Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sinar Hy6 & Leaf Afi  (Read 45930 times)
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #60 on: March 17, 2008, 10:28:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hassy DBacks

Work on Hassy cameras and maybe a view camera or two

The digital magazine from the H3DII will work on any view camera that can accept H mounts, which is many more than one or two. It will, however, require the 100GB Imagebank for power (and optional storage). The Hasselblad CF Digital Backs will go on any view camera that can accept any digital back, and nearly every medium format camera available (H1/H2, V Series, Mamiya AFD/RZ/RB, Fuji 680, Contax 645AF, Bronica & Mamiya Pro (with KG Adapter).


Quote
Hassy bodies partially accept some other backs

Neither system is fully open but IMO sinar is more open and has not 'stitched up' a large part of its user base unike both Blad and Leaf

Both brands are purposely excluding Phase for financial rather than technical reasons - which doesnt sit too well with many users of DBacks and IMO will prove to be bad business too

Phase One has also excluded their competitors for financial reasons by not providing C1 compatibility years ago when C1 was the preferred choice for high-end raw converters.

Quote
To summarize

Brands that lock people out for financial reasons
Hblad
Sinar
Leaf Cameras
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Also, Phase One - see above...

Sam, overall, not a summary that I disagree with, just had to make a couple of additions...

It is unfortunate that Hasselblad felt compelled to improve their product and fortify their position by restricting some technology from their existing users. It's unfortunate that Leaf does not have a low-cost option for their existing users to migrate to an AFi. It is unfortunate that Phase One didn't feel compelled to give photographers freedom of choice of digital back hardware to work with their C1 software.

While I can see the benefit to new users in all of these cases - with H3DII integrated technological advances, with future enhanced fucntionality with the AFi, with more resources to  focus on C1 advances for Phase One users, it is unfortunate that existing users (Hasselblad and Leaf) get left out in the chill, and that there is not more cooperation in the industry. But unfortunately, that is the hand we have been dealt. It's up to you whether you like the cards (choices) or not.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #61 on: March 17, 2008, 11:57:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's up to you whether you like the cards (choices) or not.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree.

I think the biggest thing is the shift in the industry over the last 3/4 years to back and camera makers often being the same company or at least brand

no-one moans that canon lenses dont fit on nikon, there were moaners when canon binned the FD mount or whatever it was called

a decade on it was the right thing for canon and thier users

The annoying thing now  I dont see a system that doesnt have a 'hole'

The change was also not handled well PR wise

Cuturally I have considered my back to be very expensive electronic film and want to use it like velvia - on/in whatever device I want

I can see that the 'film' talking to the camera is the future which probaby has to mean integration

(unless standards were developed like my eizo monitor talkin to my mac or my PC)

in fact the lack of backchat from 'the electronic film' is really annoying on MFDBs compared say to the live view on the nikon D3 which is awesome


S
« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 11:59:33 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #62 on: March 17, 2008, 09:33:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Regarding the HY6
Theirry, you scare me when you compare it to Hasselblad's business model ....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181905\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just wanted to refer to the same chance for market penetration of the Hy6 system in comparison with any other brand, not comparing the business models of the 2 companies: in this respect, the Hy6 does not have less chances, especially when put in relation with the potential worldwide sales figures we have in the MF market.

Sorry for having scared you!

Best regards,
Thierry
« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 09:43:21 PM by thsinar » Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3969



WWW
« Reply #63 on: March 17, 2008, 10:11:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of market penetration, is anybody here actually using a Leaf/Sinar yet for actual work ?


Edmund

Quote
I just wanted to refer to the same chance for market penetration of the Hy6 system in comparison with any other brand, not comparing the business models of the 2 companies: in this respect, the Hy6 does not have less chances, especially when put in relation with the potential worldwide sales figures we have in the MF market.

Sorry for having scared you!

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 17, 2008, 10:18:12 PM »
ReplyReply

hi Edmund,

Yes, there are. Currently one is shooting with the Hy6-e75 in Bangkok, as we speak.

I will let the decision to them, if they want to post and feedback, rather than giving any names without permission.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Speaking of market penetration, is anybody here actually using a Leaf/Sinar yet for actual work ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 10:20:39 PM by thsinar » Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #65 on: March 17, 2008, 10:18:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Deleted
« Last Edit: March 25, 2008, 08:33:37 PM by BJNY » Logged

Guillermo
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #66 on: March 18, 2008, 12:51:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But unfortunately, that is the hand we have been dealt. It's up to you whether you like the cards (choices) or not.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Steve, don't take offense to my editing of your quote but this pretty much sums it up.

It's funny, these medium format discussions have been going on since the RG days.

It was obvious early on that Hasselblad and Imacon had plans that would exclude competitor's digital backs.

It was also obvious that Phase, Leaf and Sinar would have to find some type of platform to put their backs on because as you have said time and again, the money is in the back, not the camera and that is why Contax is out of business. (Though how F+H can stay in business only selling cameras seems to counter this statement).

You sell Leaf, Sinar and Hasselblad and might see some advantage in this strategy though  I doubt seriously if many photographers are jumping up and down with joy for any of these developements, especially the photographers that invested in an earlier H system (which also includes CF39 users).

Now in my view the main thing that all of these companies should address is that as of today, every new camera back combo that is offered does little for improving the quality, ease, or status of my work.

No client is asking me for a new camera because once again, all of these new offerings are just slight variations of a past theme and most come with a higher price tag.  

I don't have a client asking for 50mega pixel captures, or cares if the sensor is square or finds it important I look down a waist level finder.   I've never had a client say, hey, isn't that the new HY6, AFi7 or H3II?  

I do know that clients would love to see real breaktrhoughs like instant wifi to multiple devices, easy backup of files, higher iso that allows for more continuous light souces, faster lenses, wider lenses, better in camera processing, instant web galleries, easier software, really better camera lcd's and a very hard look at the final cost.

JR


P.S.   I use what I use because first and foremost it's stable and proven.  Out of production contax's don't register with a client, becuase none of them know if Contax is out of production.

Whether 3.78's inteface is white or dark grey doesn't change a thing as long as the software doesn't crash and the colors on the computer are good enough to continue, the files can be quickly edited and corrected and jpegs can be processed on the fly.

The price I pay for the cameras and backs doesn't concern the client, though the cost to them does.  If I can do two bodies and camera systems for the price of one that gives me a better profit margin, or better still allows me to hold down the final costs then that is a real "upgrade" that a client will notice.

Do you think a client knows that the sensors I use us has 1.24 crop ratio vs. a 1.14, heck I can't even tell anymore.

And for the record, I've recently shot for phase in Paris for a new campaign and no it wasn't a big for profit situation for my studio. (Actually the opposite).  Regardless, It was fun, creatively rewarding and I enjoyed doing it but make no mistake in what my intentions are because if the Phase stopped working for me tomorrow, software, or hardware I would switch systems in a heartbeat.

Anything less would be penny wise and pound foolish.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 01:39:12 AM by James R Russell » Logged

BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #67 on: March 18, 2008, 01:03:16 AM »
ReplyReply

As usual, James "gets it", boiling it down to what really matters.
Logged

Guillermo
Carl Glover
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133



WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 18, 2008, 02:27:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Speaking of market penetration, is anybody here actually using a Leaf/Sinar yet for actual work ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm using a Sinar Hy6/e54LV. I like it a lot!

I'll be working in Tokyo with it for three weeks starting next week. It should pay for itself very quickly.
Logged

BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #69 on: March 18, 2008, 08:43:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Deleted
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 09:37:15 PM by BJNY » Logged

Guillermo
Harris Edelman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 18, 2008, 09:16:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...the money is in the back, not the camera and that is why Contax is out of business. (Though how F+H can stay in business only selling cameras seems to counter this statement).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182319\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No facts actually point to the Contax 645's demise having anything to do with its specific profitability. In 2005, Kyocera Corporation's top-level management changed, and having Kyocera Optical drop its camera lines was one of the attendant strategic changes (the new-broom syndrome). The 645 simply lacked a boardroom proponent who could--let alone, would--successfully argue that it was distinct and separate from the consumer camera business line, at which line the axe was really aimed.

That said, F+H was on the verge of folding, until Jenoptik came along with the Hy6 proposal. Now F+H has a big, captive customer, for a couple of years at least.


-H.
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 18, 2008, 09:26:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Steve, don't take offense to my editing of your quote but this pretty much sums it up.

It's funny, these medium format discussions have been going on since the RG days.

It was obvious early on that Hasselblad and Imacon had plans that would exclude competitor's digital backs.

It was also obvious that Phase, Leaf and Sinar would have to find some type of platform to put their backs on because as you have said time and again, the money is in the back, not the camera and that is why Contax is out of business. (Though how F+H can stay in business only selling cameras seems to counter this statement).

You sell Leaf, Sinar and Hasselblad and might see some advantage in this strategy though  I doubt seriously if many photographers are jumping up and down with joy for any of these developements, especially the photographers that invested in an earlier H system (which also includes CF39 users).

Now in my view the main thing that all of these companies should address is that as of today, every new camera back combo that is offered does little for improving the quality, ease, or status of my work.

No client is asking me for a new camera because once again, all of these new offerings are just slight variations of a past theme and most come with a higher price tag. 

I don't have a client asking for 50mega pixel captures, or cares if the sensor is square or finds it important I look down a waist level finder.   I've never had a client say, hey, isn't that the new HY6, AFi7 or H3II? 

I do know that clients would love to see real breaktrhoughs like instant wifi to multiple devices, easy backup of files, higher iso that allows for more continuous light souces, faster lenses, wider lenses, better in camera processing, instant web galleries, easier software, really better camera lcd's and a very hard look at the final cost.

JR
P.S.   I use what I use because first and foremost it's stable and proven.  Out of production contax's don't register with a client, becuase none of them know if Contax is out of production.

Whether 3.78's inteface is white or dark grey doesn't change a thing as long as the software doesn't crash and the colors on the computer are good enough to continue, the files can be quickly edited and corrected and jpegs can be processed on the fly.

The price I pay for the cameras and backs doesn't concern the client, though the cost to them does.  If I can do two bodies and camera systems for the price of one that gives me a better profit margin, or better still allows me to hold down the final costs then that is a real "upgrade" that a client will notice.

Do you think a client knows that the sensors I use us has 1.24 crop ratio vs. a 1.14, heck I can't even tell anymore.

And for the record, I've recently shot for phase in Paris for a new campaign and no it wasn't a big for profit situation for my studio. (Actually the opposite).  Regardless, It was fun, creatively rewarding and I enjoyed doing it but make no mistake in what my intentions are because if the Phase stopped working for me tomorrow, software, or hardware I would switch systems in a heartbeat.

Anything less would be penny wise and pound foolish.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182319\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James, if tighter camera/back integration helps to act as a facilitator to advance the product, then I am all for it. Just for the record, let me state that while I am a proponent of this tighter integration, I am also a proponent of choice, flexibility and options. Hasselblad, Leaf, and Sinar continue to sell and develop digital backs that can gon on nearly every medium/large format camera system. And I still enthusiastically sell and support these excellent systems, like the Leaf Aptus, Hasselblad CF, and Sinar e75 series digital backs.

But with the demise of most medium format film-based camera systems, and the advantages of camera/digital integration - which has been recognized by nearly every major player in the industry, including Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad, Leaf, Sinar, Sony, Olympus, etc, etc, etc - the future does not hold the promise of the flexibility and versatility of the past in the ways with which have been valued. That is unfortunate, and I am not advocating less choice, nor am I celebrating it.

I do celebrate tighter camera/digital integration. Regardless of what happens with independent digital backs, I still am in the position of wanting to provide the most capable possible product for my customers. While you may not see a compelling value proposition with the current medium format digital camera platforms for your work, others do. And it is my uneducated guess that tighter camera/digital integration will ultimately enable some of the advances that you feel will benefit your work at a faster pace than non-integrated systems. More advanced AWB will come from the Leaf/AFi - Sinar/Hy6 platform very soon, and this is a result of camera/digital integration. Improved ISO performance is limited by the CCD sensors, but I've already seen dramatic improvement from H3DII products at 400 and 800 ISO which, in my opinon, look better than Canon or Nikon files at those same ISO's. We may be at the edge of what the current sensors can do. But for future sensors which are more sensitive, the camera/digital integration can certainly play an advanced role in sensor temperature, which is a key factor in ISO performance.

So, before camera/integration gets shat on as the unholy grail - eh, who needs automatic lens corrections or deadly accurate focus - bear in mind more advances are coming and will come in more flavors, faster and more effectively with camera/digital integration. In the meantime, we still have the solid, workmanlike digital backs, which offer exactly what many photographers need, as well as real flexibility in terms of camera platforms.

As I said, the choice is yours.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 18, 2008, 09:38:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Steve, I agree but integration doesn't have to mean closed integration. That's the reason we have standards such as PAL or NTSC.

IMO, increased integration is good, proprietary interfaces are bad.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 09:38:45 AM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #73 on: March 18, 2008, 09:51:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Steve, I agree but integration doesn't have to mean closed integration. That's the reason we have standards such as PAL or NTSC.

IMO, increased integration is good, proprietary interfaces are bad.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't necessarily disagree, but then this would also include Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, etc, etc. What standard does Canon or Nikon adhere to?

The major sin that Hasselblad has committed is restricting the 28mm lens. Other than that, I see nothing significantly different from what they have done compared to any of the above mentioned.


Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
Logged

Steve Hendrix
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3969



WWW
« Reply #74 on: March 18, 2008, 09:54:30 AM »
ReplyReply

As a recent buyer of a digital back, I have got to see that my "back is always ok, unfortunately the software cannot always fix it". The same syndrome may hit the Hassy and Sinar buyers - the bodies can correct for lens-body distance disparities in AF, but this may result in greater out-of-factory tolerances - and then the guys and gals using MF will suddenly end up with a bunch of out of focus images.

I find it interesting that my trashy Mamiya/Phase combo focuses more accurately than any of the Canon's I owned previousy.

Edmund


Quote
So, before camera/integration gets shat on as the unholy grail - eh, who needs automatic lens corrections or deadly accurate focus - bear in mind more advances are coming and will come in more flavors, faster and more effectively with camera/digital integration. In the meantime, we still have the solid, workmanlike digital backs, which offer exactly what many photographers need, as well as real flexibility in terms of camera platforms.

As I said, the choice is yours.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #75 on: March 18, 2008, 10:11:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As a recent buyer of a digital back, I have got to see that my "back is always ok, unfortunately the software cannot always fix it". The same syndrome may hit the Hassy and Sinar buyers - the bodies can correct for lens-body distance disparities in AF, but this may result in greater out-of-factory tolerances - and then the guys and gals using MF will suddenly end up with a bunch of out of focus images.

I find it interesting that my trashy Mamiya/Phase combo focuses more accurately than any of the Canon's I owned previousy.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund, this has not been the case. It's all about QC, and assembly lines would not "let up" just because they understand there is a focus adjustment made. The Ultra Focus II adjustment does not correct for sensor mis-alignment. If anything, this technology provides even more likelihood of accurate focus regardless, because the placement of the sensor has to be known and mapped not just to a focus plane, but also to a camera body. If QC standards are maintained, there is no issue here.

Steve Hendrix
ww.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
Logged

Steve Hendrix
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #76 on: March 18, 2008, 10:30:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James, if tighter camera/back integration helps to act as a facilitator to advance the product, then I am all for it. Just for the record, let me state that while I am a proponent of this tighter integration, I am also a proponent of choice, flexibility and options. Hasselblad, Leaf, and Sinar continue to sell and develop digital backs that can gon on nearly every medium/large format camera system. And I still enthusiastically sell and support these excellent systems, like the Leaf Aptus, Hasselblad CF, and Sinar e75 series digital backs.

But with the demise of most medium format film-based camera systems, and the advantages of camera/digital integration - which has been recognized by nearly every major player in the industry, including Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad, Leaf, Sinar, Sony, Olympus, etc, etc, etc - the future does not hold the promise of the flexibility and versatility of the past in the ways with which have been valued. That is unfortunate, and I am not advocating less choice, nor am I celebrating it.

I do celebrate tighter camera/digital integration. Regardless of what happens with independent digital backs, I still am in the position of wanting to provide the most capable possible product for my customers. While you may not see a compelling value proposition with the current medium format digital camera platforms for your work, others do. And it is my uneducated guess that tighter camera/digital integration will ultimately enable some of the advances that you feel will benefit your work at a faster pace than non-integrated systems. More advanced AWB will come from the Leaf/AFi - Sinar/Hy6 platform very soon, and this is a result of camera/digital integration. Improved ISO performance is limited by the CCD sensors, but I've already seen dramatic improvement from H3DII products at 400 and 800 ISO which, in my opinon, look better than Canon or Nikon files at those same ISO's. We may be at the edge of what the current sensors can do. But for future sensors which are more sensitive, the camera/digital integration can certainly play an advanced role in sensor temperature, which is a key factor in ISO performance.

So, before camera/integration gets shat on as the unholy grail - eh, who needs automatic lens corrections or deadly accurate focus - bear in mind more advances are coming and will come in more flavors, faster and more effectively with camera/digital integration. In the meantime, we still have the solid, workmanlike digital backs, which offer exactly what many photographers need, as well as real flexibility in terms of camera platforms.

As I said, the choice is yours.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Some of this is good, some of it slightly improves the final product (image) depending on what/how you shoot, but at the end of the day, these are still baby steps.

In regards to iso performance I've tested this side by side with Leaf, Phase, Canons, Nikons and Leicas and all of the digital cameras, are very scene specific.

It's not just higher iso, it's also lens speed that allows faster shutters.  I just came off a fashion gig on location where running 4 1k hmi's just kept me on the threshold of what was useable.  800 on the p-30+ was clean, but even at 800 I was running on the bare minimum of focus and shutter where in the dslrs especially the Canons 400 iso would easily have pulled focus and held sharpness just because it seems Canon is less optimistic about iso than the digital backs and their lenses are faster.

Still I'm not trying to debate medium format vs. dslrs, because I use both and both have a place.

The point I'm making is in an ever tightening business environment 50k camera systems are a bit hard to justify unless the benefits are huge.  For some this "tighter integration"  (I'm not really sure what that means) may be worth it, but as of today I don't look at one of my files and say I wish I had auto parallax correction or a different white balance because so far my images are to the color and tone I expect and correcting parallax is not the prime motive of someone that shoots people.

Let's be realistic.  Most photographers like cameras and most of us like new equipment.  It's just fun to work with something new and modern and the moment I set my Contax down next to anything that is obviously superior to me and my clients then I'll make the investment, even the 50k investment.

My brand loyalty starts and stops with MY final product, not what make of camera, software, or lighting I used.

What I do find interesting from a camera standpoint is there are things from past systems that the new cameras have not improved on.  Mamiya's 645 manual cameras had very fast lenses, same with Contax, the RZ had a fully rotating back that magically blacked out the crop area in the viewfinder and the lens lines for all of these systems was huge.  

The fact that some of the latest medium format cameras can't match something that was  made 15 years ago tells me it's not the engineering, it's the costs.

I am still surprised that as of today, no medium format camera produces decent in camera jpegs that have an adjustable color space.  My original 1ds produced beautiful srgb jpegs  parallel to the raws and those went on the web in light speed.  

5 years later my post production has gone from a quick edit to a series of edits, color correction and batch processing.   Why medium format has not seized upon faster in camera processing is beyond me.

Also if I brought up the the delays, workarounds, beta introductions and still long promised and waiting features of many of the medium format makers software I'm sure I would be accused of brand bashing or favoritism.

Say what you want about proprietary systems and their benefit, but I think most of us know that limiting one camera to one back is more of a corporate business decision than a technical or artistic advantage.

Once again I cannot stress how important cost is in these decisions.  I'm fortunate that my business is growing, but I also know that every project sees some tightening of the bottom line, or a increase in amount of images and services per day without a compensating price increase, so for me to double, triple my camera investment takes more than "tighter integration".



JR
Logged

Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #77 on: March 18, 2008, 01:07:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Don't necessarily disagree, but then this would also include Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, etc, etc. What standard does Canon or Nikon adhere to?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well some of them have adopted the Four Thirds standard. They use standard flash shoes and tripod mounts. Perhaps use generic batteries. Use standard file types (TIFF, JPEG, DNG). There are already many standards in most cameras, but it could be better.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #78 on: March 18, 2008, 02:12:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well some of them have adopted the Four Thirds standard. They use standard flash shoes and tripod mounts. Perhaps use generic batteries. Use standard file types (TIFF, JPEG, DNG). There are already many standards in most cameras, but it could be better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182434\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd love to see battery standardization. Although, ultimately, standardization is a double-edged sword, while it provides ease of use, legacy compatibility, it also hinders technical advancement.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
Logged

Steve Hendrix
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2397



WWW
« Reply #79 on: March 19, 2008, 12:00:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Digital automatic lens corrections seem like a great reason to have an integrated package, but can't  all that be done without too much trouble with software?  Okay to illustrate what I mean - maybe you take your kit down to your dealer where he has a small station set up with a chart on the wall and some track lights to evenly light it.  You shoot the chart with all your different lenses and their set-up cranks out the needed correction parameters for your very own lenses and camera/back and puts it into a file which you load into your C1 or CaptureShop, Flexcolor or whatever it its.   What's the big deal? Why get locked in just for that?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 12:02:22 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad