Don't forget that Sony Music thought it was ok to install rootkits people's computers. They love locking people into proprietary technology. It was their MO for years and years. That seems to have eased up a bit, but the stigma is still very much there for many people, myself included.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Zos Xavius <[email protected]> wrote: > Retrofocus does better on digital because it is more telecentric by > design. The advantage of rangefinders was that such designs could be > avoided, but that was when people were shooting film. Digital sensors > all have filter stacks, so even with microlenses, you are always going > to have problems with traditional short flange wide angle designs due > to the light angles. This is why the original 4/3 format required all > lenses to be telecentric, since that is ideal for digital. Of course, > with m4/3 olympus decided that such a requirement isn't as crucial and > has relaxed the standard a bit. > > As for Sony, which has proven over history to be one of the most > anti-consumer electronics manufacturers ever, all I can say is that > they make great sensors and its a real shame that their photography > products are such a unfocused mess. Every new product (NEX, A7, etc) > is innovative indeed, but they don't seem to have any real long term > strategy other than throwing new products out there because they think > they will sell. They built up a fairly large lineup of alpha lenses > and now the future of alpha mount looks fairly doubtful over the long > term. They created the Nex platform but don't really seem to have any > interest in building a lens system around it. Now Nex is no more and > is merged with alpha, which brings us to the A7. At this rate sony is > producing far more new bodies and mounts than actual lenses. Compare > this to Fuji, who is still a very niche player and in a rather short > time has built a nearly complete lens system for its X series of > cameras. Fuji has a clear strategy and seems committed to their > offerings. Sony just looks like a big question mark to me to be > honest. > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:41 PM, steve harley <[email protected]> wrote: >> on 2014-08-03 21:08 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote >> >>> The more recent sensors have reduced sensitivity to off-orthogonal ray >>> traces, yes, due to using shallower photosite wells and more >>> sophisticated optics. But reduced by how much is the question. The ideal >>> is still orthogonal, perhaps some sensors can tolerate 5° off axis to the >>> photosite now where in the past problems would be evidenced at 2° or >>> greater. >> >> >> don't you mean more recent sensors have _increased_ their sensitivity to >> light coming in at an angle? i would think reduced sensitivity would make >> the sensors more "picky" about lenses >> >> or perhaps by "sensitivity" you didn't mean sensitivity to light? >> >> btw, you *own* the phrase "shallower photosite wells" on search! >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
