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: George Kerby on 6 Jul 2010 14:25 On 7/6/10 12:23 PM, in article 87630sttgx.fld(a)apaflo.com, "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > 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. Hell would freeze over before that would take place...
From: John Navas on 6 Jul 2010 14:36 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:01:40 -0700, in <4c336f7b$0$22140$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >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. More of the same old baloney. >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. Irrelevant with manual focus lenses. Doh. >> 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. It actually doesn't work on the majority of FD lenses, as you might know if you had the slightest clue what you're pontificating about. >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. More of the same old baloney. -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: RichB on 6 Jul 2010 15:36 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:11:54 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:15:53 -0500, in ><s5f4361591m9qiq3rrpj73a2931pn1oelm(a)4ax.com>, RichB ><richardb(a)plaxton.net> wrote: > >>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:57:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> >>wrote: > >>>You wouldn't buy the camera anyway, because it's a compact dSLR. I >>>bought my wife an Olympus SP590-UZ, and it has only one slot. The >>>manual says it can take either an Olympus XD card, or a microSD card >>>with the enclosed adapter. Newer Olympus cameras XD formats are >>>supposed to be compatible with SD,although, I use the microSD card for >>>my wife's camera, because third-party cards are cheaper and for her >>>purposes, are fine. >> >>All cameras can use a Micro-SD card. I use a Micro to standard SD adapter. >>I also use Micro-SD in a Sony Memory-Stick-Pro-only camera with similar >>adapters. Greatly increasing its original 2G storage capacity limit as >>well. > >The problem is that most MicroSD cards are dog slow -- >SD cards can be much faster. I wouldn't say "dog slow" (not only because I can never catch my dogs when I try) but only a little slower than the equivalently rated speeds on full-sized cards. Though I don't understand why this is so. In that older Sony camera the speed of even Class-2 cards is not an issue. In that one I will use them as standard storage but in other newer cameras that create larger files or have video modes, remember, this is my backup-emergency stockpile. Even then they're still fast enough to record video. They just slow down burst rates a little is all.
From: LOL! on 6 Jul 2010 15:40 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:39:34 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:33:10 -0700, in ><4c335abd$0$22112$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS ><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >>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. > >You've described yourself perfectly. And I noticed that I taught him a new word, "cursory", when I recently used it in one of my posts that he says he always filters. LOL!
From: nospam on 6 Jul 2010 16:01
In article <4c336f7b$0$22140$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > 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. that doesn't matter. manual focus nikon lenses work on nikon dslrs, while manual focus canon lenses do not work on canon dslrs. > 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. true, but they mount and can be used with that limitation. low end buyers aren't likely to have lots of lenses so in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't affect very many people. manual focus nikon lenses on low end bodies won't meter either, but that's a minor limitation. on midrange and high end nikon bodies, everything works as expected, with almost any lens. the only ones that don't work are the obscure ones like the fisheye that required mirror lockup. > > 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. not really. > The professional one sold by > Canon was very good. yes it was, *if* you had one of the few lenses with which it worked. if you didn't, then it could not be used at all. they generally were high end lenses, not the typical stuff people had. > 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. nope. canon had to change the mount because the fd mount had some serious limitations going forward. nikon didn't have those limitations and was able to maintain compatibility, as did pentax. minolta changed it for particular reason, and they also changed the hotshoe too. |