 'dragged back' screaming and kicking is a valid marketing ploy. Sort of related, I see that handwriting is being taken off the curriculum of some US and Scandinavian schools, and is being considered here in the UK. We'll see how long it takes before this 'outmoded' method of recording information is reclaimed. The camera makes no sense to me because most any decent camera has fully manual capability. When I asked my associate , Judith (whose photo I posted on the other thread) she told me she had all of one second to get her camera out and snap off a few shots. With a manual camera, she would have "lost the moment". |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
First true rangefinder
In article , nospam wrote:
Sandman: Nikon recently released the "Df", which was meant to be a photographers camera, where you would (or at least on paper, could) get more hands-on access to the controls. nospam: the best hands-on access are control wheels under the user's fingers, not a shutter knob on top and aperture ring on the lens. Sandman: I agree about the shutter knob, but I rather like aperture controls on the lens. To each his own. The Df combined it though, and you can use either, but not seamlessly enough. The shutter knob can be set to "1/3 steps" leaving control over to the finger dial, but there is no "auto" on the ISO knob. an aperture ring on the lens is less ergonomic Nah, this I don't agree with at all. Your hand is already there, and I've never in my life felt that adjusting the aperture ring was unergonomic. I have rather large hands though, so that may be a factor. less accurate How could it possibly be less accurate? Both the dial and the aperture ring has discrete clicks for each step. The ring has the added benefit of having end stops so if you have a f1.4 lens and want to set it to f2, it's usually a full turn to the stop and then one click back. Both intuitive and quick. makes for mechanically more complex lenses which are also harder to weather seal This is true, of course. and there's no way to maintain aperture when swapping lenses. Also true, not sure I've ever seen this as a problem though, i.e. a scenario where I want to change the focal length but the other lens is set to another aperture so it's super messy to have to change it three clicks or something. I guess if you find yourself in that scenarion often enough, it might be a factor in it all. a control wheel fixes all of those shortcomings. Well, some of them at least. Well, if you ask me anyway. plus, recent lenses don't even have aperture rings. Indeed, which is something of a bitch when using them on an adapter, i.e. you have to make sure to get the right adapter that has an aperture ring on it. -- Sandman |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
First
In article , nospam wrote:
Eric Stevens: For my part, I would love my SLR to have available some variation of an old-fashioned split-image ground glass for precision manual focussing. nospam: what for, when live view is *far* more accurate and *far* more flexible?? Eric Stevens: Either you have never used such a screen or you are joking. nospam: wrong on both. manual focus with live view is so much better it's not even funny. there's *no* going back. Sandman: On a SLR, using live view for focusing is a very cumbersome process, where you have to remove the camera from your eye, press a live view button, then use the magnifying button to zoom in on the live view, all the while holding a heavy camera with maybe a heavy lens almost at arms length. he wants to use it for 'precision manual focusing' which means on a tripod, otherwise there can be no precision. usually this is done with macro shots, and live view is *perfect* for that, especially with an external display. nobody is suggesting live view for handheld shots (although it can work in some cases). Ok, gotcha, then we're in agreement. Sandman: The only time I use live view for focusing is when I record video using a tripod (in the studio). Otherwise, I always use the optical viewfinder and the focus indicator. A focusing screen would be quite helpful at times. waste of time. Nope. nospam: plus, if the camera has a tilt/swivel display and/or the ability to use an external display, it's even *more* powerful. macro work does not often offer comfortable vantage points and not being restricted to the viewfinder is fantastic. Sandman: Sure, there are places where the live view is awesome, but for most shots - at least for me - it isn't. Now, the EVF in my Sony A7 is pretty awesome in this regard, since it also has focus peaking, which is really accurate. And the EVF is currently one of the best ones, even though I still prefer a OVF. focus peaking is yet another advantage. And it's really odd that most (all?) SLR's lack it in live view. Seems to only exist on mirrorless as far as I have seen, but maybe I'm not up to date on recent SLR's. -- Sandman |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
First
In article , Whisky-dave
wrote: Sandman: On a SLR, using live view for focusing is a very cumbersome process, where you have to remove the camera from your eye, Well of course, but if you're using the viewfinder you have to put the camera up to your eye before you can see what you're taking/ or what's in frame. And since SLR's generally are heavier than mirrorless, this is often a more ergonomical position. Sandman: press a live view button, then use the magnifying button to zoom in on the live view, all the while holding a heavy camera with maybe a heavy lens almost at arms length. Why ? if you're worried enough to manually focus using a magnifier you're probbaly doing macro work rather than taking a photo of a plane or a car or most subjects where you hand hold. I've yet to see a SLR with a high enough resolution LCD to give good focus feedback without magnification. That's why most mirrorless cameras have a dedicated magnification button and focus peaking, because the screen is too low res to correctly display focus. And optical viewfinder isn't always enough either, which is why we have the focus indicator in those. Sandman: The only time I use live view for focusing is when I record video using a tripod (in the studio). Otherwise, I always use the optical viewfinder and the focus indicator. A focusing screen would be quite helpful at times. Yep so no problem holding a heavy camera with a heavy lens is there ?. On a tripod? No, that is correct. Very astute of you to figure that one out :-D nospam: plus, if the camera has a tilt/swivel display and/or the ability to use an external display, it's even *more* powerful. macro work does not often offer comfortable vantage points and not being restricted to the viewfinder is fantastic. Sandman: Sure, there are places where the live view is awesome, but for most shots - at least for me - it isn't. same here, same as using a magnifier for focusing. 'IF' focusing is that critical handholding is pretty much useless as any advantage in such precise focusing will be negated by moving. Live view magnification works really well. I have it on a button on the A7 and in the EVF, I press it and it zooms in, I set the focus manually and then I just press the shutter halfway, it zooms out and I can take the shot. For moving subjects I use focus peaking. -- Sandman |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
First true rangefinder
In article ,
Sandman wrote: Sandman: Nikon recently released the "Df", which was meant to be a photographers camera, where you would (or at least on paper, could) get more hands-on access to the controls. nospam: the best hands-on access are control wheels under the user's fingers, not a shutter knob on top and aperture ring on the lens. Sandman: I agree about the shutter knob, but I rather like aperture controls on the lens. To each his own. The Df combined it though, and you can use either, but not seamlessly enough. The shutter knob can be set to "1/3 steps" leaving control over to the finger dial, but there is no "auto" on the ISO knob. an aperture ring on the lens is less ergonomic Nah, this I don't agree with at all. Your hand is already there, and I've never in my life felt that adjusting the aperture ring was unergonomic. I have rather large hands though, so that may be a factor. not always, and the line length in your newsreader is too long. for some lenses, such as longer lenses, your hand is where it balances, which is not normally where the aperture ring is. often, it's going to be on the zoom ring. meanwhile, your fingers are already where the control wheels are. less accurate How could it possibly be less accurate? Both the dial and the aperture ring has discrete clicks for each step. The ring has the added benefit of having end stops so if you have a f1.4 lens and want to set it to f2, it's usually a full turn to the stop and then one click back. Both intuitive and quick. aperture rings are either 1 stop clicks or 1/2 stop clicks, depending on the lens. there's also a small amount of mechanical play. control wheels are 1/3 stop (or optionally 1/2 stop), but it actually can be anything. for instance, if you have the camera in shutter priority and if f/5.3978 or f/8.222 is what's needed, that's what you get, just as you would get 1/297th or 1/108th second if you have the camera pick the shutter speed. makes for mechanically more complex lenses which are also harder to weather seal This is true, of course. and there's no way to maintain aperture when swapping lenses. Also true, not sure I've ever seen this as a problem though, i.e. a scenario where I want to change the focal length but the other lens is set to another aperture so it's super messy to have to change it three clicks or something. I guess if you find yourself in that scenarion often enough, it might be a factor in it all. typically it's a studio setting but not always. meter for the lights (which is often flash), set the f/stop, and use whatever lens you want and not worry about checking it each time you swap. a control wheel fixes all of those shortcomings. Well, some of them at least. all of them Well, if you ask me anyway. i'm not. plus, recent lenses don't even have aperture rings. Indeed, which is something of a bitch when using them on an adapter, i.e. you have to make sure to get the right adapter that has an aperture ring on it. adapters generally suck because of all the compromises made. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rich completely confused (was: True to form, Canon releases anothermediocre "film" lens) | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | September 8th 08 12:08 AM |
True to form, Canon releases another mediocre "film" lens | Robert Coe | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | September 4th 08 05:31 AM |
True to form, Canon releases another mediocre "film" lens | Jake | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | September 2nd 08 07:59 PM |
when will "true" medium/large format digital be affordable? | Scott Speck | Digital SLR Cameras | 27 | October 15th 06 01:54 AM |
Help A " Differently Abled Man's" Dream Come True | disabledmanneedshelp | Digital Photography | 4 | July 17th 06 12:46 AM |