From: John McWilliams on
nospam wrote:
> In article <ZKydnVSv2YYL273UnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, John
> McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Nikon is struggling to keep up with Canon, and the D700X is part of that
>>>> strategy.
>>> struggling? nikon sold more cameras than canon did last year. a
>>> bigger issue is the economy.
>> Agreed on the economy. Where are sales figures available for Canon and
>> Nikon? I would have thought only estimates were published by third
>> parties. And please don't mention Google!
>
> here's another report -- september 2008 sales, reported by popular
> photography:

<http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2008/11/top-selling-cameras-for-september-2008.html>
>
> although canon has the #1 spot, nikon has the #2, #3 *and* #4 spot.

Yes, and I have no quarrel with a month's, quarter or even 12 month's
sales units, only with broad interpretation of these results, especially
as the sources are unconfirmed (the above article refers to NPD, a
subscription $$ service).

Thanks for the link. I tried to fix the break, but who know what server
or E-mail client will do what. ....

--
John McWilliams
From: Alan Browne on
nospam wrote:
> In article <3sydnfW44rjxPb3UnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne(a)Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> the light sensitive part of the sensor is behind an anti-alias filter
>>> and infrared cut filter and perhaps a glass protective layer, whereas
>>> the light sensitive part of film is on the surface. thus, to maintain
>>> focus, the sensor would have to protrude *into* the camera for it to
>>> line up properly. that means that either the sensor will be limited to
>>> a cropped size (so it can fit into the film gate), or the film gate
>>> would need to be cut to accommodate a full frame sensor. complicating
>>> this is that the shutter mechanism is close to where the film plane is,
>>> and to get the proper alignment, it might also require moving the
>>> shutter assembly inward.
>> See my reply to "Me".
>
> in that post, you mentioned a 3mm clearance. i don't know offhand if
> that's sufficient or not but it's certainly cutting it *very* close if
> it is. most cameras will require moving the shutter, which basically
> means it's no longer practical to bother adapting it.
>
>>> if you go with a cropped sensor (to avoid cutting the film gate) and
>>> assuming the shutter is already far enough forward (which eliminates
>>> most slrs), you now have a viewfinder that no longer matches the
>>> sensor. the solution there is to crop off the excess in the viewfinder
>>> (a.k.a. the 'sports finder' that sigma used on the sd-9). this becomes
>>> even more of a headache with interchangeable screens.
>> Just change the screen once. The new screen has prominent crop marks.
>
> so you lose the functionality of interchangeable screens, although i
> suppose a whole new set of screens could be released.
>
>>> then there's metering. you would need to set the iso *twice*, once on
>>> the camera and again on the sensor assembly, as the camera has no way
>>> to tell the sensor the iso (why would it? film never changed). since
>>> the sensor is cropped, the metering bias is no longer accurate. what
>>> the meter sees in the middle of the image (because the camera thinks
>>> it's still full frame film) is really at the edge of the cropped sensor
>>> (and likely less important) and what it sees at the edge isn't even
>>> captured. also, sensors reflect differently than film so any off the
>>> film metering (e.g., flash) may be adversely affected as well.
>> In the Maxxum system there is a honeycomb matrix meter sensor.
>>
>> Spot: no difference
>
> it's now effectively a larger spot.

So what? The spot area is in the VF. If you have to move to fill it,
so be it. For the same lenses it is absolutely no difference.

>
>> Weighted: Horizontal matrix over full matrix
>> Scene: all matrix points.
>
> does it look at the edges of the frame? those are no longer in the
> photo, but the meter still analyzes them.

Spot: 0 effect.
Weighted: effect but on average about the same as what's in the rest of
the frame.
Full frame: averaged even more.

>> So cropping the exposed area based on those meters would have little if
>> any effect.
>
> maybe, but you still have to set iso twice.

No. See below.

>
>> See my other reply to "Me". There is a film door to camera data path to
>> support data recording option on the Maxxum 9. (Would likely require a
>> firmware change in the body ... but there it is).
>
> and a firmware change means you no longer can have a module that the
> user can drop in. they'd have to send the camera out for updating.
> and since new functionality is being added to the camera's firmware
> (namely, sending shooting information to the sensor), there may not be
> enough room in the existing rom chip to hold it all, which would
> require a larger capacity chip and quite possibly, changing quite a bit
> more.

For the functionality, people would be willing to send in their DSLR.
When K-M had to have cameras back to fix a flash issue the turn around
was about 1 week.

Minimal f-w change such as sending the data (including ISO setting)
before a shot is taken rather than immediately afterwards.

>> Later Maxxum cameras (Maxxum 9 and 7, maybe more) use pre-flash as well
>> as OTF flash metering.
>
> preflash would be required.

What part of "use pre-flash" confused you?

>>> and then there's the issue of the memory buffer. the camera will
>>> happily shoot many frames per second for as long as you hold down the
>>> shutter button. meanwhile, can the sensor keep up? in the event the
>>> buffer fills, how will it tell the camera to stop?
>> There are always compromises. For this an audible beep to tell the
>> shooter to stop as nothing is getting recorded...
>
> that's quite a compromise!

Why? Whether the camera stops shooting or a beep tells you the same,
nothing of import has happened. Both systems did not get the next shot.

>>>> Indeed the above is quite possible. The camera makers have done what is
>>>> likely best, however, integrated cameras that function very well for the
>>>> price. But that was not clear in the early days of DSLR's.
>>> it was fairly clear.
>> Not to everyone discussing it. There was also the notion of maintaining
>> film capability, although that desire has completely waned in the great
>> majority of shooters.
>
> it's not practical.

Better not tell Hasselblad.

Anyway, have your inevitable last words, I'm done.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
From: nospam on
In article <4920ab79$0$33600$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:

> Get real. One month's data means almost nothing. Pick another month
> and Canon could hold the top spots, depending on what cameras were
> recently released.

the point is that sms claimed that nikon was 'struggling' to keep up
with canon. they're not.
From: nospam on
In article <KIydnXG5g6_WMb3UnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d(a)comcast.com>, John
McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> <http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2008/11/top-selling-cameras-for-september-2008.
> html>
> >
> > although canon has the #1 spot, nikon has the #2, #3 *and* #4 spot.
>
> Yes, and I have no quarrel with a month's, quarter or even 12 month's
> sales units, only with broad interpretation of these results, especially
> as the sources are unconfirmed (the above article refers to NPD, a
> subscription $$ service).

that, and it is unit sales, not dollar revenue. there are lots of ways
to spin the numbers. in any event, nikon is not struggling.

> Thanks for the link. I tried to fix the break, but who know what server
> or E-mail client will do what. ....

you need a better client that honors <> delimiters. on mine, the url
is automatically highlighted as a clickable link, regardless of how
many lines are used.
From: nospam on
In article <PNydnfaJOuzDM73UnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne(a)Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> > it's not practical.
>
> Better not tell Hasselblad.

not relevant; hasselblad was designed for interchangeable backs and
doesn't have the limitations that a 35mm slr does.