Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 6 Jul 2010 13:23 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:08:38 -0800, in <87k4p8twxl.fld(a)apaflo.com>, >floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: > >>John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>On 6 Jul 2010 14:46:45 GMT, in <89gtukF852U25(a)mid.individual.net>, ray >>><ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:36:12 -0700, nospam wrote: >>> >>>>> yes i do, and it's even less likely that a company is going to release >>>>> something open source, particularly a camera company where keeping >>>>> secrets from one's competitors is key. there is absolutely no way that >>>>> these companies would ever open source the 'secret sauce.' in some >>>>> cases, they *can't*. >>>> >>>>B.S. What's the value in keeping 'proprietary secrets' that everyone in >>>>the industry already knows? It's not necessary for a company to spend R&D >>>>time on Linux - all they need to do is release the specs and someone will >>>>write it for them - that simple. >>> >>>Cost may be the reason -- formal release of specs inevitably involves >>>cost issues, especially in terms of support. >> >>You meant to say "involves reducing costs"??? > >Documenting, releasing, and supporting specs *increases* costs. Manufacturing products increases costs too, in the same way! Use your head John. If you sell more product at a higher profit, it may "raise costs" but also increases profit too. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: John Navas on 6 Jul 2010 13:42 On 6 Jul 2010 17:17:47 GMT, in <89h6prF852U29(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:32:56 -0700, John Navas wrote: >> Documenting, releasing, and supporting specs *increases* costs. > >Perhaps you could explain that to me. specs HAVE to be documented. There's a big difference between internal documentation and external documentation. >Releasing involves publishing on a web page - for which the return is >less that you have to develop. Releasing involves quality control and legal costs. Then there are support costs, usually the biggest costs of all. The lower the documentation and release investments, the greater the support costs tend to be. I speak from actual experience -- it's not cheap. -- John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: John Navas on 6 Jul 2010 13:43 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:23:26 -0800, in <87630sttgx.fld(a)apaflo.com>, floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>Documenting, releasing, and supporting specs *increases* costs. > >Manufacturing products increases costs too, in the same way! > >Use your head John. If you sell more product at a higher profit, >it may "raise costs" but also increases profit too. Only if there is sufficient revenue to more than offset the costs. -- John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: SMS on 6 Jul 2010 14:01 On 06/07/10 9:41 AM, nospam wrote: > In article<4c335abd$0$22112$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS > <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >> Ironically, Many older Nikon lenses can't be used on later Nikon bodies, >> or they have to be sent in to be modified. > > actually very few can't. there are a *lot* more old nikon lenses that > can be used on modern nikon bodies than old canon lenses on modern > canon bodies. the exceptions are typically the obscure lenses few > people have seen, let alone own. Yes, that's true, but Nikon was the predominant SLR system manufacturer prior to Canon coming out with their EOS system, so there were a lot more lenses to begin with. The lower end Nikon D-SLR bodies can mount the AF and AF-D,but they can't auto focus with them because the mount lacks the screw drive. > and neither one worked well. one has an optic and functions as a weak > teleconverter and only works with a few lenses and the other does not > have an optic and precludes infinity focus. The present one being sold works okay. The professional one sold by Canon was very good. In any case, Canon really had no choice but to upgrade their mount, and making a clean break enabled them to avoid many of the problems that plague the current Nikon mount.
From: George Kerby on 6 Jul 2010 14:17
On 7/6/10 11:33 AM, in article 4c335abd$0$22112$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > On 06/07/10 8:41 AM, George Kerby wrote: > >> On 7/6/10 10:20 AM, in article o4i636hl30ut0h7kj9veiv67g8cvcnjukm(a)4ax.com, >> "John Navas"<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> > > <snip> > >>> Likewise, FD lenses in my case. When initially deciding carefully on a >>> lens system, I swallowed the Canon hype on the FD lens mount only to >>> have Canon abandon it after I had invested many thousands of dollars in >>> lenses. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." >>> Should have gone Nikon. Won't buy another Canon product of any kind. >> >> You're a pig-head. It figures. > > The problem in rec.photo.digital is that our favorite troll(s) have a > cursory knowledge (at best) of digital photography (and photography in > general) but they have an almost desperate need to try to convince > others that their personal choice of equipment is the best for everyone. > > When those of us that have more experience and knowledge try to > patiently explain the facts they get even more upset, claiming that we > simply don't know how to use their equipment properly. > >> We wouldn't have expected anything else. > > Ironically, Many older Nikon lenses can't be used on later Nikon bodies, > or they have to be sent in to be modified. > > Navas has been complaining about Canon's switch from FD to EOS for > years, if not decades, even back before everyone started kill-filing > him. It's true, Canon made a clean break with the EOS system, but there > were two different FD to EOS adapters sold, and of course FD systems did > not instantly stop functioning when Canon moved to EOS. > > There are still good FD to EOS adapters being sold, Bob Atkins has a > good review of one ($125) on his site, > "http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_fd_eos_adapters.html". > Indeed. I owned a Canon FD 300mm 2.8 for twenty+ years and the adapter kept it useful for almost half that time. The only "problem" was that I had to *focus* it. Wasn't a big deal, since I came up when a photographer had to do such 'troubling' things like that and *meter* the exposure. I knew a SI shooter who liked Canon glass so much that fabricated an adapter to use FD lenses on his Nikon bodies in that era (late 70s - 80s). NavASS's bitching, moaning and stupid little quotations do nothing than prove that he doesn't have a single original thought in his pointed head... |