|
Fiannaiocht posted:So who's excited for canon and nikons eventual version of the nex? I'd be pretty amused if the nikon gets an internal af. I'm not. Don't waste the R&D. They may do it, just because it seems to be a me too industry (see: DSLR video). Imagine the R&D dollars wasted in lens development releasing yet another (incompatible) lens format. Canon and Nikon are just now starting to fill out their EF-S/DX offerings. Just a few crop primes and a few zooms. I don't know Nikon that well, but on the Canon side: EF-S: 17-55 (crap kit) 17-55 IS (Less crap, still kit) 17-55 2.8 IS USM (pricey! but L without the ring) 18-85 IS USM (crap, slow, expensive) 15-85 IS USM (higher end kit replacement - optically?  )18-135 IS USM (meh) 18-200 IS (superzoom!) 10-22 USM (  Basically L without the ring)60 2.8 USM Macro So there is a macro, an ultra wide, a high end standard, a mid grade extended kit and then some other kit crap and a superzoom. EF-S has been around for 7 years. We get just about a lens a year. Please no more mounts!
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
I think the main thing about these mirrorless compacts is that unless you want to go with a slower lens, you're stuck with these gigantic lenses on small bodies. What I'd like to see Nikon do is take the lessons learned from the D3S as far as performance goes, transfer it to a 2x crop sensor and make a fixed-lens camera with a nice fast lens. Honestly, if I bought one of these compact cameras, I don't think I'd get more than one or two lenses for it anyway. If they went the 2x route, I'd love to see something with a 20mm f/2 retracting lens built in to it, sort of like a digital equivalent of an Olympus Stylus Epic or Nikon 35Ti.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
I don't really understand why the mount has to change if there is no risk of hitting a mirror box or anything. I would love to be able to grab a nex size camera with a 30/50 for a party where I won't need a zoom and my primes would do me well enough, and it would be the same size, or even smaller than a bridge camera.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Is that the emissions spectrum of the source, or a wavelength-dependency of the circular polarizer? Why would my monitor output more circularly-polarized blue light, relative to the total amount of blue light? Could it be outputting, say, all of the blue light polarized, but other colours unpolarized?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:I don't really understand why the mount has to change if there is no risk of hitting a mirror box or anything. But it comes down to registration distance. The EF mount is 44mm, F mount is 46.5mm. These distances are required to make the lens focus all focal lengths as well as produce a proper imaging circle to cover the frame. You would have to redesign the mount or build a shim to get them to function with such a short registration distance. Four thirds is 40mm, micro 4/3 is 20mm. This is why the m4/3 cameras require a physical adapter to space them out from the lens. This effectively kills many of the benefits you would get from using the compact system. It could work with Canon (all electro mechanical) or Nikon's G series, but would we really want to wedge on a 20mm adapter to get the lens to work, especially when you can't go in reverse. Size and quality are in direct competition in photography. Physics are a bitch.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
Just take the viewfinder off bottom tier DSLRs, they're practically useless anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Just take the viewfinder off bottom tier DSLRs, they're practically useless anyway. How... do you mean? That makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:How... do you mean? That makes no sense. make them live view only.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:make them live view only. This is way more concise than what I was typing.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
HPL posted:What I'd like to see Nikon do is take the lessons learned from the D3S as far as performance goes, transfer it to a 2x crop sensor and make a fixed-lens camera with a nice fast lens. Paragon8 posted:make them live view only.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
I just hope they use the crop sensors from the regular dslr line so I can actually use my lenses anywhere reasonable and in the dark.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 01:03
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:make them live view only. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/14/red-dot-sight-for-hotshoes-makes-shooting-tangos-a-viewfinder-fr/
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
I'm not advocating viewfinderless SLRs! I was just clarifying what beastruction was saying. I also totally want to start calling models "tangos" thanks to that link GWBBQ
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:No, just make them use one of these. Woo! Now I can just hold down the shutter release and say gently caress a load of composition! I'm sure one of the three or four thousand images will be perfect!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:No, just make them use one of these. Compare the price to the Ikodot.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
Dear Abby, I feel like I lack the respect of other photographers who have been harassed and called terrorists by police and government officials. How do I remedy this and earn the street-cred I deserve? GWBBQ posted:just ... use one of these. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Compare the price to the Ikodot. lol do people actually buy this? you would obviously still have to use the rangefinder to focus properly, so what's the point? e: and won't parallax be a huge problem for portrait type shots? Bouillon Rube fucked around with this message at 20:56 on May 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:lol do people actually buy this? you would obviously still have to use the rangefinder to focus properly, so what's the point? Hyperfocus/guessing? I doubt it's meant for precise framing.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
So basically you get to pay $100 to transform your leica into a holga
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
I guess they had not heard of a sports finder before.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:So basically you get to pay $100 to transform your leica into a holga $100 for someone to jam two pins and a bent paperclip into a hot-shoe protector.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
What monitors that aren't AdobeRGB specific (and therefore fuckoff expensive) are used professionally these days? I have a Cinema Display that I love, but I want something that has more inputs and is HDCP compatible. I remember there were a few Dell monitors that were super cheap and still had H-IPS panels with lots of inputs and were around 24", but I'm clueless.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:What monitors that aren't AdobeRGB specific (and therefore fuckoff expensive) are used professionally these days? I have a Cinema Display that I love, but I want something that has more inputs and is HDCP compatible. I remember there were a few Dell monitors that were super cheap and still had H-IPS panels with lots of inputs and were around 24", but I'm clueless. http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=320-8277 Those are what most people are referring to when talking about Dell IPS monitors. They are really fantastic, and like 6 different types of inputs or something ridiculous. If you are talking about some other line then I don't know about it - I believe they are AdobeRGB though. Also not sure on the "super cheap" part, but I've bought 2 Dell IPS panels and been very happy with them. subx fucked around with this message at 02:30 on May 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
LOL, http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=A1287455 The monitor has (mamorgram) boobs on it in the display. Subtle? maybe. Unintentional? Not likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
KennyG posted:Unintentional? Not likely. Especially since it's specifically sold for mammography. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
Haha, how do you feel now, rear end in a top hat? Making fun of people with cancer, jeez. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Haha, how do you feel now, rear end in a top hat? Making fun of people with cancer, jeez. I make fun of people with cancer all the time. Molten Llama posted:Especially since it's specifically sold for mammography. It's sold for 'medical imaging' not specifically mammography.  They could just as easily have stuck a broken arm on the screen. (as many of the other product shots had) Also note, it's a pack of two! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
Broken bones don't sell monitors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
I don't know what resolution that monitor is at, but that's a pretty nice rack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Mammography requires its own, separate FDA clearance!  And what better way to say "This monitor can read mammos too" than a pair of, uh, mammogrified hooters? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:Mammography requires its own, separate FDA clearance! Really? this just seems ludicrous to me. What makes a mammography monitor special?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
KennyG posted:Really? this just seems ludicrous to me. What makes a mammography monitor special? I'm guessing this is because if the contrast or brightness isn't calibrated just perfect there's a good chance someone could miss a tumor. I imagine it's a lot easier to see a broken bone then a tumor. That said, medical stuff is freaking ridiculous. I have worked with a company that manufacturers Projectors and they have a medical model. I'm told the only difference between the medical model and the regular model is that the case for the medical model is white and the price is three times higher.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
When I worked in diagnostic imaging a few years ago, a number of monitor manufactures were in the process of getting their displays certified for doing radiology on mammograms. Anything else was already fine. PET, CT, X-RAY, Ultrasound, and even the exotic combos like PET/CT and PET/Ultra. The official line at the time was that there weren't enough shades of gray available to monitors to allow an accurate mamm, but I'm pretty sure that was just the breast cancer people fighting their last ditch effort to keep from having to look at computer screens all day. The Dome monitors were pretty middle of the road standard. There were some better ones, some worse, but the price was mostly due to the approval process and standards they had to pay to meet rather than any sort of real quality. I heard the excuse about tumors being harder to see than broken bones, but the bone density and PET images were much much more difficult to interpret, had finer, fuzzier, more easily missed spots, and had approved monitors for years. The PET people always chalked it up to the mentality of the average PET radiologist. The modalities always attracted similar minded people, with the mammography folks being some of the crankiest. Of course, this is about as unscientific as you can get, but eh. I really miss working in Medical Diagnostic Imaging. Once during training, we got to screw with a 7T MRI magnet. T standing for Tesla, which is a measure of magnetic fields. The big ones you see at hospitals are usually .5 - 1.3T, the Earth's magnetic field is ~31 microT. With the 7T ring fired up and stuck to a wall, we were able to flatten metal trash cans and drag a parked van about 35 feet. It was awesome. Of course, something like that sucks piercings and fillings out at an alarming rate, so you know, keep your distance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:With the 7T ring fired up and stuck to a wall, we were able to flatten metal trash cans and drag a parked van about 35 feet. It was awesome. Of course, something like that sucks piercings and fillings out at an alarming rate, so you know, keep your distance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I don't know what resolution that monitor is at, but that's a pretty nice rack. You wouldn't be saying that if you've seen how flat they squash boobies for mammograms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Whats a good online source/tutorial on first timers to developing film? The OP in the film thread didnt have anything (unless i missed it)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 01:30
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Whats a good online source/tutorial on first timers to developing film? The OP in the film thread didnt have anything (unless i missed it) halfway down the first page http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2864270#post344262317
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
HPL posted:You wouldn't be saying that if you've seen how flat they squash boobies for mammograms. That seems like a good photo-tutorial to write.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I really miss working in Medical Diagnostic Imaging. Once during training, we got to screw with a 7T MRI magnet. T standing for Tesla, which is a measure of magnetic fields. The big ones you see at hospitals are usually .5 - 1.3T, the Earth's magnetic field is ~31 microT. With the 7T ring fired up and stuck to a wall, we were able to flatten metal trash cans and drag a parked van about 35 feet. It was awesome. Of course, something like that sucks piercings and fillings out at an alarming rate, so you know, keep your distance. Aren't these magnets created by cooling a superconductor with liquid helium, making it impossible to actually turn them off without venting the helium?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
spog posted:That seems like a good photo-tutorial to write. It's actually kind of mesmerizing when they squash. It's sort of like when you pour pancake batter onto the griddle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 00:28
|
|