Well, if it had a real power button instead of all the "Zen" then the battery life might be a lot better. Something has to stay on all the time to monitor the buttons and the new iPods have the worst self-discharge rate I've ever seen.
Regarding breast feeding, the fact that it's instinctive means that "intuition" is irrelevant. "Intuitive" implies learning, that is that intuitive means that something is learned very easily, whereas instinctive behavior does not need to be learned at all. That's why to say that "the nipple is the only intuitive interface" is preposterous. It is not inutitive at all and many other things are.
Like a good troll, this quote has the appearance of correctness while ignoring the true meaning of the words and ultimately delivering a good breast reference. The danger of its cleverness is that people tend to believe that it's insightful.
I realized you weren't taking sides and hope you haven't taken offense.
Actually, I never said I was offended. My original post was " Why write something so blatantly sexist and completely untrue? Because someone thought it was clever?"
Later I referred to it as offensive. That's not the same as saying I was offended which is a different matter.
I was familiar with the quote already and did not attribute it to you. Problem is, the quote doesn't contribute anything because it is incorrect and it injects sexual commentary that is unnecessary and may be offensive to some people. The part I didn't like was the suggestion that it was "remedial learning" (i.e. you need to resort to gradeschool techniques to teach us).
I think I was misinterpreted on that. The whole idea of the manufacturers is to sell lenses. They want people to be invested in their format for that to happen, though, so they need continuity to make that happen. As you say, an entirely new format risks deterring potential buyers. We are in complete agreement on that.
The APS sensor size was a compromise for manufacturability and image quality. Existing lenses have issues with corner resolution and full frame sensors are very costly to make.
I was referring to the manufacturer preserving their investment in lenses, that being design, manufacturing, inventory, etc. I never said that the manufacturer wanted to preserve your investment! The advantage to them is that you will be more inclined to adopt if you already have lenses that work.
If you start with the lens, then how do you conclude that the lens is poorly matched to the camera? There is no doubt that the lens came first, so that's why I take issue with the author's "insight".
Nikon readily admits that it is in business to sell lenses and that bodies are considered a complimentary product. If they don't sell you new lenses then they've failed in their goal.
This is incorrect. Digicams and DSLR's are spec'ed in total pixel count, not count per unit area. The D1 was also a 2.75MP camera, not 2.1MP. It is true, though, that larger sensors are a good thing. The D1 had greater dynamic range and used far better lenses than digicams of its day. It is easily exceeded in quality today by both digicams and newer DSLR's. It was a very fine camera, though, and the D1x version is still sold.
This is not the cause. Bayer interpolation is just one of many internal processing steps that must be done and contributes little to the problem.
The real issue is shutter lag which is the accumulation of autofocus, autoexposure, and actual image taking. Of these, autofocus is the biggest culprit and the perception of slowness comes from the expectation that AF is performed after the shutter is pressed. In no other camera is this the case.
Digicams are unlike any other camera in that there is an expectation that you push the button and get a picture. No other camera works that way (unless you shoot manual focus). With digicams, the camera has to determine focus, then exposure, then shoot. It does this whenever you push the shutter and the combined time is known as shutter lag.
Film cameras and DSLR's will refuse to take a picture if the image is out of focus and you press the shutter. You can override that or shoot manual focus, but the shutter lag is essentially solved by this one difference. If you prefocus a digicam you will find that the annoying time delay is gone.
Actually, a big problem with the 8MP cameras is that their noise performance is enough worse compared to their 5MP cousins that they can't be used to produce significantly bigger prints. The only purpose of higher pixel counts is to capture more detail in order to support larger prints. If that's not achieved then the manufacturers have failed.
The 8MP digicams do not produce better images than the current 6MP DSLR's. You can find information on that from a number of digital photo sites. They are nice cameras capable of great images but I wouldn't liken the to a Ferrari or Porsche. I'd save that analogy for a Canon 1Ds or an MF back. Price-wise that's more appropriate, too!
Foveon needs to be able to make larger sensors with higher pixel counts and get greater buyin with major manufacturers. That appears unlikely to happen with Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, and Kodak all invested in their own imager technologies.
The primary advantage of a full color pixel site is sharpness. That doesn't ultimately help when your overall pixel count (3.5MP) is so much less that your Bayer counterparts. The Sigma Foveon camera produces images competitive with the 6MP DSLR's but not consistently better. Foveon is closer to dying that succeeding in this market. A shame.
The Kodak's imaging performance is definitely in the same class with the Canon. It has superior dynamic range, superior resolution, and more accurate color. It is not built on a pro class body, does not have as sophisticated AF, metering, or shutter, and is not as good an all around camera. The Kodak is, however, the resolution and sharpness king.
Kodak's reputation for noise problems is due largely to a number of factors. First, they pre-announced and failed to ship. Then, they shipped before the camera was ready. They tried to preserve too many stops of dynamic range in the output image, and they reserved too much sensor range for overexposure. In reality, the Kodak's noise performance was far better than its reputation, but the new sensor eliminates those concerns (at least up to ISO 640). The new Kodaks are faster than the Canon and provide superior dynamic range.
The professional digital community is heavily Canon-biased and does not give Kodak the respect it deserves. Thom Hogan feels otherwise. Unfortunately, we still haven't seen his review of the new camera.
Some DSLR's have the microlens arrays and others do not. I believe that neither of the full frame 35mm DSLR's have them. The Kodak's lack the antialiasing filter as well. Still, there's the IR filter and the Bayer filter in the stack.
It's certainly possible that CA can be exagerated by this issue, seems to me.
In any event, the Canon 1Ds is known to be quite sensitive to lens build quality. The Kodak's have had lens issues as well, but those were due to a design shortcoming of the sensor site. The new Kodak sensors have fixed those problems but they are working through new ones. Nothing prevents manufacturers from improving their lens designs, either, and we are seeing some of that.
There's a big difference between "respected" and "sacred". School kids aren't forced to swear allegiance, either. They are allowed to opt out (at least theoretically). I would say that plenty of other countries have a greater sense of nationalism than the US does.
Flags are respected as symbols of nations out of convention. Although it is arbitrary there is nothing wrong with it. Personally I feel that respect is due to any nation's flag, not just my own.
Yes, lots more players in the digicam market (which is much, much larger than the DSLR market). Interestingly, Canon and Nikon have quite similar market share in DSLR's, though Canon clearly has a lead in sensor development. The 1D2 looks very impressive. I personally think it caused the D2x to be withdrawn but who knows.
I just don't think anyone is in position to put Canon and Nikon into the role you suggest. I would be happy to see it, though. Nikon is struggling to develop what Canon already has, while only Kodak and Fuji are in a position to develop their own sensors. Both Kodak and Fuji are dependent on the other two for lens mounts. Perhaps the 4/3 system could be a spoiler but I believe the imager size there is just too small.
Yes, there is no reason why APS sensors couldn't be used in digicams but I believe technical reasons will discourage it. Users will want a range of form factors and APS sensors will necessarily drive the FF up in size. Lenses will be much larger and focal lengths larger (don't forget that the short end must lengthen). That's the limiting issue. There will ultimately be a compromise (as there is already) between pixel count, size, and optical zoom range/speed and I'm not certain that will allow sensors as large as APS to be used. I'd be happy to be wrong on that, though. I'm a big believer in the largest imager possible. I wouldn't be surprised at something larger than 2/3" in the future, though.
f/2.8 would be a specific rate of exposure per unit of imager area. It would expose at the same rate regardless of the size of the imager. The sensitivity of the imager is rated by ISO and is also a rating per unit area. In this way, cameras with identical ISO ratings and f-stops will require the same shutter speed regardless of imager size. That how you want it to work.
Light gathering ability of the lens, however, is not per unit area. It means the total ability to gather light. Therefore a lens that covers a wider area at the same f-stop will have greater light gathering ability than its competitor. Whether that larger image circle is actually used is beside the point. The author was incorrect stating that the two lenses have identical light gathering ability. He would have been right had he said "exposure ability".
Two cameras with different sensor size but identical ISO's and f-stops will require the same shutter speed for proper exposure, but the camera with the larger sensor requires more light to expose due to its larger imager area. Where does this extra light come from? Not from increased exposure time since the shutter speed is the same. It comes from the lens delivering more total light. This occurs because its lens actually has a larger physical aperture to achieve the same f-stop and the larger aperture allows more light through the lens. The "luminous flux" is unchanged, however, because it's spread over a larger area. How does the lens get away with this? The larger sensor area requires a longer focal length lens for equivalent perspective and f-stop = (focal length/physical aperture). It's all cleverly hidden in the math. Perhaps a little too cleverly.
My point was that they started with the lenses and designed a body for them. The author suggests that the lenses used are too big for the bodies but that is silly when you understand that the lenses came first.
Of course, preservation of lens investment is the whole idea both for the user and the manufacturer.
I don't believe you when you say you're interested in the photoshop user's experience with GIMP, but I would suggest that if you want to take the high road when it comes to bashing that you stop using terms like "MS astroturfers", "religious professionals", and "pirates". It's clear that you are simply a basher yourself, always having a colorful label for anyone who disagrees with your perspective. I can't see how you are provided anything constructive here.
Photoshop users are people trying to get something done. They may or may not have OS preferences, but when it comes to image editing, they aren't going to let OSS ideals keep them from using the right tools. I use linux to host my professional development environment, but when it comes to content creation it's strictly windows because that's where the tools are. Sorry you have OSS goggles on but that's how it is. When running Photoshop I use a 3840x2400 display (Viewsonic VP2290) that requires special drivers and a dual DVI card. I doubt very seriously that this product will ever be supported under linux and there is nothing like it for imaging work. I suppose I could use GIMP on Windows but why? Does GIMP have anything comparable to ACR or pervasive 16 bit support. No, it doesn't. That disqualifies it for digital photography IMO. I guess that makes me an MS astroturfer, right?
rule #1 is bullshit. A criticism can be valid without a suggestion for fixing it and it doesn't have to be "it sucks". Rule #1 was created by lazy managers.
Perhaps it occurred because a poster decided to write a condescending post titled "Goddamnit, got to the chalkboard..." as if he would require us all to learn something basic using gradeschool techniques. Then we discover that what we are to learn is wrong, ignorant, and sexist. When given an explanation, his response is to "fuck all us intellectually lazy fools" or something to that effect. That's pretty much how these things go here.
Now, if the original poster had not been so condescending and had not used sexually-tinged language, the conversation might have remained intelligent. Through his immaturity, he reserves the right to post in such manner and expect that others not find it offensive.
And how does your view of the purpose of man and woman tie into the definition of "intuitive"? Fact is, your irrelevant statement about the biological purpose of reproductive hardware has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
You asked me to explain how the statement is untrue and I did so. You asked me to explain how the statement is sexist and I did so. It's also reasonable for people to "take offense" at sexist statements.
I think you should watch who you call "intellectually lazy fools". It seems you're the one with a limited grasp on the situation. I take full responsibility for being offended by your offensive, sexist quote. When you say something offensive out of ignorance it's not inoffensive just because you don't realize it.
The rumored Nikon F6 is a body with interchangable backs for digital and film. It will provide changable viewfinders as well. Don't expect it to be cheap, though. By the time it's available, few will care about film.
Full 35mm sensors have been available for some time in the form of the Canon 1Ds and the Kodak 14n, 14nx, SLR/n, and SLR/c. You are right about the price, though.
The 4/3 system is a DSLR with a whole new series of lenses. Been out for a while now in the form of the Olympus E-1.
Canon is the manufacturer most actively pushing full frame. That's because they lead in the manufacture of CMOS imagers so they have a distinct advantage in imager size. Still, there doesn't seem to be any race to get there. It's unlikely Canon and Nikon will be following anyone else any time soon. I should mention that Kodak makes full frame as well (the least expensive at around $4000).
I also don't agree that P&S digicams will move to APS sensors. APS sensors are quite costly and would dictate lenses that would be too large for that class camera. There is no inevitable march to larger sensor sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if it had a real power button instead of all the "Zen" then the battery life might be a lot better. Something has to stay on all the time to monitor the buttons and the new iPods have the worst self-discharge rate I've ever seen.
No, I like nipples and we all have them.
Regarding breast feeding, the fact that it's instinctive means that "intuition" is irrelevant. "Intuitive" implies learning, that is that intuitive means that something is learned very easily, whereas instinctive behavior does not need to be learned at all. That's why to say that "the nipple is the only intuitive interface" is preposterous. It is not inutitive at all and many other things are.
Like a good troll, this quote has the appearance of correctness while ignoring the true meaning of the words and ultimately delivering a good breast reference. The danger of its cleverness is that people tend to believe that it's insightful.
I realized you weren't taking sides and hope you haven't taken offense.
Actually, I never said I was offended. My original post was " Why write something so blatantly sexist and completely untrue? Because someone thought it was clever?"
Later I referred to it as offensive. That's not the same as saying I was offended which is a different matter.
I was familiar with the quote already and did not attribute it to you. Problem is, the quote doesn't contribute anything because it is incorrect and it injects sexual commentary that is unnecessary and may be offensive to some people. The part I didn't like was the suggestion that it was "remedial learning" (i.e. you need to resort to gradeschool techniques to teach us).
I think I was misinterpreted on that. The whole idea of the manufacturers is to sell lenses. They want people to be invested in their format for that to happen, though, so they need continuity to make that happen. As you say, an entirely new format risks deterring potential buyers. We are in complete agreement on that.
The APS sensor size was a compromise for manufacturability and image quality. Existing lenses have issues with corner resolution and full frame sensors are very costly to make.
If you start with the lens, then how do you conclude that the lens is poorly matched to the camera? There is no doubt that the lens came first, so that's why I take issue with the author's "insight".
Nikon readily admits that it is in business to sell lenses and that bodies are considered a complimentary product. If they don't sell you new lenses then they've failed in their goal.
This is incorrect. Digicams and DSLR's are spec'ed in total pixel count, not count per unit area. The D1 was also a 2.75MP camera, not 2.1MP. It is true, though, that larger sensors are a good thing. The D1 had greater dynamic range and used far better lenses than digicams of its day. It is easily exceeded in quality today by both digicams and newer DSLR's. It was a very fine camera, though, and the D1x version is still sold.
This is not the cause. Bayer interpolation is just one of many internal processing steps that must be done and contributes little to the problem.
The real issue is shutter lag which is the accumulation of autofocus, autoexposure, and actual image taking. Of these, autofocus is the biggest culprit and the perception of slowness comes from the expectation that AF is performed after the shutter is pressed. In no other camera is this the case.
This is not a data transfer problem.
Digicams are unlike any other camera in that there is an expectation that you push the button and get a picture. No other camera works that way (unless you shoot manual focus). With digicams, the camera has to determine focus, then exposure, then shoot. It does this whenever you push the shutter and the combined time is known as shutter lag.
Film cameras and DSLR's will refuse to take a picture if the image is out of focus and you press the shutter. You can override that or shoot manual focus, but the shutter lag is essentially solved by this one difference. If you prefocus a digicam you will find that the annoying time delay is gone.
Actually, a big problem with the 8MP cameras is that their noise performance is enough worse compared to their 5MP cousins that they can't be used to produce significantly bigger prints. The only purpose of higher pixel counts is to capture more detail in order to support larger prints. If that's not achieved then the manufacturers have failed.
The 8MP digicams do not produce better images than the current 6MP DSLR's. You can find information on that from a number of digital photo sites. They are nice cameras capable of great images but I wouldn't liken the to a Ferrari or Porsche. I'd save that analogy for a Canon 1Ds or an MF back. Price-wise that's more appropriate, too!
Certainly no evidence of that yet.
Foveon needs to be able to make larger sensors with higher pixel counts and get greater buyin with major manufacturers. That appears unlikely to happen with Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, and Kodak all invested in their own imager technologies.
The primary advantage of a full color pixel site is sharpness. That doesn't ultimately help when your overall pixel count (3.5MP) is so much less that your Bayer counterparts. The Sigma Foveon camera produces images competitive with the 6MP DSLR's but not consistently better. Foveon is closer to dying that succeeding in this market. A shame.
The Kodak's imaging performance is definitely in the same class with the Canon. It has superior dynamic range, superior resolution, and more accurate color. It is not built on a pro class body, does not have as sophisticated AF, metering, or shutter, and is not as good an all around camera. The Kodak is, however, the resolution and sharpness king. Kodak's reputation for noise problems is due largely to a number of factors. First, they pre-announced and failed to ship. Then, they shipped before the camera was ready. They tried to preserve too many stops of dynamic range in the output image, and they reserved too much sensor range for overexposure. In reality, the Kodak's noise performance was far better than its reputation, but the new sensor eliminates those concerns (at least up to ISO 640). The new Kodaks are faster than the Canon and provide superior dynamic range. The professional digital community is heavily Canon-biased and does not give Kodak the respect it deserves. Thom Hogan feels otherwise. Unfortunately, we still haven't seen his review of the new camera.
Some DSLR's have the microlens arrays and others do not. I believe that neither of the full frame 35mm DSLR's have them. The Kodak's lack the antialiasing filter as well. Still, there's the IR filter and the Bayer filter in the stack.
It's certainly possible that CA can be exagerated by this issue, seems to me.
In any event, the Canon 1Ds is known to be quite sensitive to lens build quality. The Kodak's have had lens issues as well, but those were due to a design shortcoming of the sensor site. The new Kodak sensors have fixed those problems but they are working through new ones. Nothing prevents manufacturers from improving their lens designs, either, and we are seeing some of that.
RMS should start his own dictionary.
There's a big difference between "respected" and "sacred". School kids aren't forced to swear allegiance, either. They are allowed to opt out (at least theoretically). I would say that plenty of other countries have a greater sense of nationalism than the US does.
Flags are respected as symbols of nations out of convention. Although it is arbitrary there is nothing wrong with it. Personally I feel that respect is due to any nation's flag, not just my own.
Yes, lots more players in the digicam market (which is much, much larger than the DSLR market). Interestingly, Canon and Nikon have quite similar market share in DSLR's, though Canon clearly has a lead in sensor development. The 1D2 looks very impressive. I personally think it caused the D2x to be withdrawn but who knows.
I just don't think anyone is in position to put Canon and Nikon into the role you suggest. I would be happy to see it, though. Nikon is struggling to develop what Canon already has, while only Kodak and Fuji are in a position to develop their own sensors. Both Kodak and Fuji are dependent on the other two for lens mounts. Perhaps the 4/3 system could be a spoiler but I believe the imager size there is just too small.
Yes, there is no reason why APS sensors couldn't be used in digicams but I believe technical reasons will discourage it. Users will want a range of form factors and APS sensors will necessarily drive the FF up in size. Lenses will be much larger and focal lengths larger (don't forget that the short end must lengthen). That's the limiting issue. There will ultimately be a compromise (as there is already) between pixel count, size, and optical zoom range/speed and I'm not certain that will allow sensors as large as APS to be used. I'd be happy to be wrong on that, though. I'm a big believer in the largest imager possible. I wouldn't be surprised at something larger than 2/3" in the future, though.
f/2.8 would be a specific rate of exposure per unit of imager area. It would expose at the same rate regardless of the size of the imager. The sensitivity of the imager is rated by ISO and is also a rating per unit area. In this way, cameras with identical ISO ratings and f-stops will require the same shutter speed regardless of imager size. That how you want it to work.
Light gathering ability of the lens, however, is not per unit area. It means the total ability to gather light. Therefore a lens that covers a wider area at the same f-stop will have greater light gathering ability than its competitor. Whether that larger image circle is actually used is beside the point. The author was incorrect stating that the two lenses have identical light gathering ability. He would have been right had he said "exposure ability".
Two cameras with different sensor size but identical ISO's and f-stops will require the same shutter speed for proper exposure, but the camera with the larger sensor requires more light to expose due to its larger imager area. Where does this extra light come from? Not from increased exposure time since the shutter speed is the same. It comes from the lens delivering more total light. This occurs because its lens actually has a larger physical aperture to achieve the same f-stop and the larger aperture allows more light through the lens. The "luminous flux" is unchanged, however, because it's spread over a larger area. How does the lens get away with this? The larger sensor area requires a longer focal length lens for equivalent perspective and f-stop = (focal length/physical aperture). It's all cleverly hidden in the math. Perhaps a little too cleverly.
My point was that they started with the lenses and designed a body for them. The author suggests that the lenses used are too big for the bodies but that is silly when you understand that the lenses came first.
Of course, preservation of lens investment is the whole idea both for the user and the manufacturer.
I don't believe you when you say you're interested in the photoshop user's experience with GIMP, but I would suggest that if you want to take the high road when it comes to bashing that you stop using terms like "MS astroturfers", "religious professionals", and "pirates". It's clear that you are simply a basher yourself, always having a colorful label for anyone who disagrees with your perspective. I can't see how you are provided anything constructive here.
Photoshop users are people trying to get something done. They may or may not have OS preferences, but when it comes to image editing, they aren't going to let OSS ideals keep them from using the right tools. I use linux to host my professional development environment, but when it comes to content creation it's strictly windows because that's where the tools are. Sorry you have OSS goggles on but that's how it is. When running Photoshop I use a 3840x2400 display (Viewsonic VP2290) that requires special drivers and a dual DVI card. I doubt very seriously that this product will ever be supported under linux and there is nothing like it for imaging work. I suppose I could use GIMP on Windows but why? Does GIMP have anything comparable to ACR or pervasive 16 bit support. No, it doesn't. That disqualifies it for digital photography IMO. I guess that makes me an MS astroturfer, right?
rule #1 is bullshit. A criticism can be valid without a suggestion for fixing it and it doesn't have to be "it sucks". Rule #1 was created by lazy managers.
Perhaps it occurred because a poster decided to write a condescending post titled "Goddamnit, got to the chalkboard..." as if he would require us all to learn something basic using gradeschool techniques. Then we discover that what we are to learn is wrong, ignorant, and sexist. When given an explanation, his response is to "fuck all us intellectually lazy fools" or something to that effect. That's pretty much how these things go here.
Now, if the original poster had not been so condescending and had not used sexually-tinged language, the conversation might have remained intelligent. Through his immaturity, he reserves the right to post in such manner and expect that others not find it offensive.
And how does your view of the purpose of man and woman tie into the definition of "intuitive"? Fact is, your irrelevant statement about the biological purpose of reproductive hardware has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
You asked me to explain how the statement is untrue and I did so. You asked me to explain how the statement is sexist and I did so. It's also reasonable for people to "take offense" at sexist statements.
I think you should watch who you call "intellectually lazy fools". It seems you're the one with a limited grasp on the situation. I take full responsibility for being offended by your offensive, sexist quote. When you say something offensive out of ignorance it's not inoffensive just because you don't realize it.
Biology is not sexist but sexist statements are.
I've got nipples. Can you milk me?
The rumored Nikon F6 is a body with interchangable backs for digital and film. It will provide changable viewfinders as well. Don't expect it to be cheap, though. By the time it's available, few will care about film.
Full 35mm sensors have been available for some time in the form of the Canon 1Ds and the Kodak 14n, 14nx, SLR/n, and SLR/c. You are right about the price, though.
Canon is the manufacturer most actively pushing full frame. That's because they lead in the manufacture of CMOS imagers so they have a distinct advantage in imager size. Still, there doesn't seem to be any race to get there. It's unlikely Canon and Nikon will be following anyone else any time soon. I should mention that Kodak makes full frame as well (the least expensive at around $4000).
I also don't agree that P&S digicams will move to APS sensors. APS sensors are quite costly and would dictate lenses that would be too large for that class camera. There is no inevitable march to larger sensor sizes.