subject:"OT\: Kodak kills DSLR"

Hi!

 Here is a strange comparison for you.
 The Canon  EOS-1Ds Mark II is:
  156 x 158 x 80 mm, and 1565 grams, battery in.
 
 The Pentax 67II is
  185.5mm x 151.0mm x 106.0mm and 1660g with AE Pentaprism Finder, but no
 batteries.
 Anyone know what a couple of CR-123 batteries weighs?
 
 Just being silly.

Bill, I am aware of the sizes of cameras. In my local camera club
there is a guy who shoots birds with Canon gear. I've seen his full
size backpacks... I even once tried to pick one up... The attempt did
not last too long though...

That's why I don't think it would make sense for me to buy an *istD
battery grip :). I really appreciate the fact that Pentax makes small
and light gear...

But you pulled the discussion away from the direction of my own pull :).

Boris


-- 
Boris

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

Hi John! :-)

 Fascination with incorrectly-named full-frame sensors still irks me.  I
 know this topic has been beaten to death here, but come on, if only ONE
 company is doing it, there must be good reasons for it.  No point in listing
 what I think those reasons are, though.  In my limited experience, those who
 want a 35mm-size sensor seem to cling to their desire no matter how much
 sense one tries to talk into them.
 
 John Celio
 ...is really glad to not be working on the sales floor at the camera shop
 anymore.  dealing with self-righteous asshat customers was getting to be too
 much.  the digital lab is much less hostile.  (:

That's my point exactly. There seems to be a difficulty for camera
manufacturers to produce  so called full-frame DSLR.

*Personally* I would *prefer* full frame DSLR so that *personally* I
would get the same characteristics from my lenses I am used to
shooting film. But that's beside the point.

Somehow I think the discontinuation of Kodak cameras means slightly
more than just a line in DPReview newscast...

Boris



-- 
Boris

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

On 31/5/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

I guess that was my point.
People don't realize sometimes just how big the big Canon is.
It's something to consider when you are wishing for performance enhancement 
features though.

I think it appears big when all one is used to is smaller gear. I enjoy
the MX, which is very small. But holding a Canon, I don't consider it
unduly big. I must be odd. It feels like any top of the range film SLR
with a motor drive and battery attached. It does get a tad heavy with a
big lens, but an *ist D with the 80-200 2.8 aboard is no featherweight!

relatively speaking of course :-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Shel Belinkoff wrote on 01.06.05 1:34:

 Camera bodies are discontinued.   Kodak will continue to develop CCD and
 CMOS image sensors.
 
 Here's the part that's most discouraging: Kodak will only support the
 cameras through 2008.  So, the cameras are what, about a year or so old,
 making it that Kodak will only support what is arguably their flagshio
 camera for a total of four or five years.
 
 That's todays digital world, I guess.
So long for FF sensor cameras popularity. It seems that popularity of 35 mm
sized sensor cameras will decline. Nikon has sold 4 times more D1X than
Canon their EOS 1Ds and sales of D2X are much higher than that of 1Ds Mk II.
Not to mention millions of already sold cheaper cameras with APS-C sized
sensors. Sometimes I think that Canon keeps production of FF DSLR just for
prestige and to keep amateurs thinking that they'll have upgrade path in
the future. Now it seems that FF DSLRs will just remain as expensive
professionals' specialized tools and will never gain any popularity among
amateurs like us. FF is dead - long live APS-C! ;-)

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Rob Studdert

On 1 Jun 2005 at 9:26, Boris Liberman wrote:
 
 That's my point exactly. There seems to be a difficulty for camera
 manufacturers to produce  so called full-frame DSLR.

Hi Boris,

In my opinion it would be no more difficult to produce a FF DSLR than a partial 
frame DSLR but it's guaranteed to be a heck of a lot more expensive because of 
the sensor and has limited market target hence risk.

 *Personally* I would *prefer* full frame DSLR so that *personally* I
 would get the same characteristics from my lenses I am used to
 shooting film. But that's beside the point.

My fish-eye just never feels the same on my *ist D ;-)

 Somehow I think the discontinuation of Kodak cameras means slightly
 more than just a line in DPReview newscast...

More FF market share for Canon and hopefully price drops along the way or 
alternately room for another player?

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread dagt

Why not try to be optimistic:  They may have decided to drop the Nikon og Canon 
based full frame cameras in order to concentrate on the cooperation with Pentax 
for developing the 18MP 645D.  

That way they don't have to deal with the problems concerning FF and wide 
angles, as Pentax will be able to design a 645 version of the 14mm in stead.

Pentax never lets us know much of their plans anyway, so why not let the 
speculations be positive...

DagT
 
 fra: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
   I'm no fan of Kodak but hate to see the other full frame sensor
   discontinued:
   http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05053104kodakslrdisc.asp
 
   Servus,   Alin

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Quoting Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 FF is dead - long live APS-C! ;-)

I think you're right. Now that the MedF systems are entering the market with
cameras more suited for work outside studios, chances are they will put the FF
high-pixel cameras in a squeeze.

Jostein


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Boris Liberman wrote:

 That's my point exactly. There seems to be a difficulty for camera
 manufacturers to produce  so called full-frame DSLR.

Difficulty? Expense, and particularly return on investment. Kodak was
not selling lenses together with their body.

 Somehow I think the discontinuation of Kodak cameras means slightly
 more than just a line in DPReview newscast...

What then?

Kostas

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

2005-06-01 Thread Toralf Lund


Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:


Shel Belinkoff wrote on 01.06.05 1:34:

 


Camera bodies are discontinued.   Kodak will continue to develop CCD and
CMOS image sensors.

Here's the part that's most discouraging: Kodak will only support the
cameras through 2008.  So, the cameras are what, about a year or so old,
making it that Kodak will only support what is arguably their flagshio
camera for a total of four or five years.

That's todays digital world, I guess.
   

So long for FF sensor cameras popularity. [ ... ] 
amateurs like us. FF is dead - long live APS-C! ;-)
 

Hmmm... I've been thinking that camera producers are bound to increase 
the sensor size soon because the megapixel race won't stop, and sensor 
elements much smaller than the ones used today are quite pointless (as 
far as I understand - not due to the component size or anything, but 
pretty hard optical limitations.) Or do you think they'll keep 
squeezing more pixels into the current size, not caring about the fact 
that the quality/dynamics of each pixel will deteriorate?


- T

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Jostein wrote on 01.06.05 10:11:

 I think you're right. Now that the MedF systems are entering the market with
 cameras more suited for work outside studios, chances are they will put the FF
 high-pixel cameras in a squeeze.
Yup, it seems so. Pros demanding high resolution will choose portable MF
systems rather. All others will choose smaller, lighter and cheaper APS-C
sensor cameras. So who knows if in the future FF DSLRs would disappear
completely...

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Paul Stenquist

However, APS offerings continue to proliferate. Which probably 
indicates which way the DSLR market is going to go.
Full frame sensors aren't as important as we once thought. And as the 
technology improves, they'll probably become less expensive. Even among 
Canon's high end offerings, only the S is full frame. That too may 
pass.


On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:


Hi!


  I'm no fan of Kodak but hate to see the other full frame sensor
  discontinued:
  http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05053104kodakslrdisc.asp


Folks, what bugs me much more is not the signs of digital age as Shel 
pointed out. Consider, now we're back to only one company providing 
(albeit mighty excellent) full frame DSLR... It means - lack of real 
competition and lack of choice... We're back to 2002 (is it the year 
when 1Ds was introduced), aren't we?


Boris

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Toralf Lund wrote on 01.06.05 11:57:

 Hmmm... I've been thinking that camera producers are bound to increase
 the sensor size soon because the megapixel race won't stop, and sensor
 elements much smaller than the ones used today are quite pointless (as
 far as I understand - not due to the component size or anything, but
 pretty hard optical limitations.) Or do you think they'll keep
 squeezing more pixels into the current size, not caring about the fact
 that the quality/dynamics of each pixel will deteriorate?
Theoritecally yes. But in practice there is sensible limit of used
megapixels. Megapixel race is mostly visible in compact digicams. Somehow
manufacturers don't want to screw-up quality delivered by much bigger
sensors in DSLRs even though they could make now 24 MPix APS-C sensor with
photodiodes as small as in current 2/3 8MPix sensors. 6 MPix is good enough
to make 30x45 cm prints comparable to output from good slide film. So bigger
sensors would be neccessary only in case you do a lot of cropping or bigger
size prints. Even then - 12 MPix as used in Nikon D2X - would be more than
enough for 99,99% of us and would compete output from at least 6x4.5 cm MF
film. Even Michael Reichmann who uses 1Ds was impressed by quality of
20x24 (50x60 cm) prints from D2X. Yes, it has more noise than 1Ds mk II
but lower than original 1Ds. In direct comparison these two cameras perform
very close - each has its strong and weak points. Here is small comparison
of these both cameras:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Paul Stenquist

I meant to say, And as the sensor technology improves, full frame will 
probably become less important.

On Jun 1, 2005, at 6:32 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

However, APS offerings continue to proliferate. Which probably 
indicates which way the DSLR market is going to go.
Full frame sensors aren't as important as we once thought. And as the 
technology improves, they'll probably become less expensive. Even 
among Canon's high end offerings, only the S is full frame. That too 
may pass.


On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:


Hi!


  I'm no fan of Kodak but hate to see the other full frame sensor
  discontinued:
  http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05053104kodakslrdisc.asp


Folks, what bugs me much more is not the signs of digital age as Shel 
pointed out. Consider, now we're back to only one company providing 
(albeit mighty excellent) full frame DSLR... It means - lack of real 
competition and lack of choice... We're back to 2002 (is it the year 
when 1Ds was introduced), aren't we?


Boris

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

2005-06-01 Thread Toralf Lund




Toralf Lund wrote on 01.06.05 11:57:

 


Hmmm... I've been thinking that camera producers are bound to increase
the sensor size soon because the megapixel race won't stop, and sensor
elements much smaller than the ones used today are quite pointless (as
far as I understand - not due to the component size or anything, but
pretty hard optical limitations.) Or do you think they'll keep
squeezing more pixels into the current size, not caring about the fact
that the quality/dynamics of each pixel will deteriorate?
   


Theoritecally yes. But in practice there is sensible limit of used
megapixels.

Definitely. But when I call it a race, what I mean to say is that what's 
sensible isn't necessarily a consideration.



Megapixel race is mostly visible in compact digicams.

Maybe you are right... But surely a continued race on the compact 
market, will also have an effect on DSLR design? I'm not sure if people 
will want to buy a 6MP pixel DSLR if and when, say, 20MP PS cameras 
become available, even though the DSLR will probably have a much better 
overall picture quality, really. And even if some might, will the camera 
manufacturers trust their potential customers to be that sensible?



Somehow
manufacturers don't want to screw-up quality delivered by much bigger
sensors in DSLRs even though they could make now 24 MPix APS-C sensor with
photodiodes as small as in current 2/3 8MPix sensors.

Yup. As I was trying to say, it's probably not about how small you can 
make the photodiode from a purely technological perspective, but how 
small it can be when you consider the fact that it has to collect a 
certain amount of light in order to be effective at all. The amount of 
light needed depends on the sensor design, of course, but there also 
some definitive limits imposed by quantum mechanics, and I've been lead 
to believe that you start reaching those with elements not that much 
smaller than the ones used today.



6 MPix is good enough
to make 30x45 cm prints comparable to output from good slide film. So bigger
sensors would be neccessary only in case you do a lot of cropping or bigger
size prints. Even then - 12 MPix as used in Nikon D2X - would be more than
enough for 99,99% of us and would compete output from at least 6x4.5 cm MF
film. Even Michael Reichmann who uses 1Ds was impressed by quality of
20x24 (50x60 cm) prints from D2X. Yes, it has more noise than 1Ds mk II
but lower than original 1Ds. In direct comparison these two cameras perform
very close - each has its strong and weak points. Here is small comparison
of these both cameras:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page
 


OK...

- T

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Hi!

Sylwek, I think the main issue here is like this. Imagine for a
moment, just for sake of this discussion, that Pentax or Minolta are
considering investing into development of FF DSLR, but still on the
marketing level. Now they read the news. What would they say - these
guys at Kodak are not stupid, and they've just cancelled the FF DSLR
they had... Perhaps the technology is not still there, not from the
cost effectiveness point of view. So they decide to not even think of
pursuing a FF DSLR...

Is it good? Is it bad? I've no clue. But I think it is a plausible scenario.

That by the way would be my response to Kostas' question as well...

Who knows, perhaps development of FF DSLR is *the* next breakthrough
which now will be postponed, perhaps indefinitely... Or may be not...

-- 
Boris

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Boris Liberman wrote on 01.06.05 14:12:

 Sylwek, I think the main issue here is like this. Imagine for a
 moment, just for sake of this discussion, that Pentax or Minolta are
 considering investing into development of FF DSLR, but still on the
 marketing level. Now they read the news. What would they say - these
 guys at Kodak are not stupid, and they've just cancelled the FF DSLR
 they had... Perhaps the technology is not still there, not from the
 cost effectiveness point of view. So they decide to not even think of
 pursuing a FF DSLR...
 
 Is it good? Is it bad? I've no clue. But I think it is a plausible scenario.
 
 That by the way would be my response to Kostas' question as well...
 
 Who knows, perhaps development of FF DSLR is *the* next breakthrough
 which now will be postponed, perhaps indefinitely... Or may be not...
Who really knows? For now it seems unlikely that FF will ever be popular.
Demand is low and thus production too hence price high... And it seems that
pros prefere cameras as good photographics tools - that's why APS-C sensor
based D2X is and was selling much better than FF Kodaks even though their
price was very similar.

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Boris Liberman wrote:

 Sylwek, I think the main issue here is like this. Imagine for a
 moment, just for sake of this discussion, that Pentax or Minolta are

Or Nikon :-)

 considering investing into development of FF DSLR, but still on the
 marketing level. Now they read the news. What would they say - these
 guys at Kodak are not stupid, and they've just cancelled the FF DSLR
 they had... Perhaps the technology is not still there, not from the
 cost effectiveness point of view. So they decide to not even think of
 pursuing a FF DSLR...

You assume that the news were unexpected or inexplicable to them; I am
not sure about that. You see, these people are no little-Kostases[1]
with all talk and no walk asking for a FF solution yesterday or else.
They know how much what costs and how far they can go, and make their
decisions accordingly.

 Who knows, perhaps development of FF DSLR is *the* next breakthrough
 which now will be postponed, perhaps indefinitely... Or may be not...

To me, the question has been answered already (Paal?): Pentax has no
market penetration to sell enough FF DSLRs and is better off waiting
for other factors to drop the price of the sensor. Pentax is not in
the market for people in need of bragging rights.

Sod the FF and bring back the bloody actuator! (said he, stirring the
fight from a suitable distance :-)

Kostas

[1] Name picked randomly :-o

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

2005-06-01 Thread Toralf Lund


Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:


Boris Liberman wrote on 01.06.05 14:12:

 


Sylwek, I think the main issue here is like this. Imagine for a
moment, just for sake of this discussion, that Pentax or Minolta are
considering investing into development of FF DSLR, but still on the
marketing level. Now they read the news. What would they say - these
guys at Kodak are not stupid, and they've just cancelled the FF DSLR
they had... Perhaps the technology is not still there, not from the
cost effectiveness point of view. So they decide to not even think of
pursuing a FF DSLR...

Is it good? Is it bad? I've no clue. But I think it is a plausible scenario.

That by the way would be my response to Kostas' question as well...

Who knows, perhaps development of FF DSLR is *the* next breakthrough
which now will be postponed, perhaps indefinitely... Or may be not...
   


Who really knows? For now it seems unlikely that FF will ever be popular.
Demand is low and thus production too hence price high... And it seems that
pros prefere cameras as good photographics tools - that's why APS-C sensor
based D2X is and was selling much better than FF Kodaks even though their
price was very similar.
 

Or maybe the Nikon would still have sold more than the Kodak even if 
they had swapped sensors? Differently put, don't you think the Nikon 
sold more than the Kodak just because the Nikon is a Nikon and the Kodak 
is, well, not a Nikon, or a Canon, or even a Pentax...


- T

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Toralf Lund wrote on 01.06.05 14:33:

 Or maybe the Nikon would still have sold more than the Kodak even if
 they had swapped sensors? Differently put, don't you think the Nikon
 sold more than the Kodak just because the Nikon is a Nikon and the Kodak
 is, well, not a Nikon, or a Canon, or even a Pentax...
Maybe you are right :-) But regarding brand popularity I gues Kodak is still
more popular than Pentax - good source of this information is here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp
Pentax has never, ever received more cicks than Kodak :-)

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Toralf Lund wrote:

 Or maybe the Nikon would still have sold more than the Kodak even if
 they had swapped sensors? Differently put, don't you think the Nikon
 sold more than the Kodak just because the Nikon is a Nikon and the Kodak
 is, well, not a Nikon, or a Canon, or even a Pentax...

Let's see if Nikon cares to buy the technology off Kodak; after all,
the mount was OK for them.

Kostas

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Hi!

 You assume that the news were unexpected or inexplicable to them; I am
 not sure about that. You see, these people are no little-Kostases[1]
 with all talk and no walk asking for a FF solution yesterday or else.
 They know how much what costs and how far they can go, and make their
 decisions accordingly.

Oh of course. You're probably right...

 Sod the FF and bring back the bloody actuator! (said he, stirring the
 fight from a suitable distance :-)

Kostas (the name picked randomly :-) ), I must tell you that the green
button solution of *istD is perfectly acceptable to me. I really think
that this actuator is not *that* necessary any more.


-- 
Boris

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:

 More FF market share for Canon and hopefully price drops along the way or

Price drops in a monopoly? How and why?

Kostas

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Pl Jensen

Dag wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

 Why not try to be optimistic:  They may have decided to drop the Nikon og 
 Canon based full frame cameras in order to concentrate on the cooperation 
 with Pentax for developing the 18MP 645D.  

I don't think Kodak see themselves as a slr manufacturer. They probably made 
them in order to sell sensors. Kodak may now have more formalized outlets for 
their sensors by proper camera manufacturers.

Pål

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Pl Jensen

Bruce wrote:


 Bill, that is shocking!  I used to use 67II's and did NOT think they
 were light or small.  At least it had a big negative.  That Canon is
 one BIG camera for having a sensor of that size.


Yes...and it makes the Pentax 645 system look small...


Pål

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

2005-06-01 Thread Pl Jensen

Jostein wrote:

 I think you're right. Now that the MedF systems are entering the market with
 cameras more suited for work outside studios, chances are they will put the FF
 high-pixel cameras in a squeeze.

Thats what I think too. If the price rumors are correct it will cost less than 
a full frame Canon, weight less as well and as I have pointed out many times 
before, the lenses need weight no more than Canon L- lenses as long we are 
within the normal focal lenght range.


Pål

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Rob Studdert

On 1 Jun 2005 at 14:10, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:

 On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
 
  More FF market share for Canon and hopefully price drops along the way or
 
 Price drops in a monopoly? How and why?

Just my intuition.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread E.R.N. Reed


Cotty wrote:


On 31/5/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

 


I guess that was my point.
People don't realize sometimes just how big the big Canon is.
It's something to consider when you are wishing for performance enhancement 
features though.
   



I think it appears big when all one is used to is smaller gear. I enjoy
the MX, which is very small. But holding a Canon, I don't consider it
unduly big. I must be odd


 

Perhaps you are odd, Cotty; I haven't met you so I can't say -- but in 
*this* case, perhaps it's because you are BIG?

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

On 1/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

However, APS offerings continue to proliferate. Which probably 
indicates which way the DSLR market is going to go.
Full frame sensors aren't as important as we once thought. And as the 
technology improves, they'll probably become less expensive. Even among 
Canon's high end offerings, only the S is full frame. That too may 
pass.

Paul, it is my understanding that Canon's next 1D incarnation will be a
combination of the 1Dm2 and the 1Dsm2 - it will be full frame and high
capacity, and the consolidation means only one 1D and no other variations.

The 20D will be replaced with a 30D which will likely be the 1.5 sensor
(I have heard that Canon may ditch the 1.3 sensor altogether). If that
last part is false, then they will put the 1.3 sensor into the D30.

The Rebel will continue with the 1.5 sensor.

I am not surprised at Kodak pulling the plug. It didn't have a good
start, and price-wise, once you are spending around 2 grand, most would
opt for the 'real McCoy'.

If Kodak wanted to sell a stack of cameras, then a budget priced DSLR
with Nikon, Canon, or even Pentax mount would be a good start. Of course
none of those three would license the mount fort that purpose, as that's
where the money is to be made.

.02,




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

On 1/6/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed:

Perhaps you are odd, Cotty; I haven't met you so I can't say -- but in 
*this* case, perhaps it's because you are BIG?

Why Eleanour that's the best compliment I've had from a lady in a long
time :-)

I'm definitely odd.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

On 1/6/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:

don't you think the Nikon 
sold more than the Kodak just because the Nikon is a Nikon and the Kodak 
is, well, not a Nikon, or a Canon, or even a Pentax.

Mark!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Graywolf


You are correct, a 35mm sized sensor is silly.

Now a 96mm X 122mm sensor (4x5) in a film pack sized housing that needs no 
electrical connection to the camera is what I want. Oh yes, it needs to cost 
under $100, too.

Guess I will have to wait awhile for that.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---


John Celio wrote:

 I'm no fan of Kodak but hate to see the other full frame sensor
 discontinued:
 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05053104kodakslrdisc.asp


Folks, what bugs me much more is not the signs of digital age as Shel 
pointed out. Consider, now we're back to only one company providing 
(albeit mighty excellent) full frame DSLR... It means - lack of real 
competition and lack of choice... We're back to 2002 (is it the year when 
1Ds was introduced), aren't we?


Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response

Fascination with incorrectly-named full-frame sensors still irks me.  I 
know this topic has been beaten to death here, but come on, if only ONE 
company is doing it, there must be good reasons for it.  No point in listing 
what I think those reasons are, though.  In my limited experience, those who 
want a 35mm-size sensor seem to cling to their desire no matter how much 
sense one tries to talk into them.


John Celio
...is really glad to not be working on the sales floor at the camera shop 
anymore.  dealing with self-righteous asshat customers was getting to be too 
much.  the digital lab is much less hostile.  (:


--

http://www.neovenator.com

AIM: Neopifex

Hey, I'm an artist.  I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a 
statement. 







--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 5/31/2005

It may simply mean that Nikon can no longer provide the N80 based parts used in the Kodak camera. Although I think I read that the canon lens using Kodak was based upon the Sigma body.
Also the DSC-14(nc) does not use a Kodak made sensor. That may have become unavailable also.

However, as long as DSLR's are based upon 35mm cameras, full-frame is
certainly correctly named.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---

Boris Liberman wrote:

Hi John! :-)

Fascination with incorrectly-named full-frame sensors still irks me. I
know this topic has been beaten to death here, but come on, if only ONE
company is doing it, there must be good reasons for it. No point in listing
what I think those reasons are, though. In my limited experience, those who
want a 35mm-size sensor seem to cling to their desire no matter how much
sense one tries to talk into them.

John Celio
...is really glad to not be working on the sales floor at the camera shop
anymore. dealing with self-righteous asshat customers was getting to be too
much. the digital lab is much less hostile. (:

That's my point exactly. There seems to be a difficulty for camera
manufacturers to produce so called full-frame DSLR.

*Personally* I would *prefer* full frame DSLR so that *personally* I
would get the same characteristics from my lenses I am used to
shooting film. But that's beside the point.

Somehow I think the discontinuation of Kodak cameras means slightly
more than just a line in DPReview newscast...

Boris

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 5/31/2005

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Kodak started out badly and never recovered, they released their full 
frame DSLR before it was ready, and had
to back track re-design and then re-deploy.  Even though they tried to 
make the problems with their original DSLR
right with free upgrades and repairs, Kodak was never able to overcome 
the original bad buzz.  Pentax and Minolta

are in a different position.

Boris Liberman wrote:


Hi!

Sylwek, I think the main issue here is like this. Imagine for a
moment, just for sake of this discussion, that Pentax or Minolta are
considering investing into development of FF DSLR, but still on the
marketing level. Now they read the news. What would they say - these
guys at Kodak are not stupid, and they've just cancelled the FF DSLR
they had... Perhaps the technology is not still there, not from the
cost effectiveness point of view. So they decide to not even think of
pursuing a FF DSLR...

Is it good? Is it bad? I've no clue. But I think it is a plausible scenario.

That by the way would be my response to Kostas' question as well...

Who knows, perhaps development of FF DSLR is *the* next breakthrough
which now will be postponed, perhaps indefinitely... Or may be not...

 




--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Graywolf


Kodak DID NOT make the sensors in the DSC-14 cameras which may be a big part of 
reason for dropping them.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---


Pål Jensen wrote:

Dag wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR



Why not try to be optimistic:  They may have decided to drop the Nikon og Canon based full frame cameras in order to concentrate on the cooperation with Pentax for developing the 18MP 645D.  





I don't think Kodak see themselves as a slr manufacturer. They probably made 
them in order to sell sensors. Kodak may now have more formalized outlets for 
their sensors by proper camera manufacturers.

Pål






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 5/31/2005

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Sadly the green button fails in dim lighting, (not so dim lighting 
sometimes), from being beyond the ev range of the
meter.  I shoot in lots of dim light situations, I don't like the in 
camera meter being crippled if I don't use a zoom, and the
only other A mount lens I own is the FA 43.  I too would like to see 
the return of the simulator lever.


Boris Liberman wrote:


Hi!

 


You assume that the news were unexpected or inexplicable to them; I am
not sure about that. You see, these people are no little-Kostases[1]
with all talk and no walk asking for a FF solution yesterday or else.
They know how much what costs and how far they can go, and make their
decisions accordingly.
   



Oh of course. You're probably right...

 


Sod the FF and bring back the bloody actuator! (said he, stirring the
fight from a suitable distance :-)
   



Kostas (the name picked randomly :-) ), I must tell you that the green
button solution of *istD is perfectly acceptable to me. I really think
that this actuator is not *that* necessary any more.


 




--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

Kodak has been a SLR manufacturer in the digital realm from the 
beginning, on the other hand they have never been adverse to abandoning 
a market, if there was no profit in it.


Pål Jensen wrote:


Dag wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR


 

Why not try to be optimistic:  They may have decided to drop the Nikon og Canon based full frame cameras in order to concentrate on the cooperation with Pentax for developing the 18MP 645D.  

   




I don't think Kodak see themselves as a slr manufacturer. They probably made 
them in order to sell sensors. Kodak may now have more formalized outlets for 
their sensors by proper camera manufacturers.

Pål



 




--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

I think Bjørn's experiment should be read with considerable caution. 
It is inadvertently staged to be in favour of Nikon. In the vignetting 
example, they chose a WA-zoom from Canon which certainly isn't top 
notch. It was selected simply because it was the only WA zoom his 
Canon friend owns. Bjørn, OTOH, has access to just about every Nikon 
lens he fancies.


Also, since they're using jpeg files, they're inadvertenly testing the 
quality of in-camera processing. It's especially evident in the last 
image example, where both cameras shot with the same lens. Contrast 
and perceived sharpness is lower with the Canon, but I would say the 
highlights are considerably less attractive in the Nikon. It may be 
more a result of different jpeg compression algorithms than anything 
else, if I have got this right.


Jostein

- Original Message - 
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]



In direct comparison these two cameras perform
very close - each has its strong and weak points. Here is small 
comparison

of these both cameras:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

Actually a monopoly acts to capture the entire revenue in a demand 
curve.  There may be price breaks to certain individuals who want
and need a full frame DSLR, but if the rest of the revenue is collected 
through APS-C sales that's what will happen.  The analysis become

quite complicated when you take similar products into account.

Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:


On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:

 


More FF market share for Canon and hopefully price drops along the way or
   



Price drops in a monopoly? How and why?

Kostas


 




--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams


Hi!

Sadly the green button fails in dim lighting, (not so dim lighting 
sometimes), from being beyond the ev range of the
meter.  I shoot in lots of dim light situations, I don't like the in 
camera meter being crippled if I don't use a zoom, and the
only other A mount lens I own is the FA 43.  I too would like to see 
the return of the simulator lever.


I stand corrected.

Boris

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams



- Original Message - 
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]


So which WA-zoom from Canon is top-notch? 16-35/2.8 L??? Read then 
this -

from long time Canon user:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml


I haven't read the article you refer to yet, but I have discussed the 
matter with a guy who usually test Canon gear for a Norwegian photo 
journal. He was embarrassed about Bjørn's test because it showed, as 
he said, that Canon has no really good wide-angle zoom. He ventured 
on to test the D1s mkII with an off-brand WA to prove Bjørn wrong on 
the camera part. The results from his test hasn't appeared in print 
yet because the journal is delayed in print, but he says his results 
show there's nothing wrong with the camera...:-)


Jostein

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Powell Hargrave

On 1/6/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed:

Perhaps you are odd, Cotty; I haven't met you so I can't say -- but in 
*this* case, perhaps it's because you are BIG?


At 07:40 AM 01/06/2005 , Cotty wrote:

Why Eleanour that's the best compliment I've had from a lady in a long
time :-)


I think she was talking about your hands Cotty and they do not necessarily
correlate.  :^}

Powell (running for cover)

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

- Original Message - 
From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

So which WA-zoom from Canon is top-notch? 16-35/2.8 L??? Read 
then this -

from long time Canon user:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

I haven't read the article you refer to yet, [...]

So now I've read the article.
Pretty much confirmed my friend's view that there is no top notch WA 
zoom from Canon, imo.

Jostein

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

2005-06-01 Thread Sylwiusz


On 2005-06-01, at 20:58, Jostein wrote:

Pretty much confirmed my friend's view that there is no top notch WA 
zoom from Canon, imo.
That's why Nikon was always considered as better in this regard... I 
saw samples from 16-35 and 1Ds and it showed the same kind of 
vignetting as 17-40. I am curious which third party WA zoom was better 
than both Ls in your's friend tests?


--
Best regards
Sylwek

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams


On 2005-06-01, at 19:52, Jostein wrote:

I haven't read the article you refer to yet, but I have discussed the 
matter with a guy who usually test Canon gear for a Norwegian photo 
journal. He was embarrassed about Bjørn's test because it showed, as 
he said, that Canon has no really good wide-angle zoom. He ventured 
on to test the D1s mkII with an off-brand WA to prove Bjørn wrong on 
the camera part. The results from his test hasn't appeared in print 
yet because the journal is delayed in print, but he says his results 
show there's nothing wrong with the camera...:-)
That's interesting :-) So it seems that if you want to have the same 
brand of camera and decent WA zoom, you just can't go with Canon ;-) 
BTW - which third-party zoom has used your friend? That would be 
valuable information for us  :-)


--
Best regards
Sylwek

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR



On 1/6/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed:

Perhaps you are odd, Cotty; I haven't met you so I can't say -- but in 
*this* case, perhaps it's because you are BIG?


At 07:40 AM 01/06/2005 , Cotty wrote:

Why Eleanour that's the best compliment I've had from a lady in a long
time :-)


I think she was talking about your hands Cotty and they do not necessarily
correlate.  :^}

Powell (running for cover)


Actually she was referring to my sense of humour which isn't just big,
it's HUGE!

:-)


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

2005-06-01 Thread Herb Chong

it means that selling more cameras than Pentax at $4K per camera wasn't 
making enough money for Kodak to stay in the business.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR

Somehow I think the discontinuation of Kodak cameras means slightly
more than just a line in DPReview newscast...

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

2005-06-01 Thread Herb Chong

Kodak managed to sell more full frame DSLRs than Pentax did APS-C ones.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

Who really knows? For now it seems unlikely that FF will ever be popular.
Demand is low and thus production too hence price high... And it seems 
that

pros prefere cameras as good photographics tools - that's why APS-C sensor
based D2X is and was selling much better than FF Kodaks even though their
price was very similar.

OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams

2005-06-01 Thread Butch Black


Shel Belinkoff wrote on 01.06.05 1:34:




Camera bodies are discontinued.   Kodak will continue to develop CCD and
CMOS image sensors.

Here's the part that's most discouraging: Kodak will only support the
cameras through 2008.  So, the cameras are what, about a year or so old,
making it that Kodak will only support what is arguably their flagship
camera for a total of four or five years.

That's today's digital world, I guess.



I have a friend who has the Kodak DCSc who does not seem overly concerned 
over this, According to him, support for the earlier Canon pro models ended 
soon after the into of their replacements.


Butch

Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR