From: Paul Furman on
me(a)mine.net wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:56:03 -0800, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Most people would want their kit zoom and not mess around with lens
>> adapters. This should be an inexpensive entry level DX camera. If it
>> can't meter with weird lenses, I'm not interested.
>
> Sounds like incompatible requirements to me, especially using Nikon as
> a reference point.

Yeah :-(
From: Paul Furman on
Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:56:03 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that, all things being equal, the larger sensor should be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only problem is that this particular Samsung sensor, which is
>>>>> currently used in Pentax DSLRs, is a disappointing performer. At high
>>>>> ISO, noise levels are high. So high that its performance lags behind
>>>>> the sensors in the Panasonic and Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless there has been a very dramatic reduction in noise levels from
>>>>> the Pentax DSLR application, the Samsung NX10 is probably NOT the one
>>>>> to get.
>>>> Maybe ...if it costs less :-)
>>>> I would want good jpegs though, raw is too much for the time lapse &
>>>> stacking work I have in mind.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hesitant to go micro 4/3 because my other lenses would have nothing
>>>> even vaguely wide angle and I'm also interested in the 720p video where
>>>> I'd want wide angle.
>>> Understood. But the initial lens offerings from Samsung don't offer
>>> much in the way of wide angle lenses either.
>>>
>>> I was surprised to see the lens selection starting only at 18mm (full
>>> frame equivalent FOV 27mm) with an 18-55mm, 30mm fixed focal length
>>> and a 50-200mm. The zoom focal length ranges seem uncannily close to
>>> the kit lenses for the Samsung and Pentax DSLRs, and I suspect they
>>> come from the same factories that supply several DSLR manufacturers
>>> with these focal lengths.
>> For pocket use, I'd just get the fast normal, then any lens can be used
>> for tripod work. I have a 10.5mm fisheye, a 12mm zoom, a 20mm f/2.8
>> which is quite small. For lightweight hiking telephoto or sneaking into
>> a venue that doesn't allow 'pro' cameras, my 75-150 would be nice and
>> for closeups, my Voightlander 90mm f/3.5 APO Lanthar Leica screw mount
>> which is super compact and has a very limited 0.5x focus range on my DSLRs.
>>
>> Canon now has a silent live view mode with electronic shutter, which
>> this actually lacks. That might be ideal for my macro bellows stacking
>> but I don't think the shutter actually causes much shake, it's just
>> painful listening to that mirror flap hundreds of times for no reason
>> for this application.
>>
>> Most people would want their kit zoom and not mess around with lens
>> adapters. This should be an inexpensive entry level DX camera. If it
>> can't meter with weird lenses, I'm not interested.
>
>
> It would be nice if some of your listed lenses would fit the Samsung,
> especially the 10.5mm fisheye and 12-24mm zoom.

They should all fit with an adapter.


> I'm not sure metering is so essential. After all, people manage with
> non-CPU Nikkors on Nikon DSLRs and meter with a hand-held meter or by
> trial and error. You just need a manual mode.

It's not essential but annoying not to go ahead & include it.

New idea for a camera mode:

Meter Button
---------------
Press the meter button to set approximate metered exposure when shooting
in manual mode.

I know the reverse is available with a lock exposure button but this is
fundamentally different.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: Richard on

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:UKedncmrF_NcGN7WnZ2dnUVZ7oWdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>
> "Richard" <smithski(a)btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b420415$0$2529$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:jr6dnf2m4v4cZtzWnZ2dnUVZ8ridnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>>
>>> PS anyone sell twin lens reflex cameras any more?
>>
>> Yes.
>> http://microsites.lomography.com/seagull/
>>
>>
>
> The exception that proves the rule.
>
> Bit like valve amplifiers though...

Not at all like a valve amplifier (IMNSHO)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/rollei/images/rolleiflex28.jpg
http://www.techdigest.tv/mystere_ia21_valve_amplifier.jpg
;)



From: R. Mark Clayton on

"Richard" <smithski(a)btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:4b445273$0$2480$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
SNUP
>>
>> Bit like valve amplifiers though...
>
> Not at all like a valve amplifier (IMNSHO)
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/rollei/images/rolleiflex28.jpg
> http://www.techdigest.tv/mystere_ia21_valve_amplifier.jpg
> ;)

The mindset is.

Adherents of valve hi-fi amplifiers claim that the sound is better, whereas
the reality is that the noise level is far higher (those heated cathodes -
Boltzman and all that) and the fidelity less. The only advantage is that
due to its deficiencies an overdriven valve amp gently rounds off the peaks
whereas a semiconductor amp clips (which sounds terrible). They also pay
bundles for a valve amp where the component valves cost a few dollars each.

Similarly users of particular cameras systems will illogically claim they
are better than more advanced solutions. In the long run EVF will supplant
SLR because it is better in the same way that SLR supplanted TLR. Just
complaining about problems with current systems will not change the
underlying fact.


From: Richard on

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6P2dneT20ckf-NnWnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d(a)bt.com...
>
> "Richard" <smithski(a)btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b445273$0$2480$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> SNUP
>>>
>>> Bit like valve amplifiers though...
>>
>> Not at all like a valve amplifier (IMNSHO)
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/rollei/images/rolleiflex28.jpg
>> http://www.techdigest.tv/mystere_ia21_valve_amplifier.jpg
>> ;)
>
> The mindset is.
>
> Adherents of valve hi-fi amplifiers claim that the sound is better,
> whereas the reality is that the noise level is far higher (those heated
> cathodes - Boltzman and all that) and the fidelity less. The only
> advantage is that due to its deficiencies an overdriven valve amp gently
> rounds off the peaks whereas a semiconductor amp clips (which sounds
> terrible). They also pay bundles for a valve amp where the component
> valves cost a few dollars each.
>
> Similarly users of particular cameras systems will illogically claim they
> are better than more advanced solutions. In the long run EVF will
> supplant SLR because it is better in the same way that SLR supplanted TLR.
> Just complaining about problems with current systems will not change the
> underlying fact.

It is most unfortunate that I understand completely and have from the
outset.

A question was asked.
It was answered, with a link for proof.
Problem?

A comparison was made.
The difference explained (this time pictures).
Problem?


Regards,
Richard