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: John Navas on 7 Jul 2010 19:53 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:12:14 +0100, in <k3q9365esb70s00lqquk5o92ecbqa44id9(a)4ax.com>, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >P.S. ... comparison with film is a red herring. No-one has yet made >a small sensor digital camera whose results even come anywhere near >being close to those from a good quality camera and lens on good >quality ISO 100 film. Nonsense. I have the images to prove it otherwise. -- 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: nospam on 7 Jul 2010 20:08 In article <krishna-04910E.19562507072010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, krishnananda <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote: > > Geez - I didn't think you'd totally miss the point. I used the Canon > > winprinter as an EXAMPLE. They make other equipment that is equally > > useless for Linux. Another EXAMPLE - their scanners used to be nearly as > > bad. > > Whatever floats your boat. But while you're busy boycotting Canon you > better boycott HP, Epson, Kodak and Lexmark, because they make way more > GDI printers than Canon does. For example. facts don't matter to some people. > As I've been using a "minority operating system" for a very long time I > know it is quite useless to whine. The peripheral manufacturers couldn't > care less what Linux and Mac OS users want. All they have to do is look > at the numbers. actually they do care about mac users, since in some areas macs are dominant. for example, macs are very common in graphic arts, where quality printers are important, not to mention that macos comes with the drivers for just about any printer anyway. a law office on the other hand is not likely to have any macs, and their printers only need to be b/w and likely high speed since lawyers generate so much paper. however, you make a good point in that if a company doesn't bother with mac os, they are certainly not going to bother with a platform that's even *smaller*. > Linux: 19 million (the population of Angola) > Mac: 94 million (the population of the Philippines) > Windows: 1.087 billion (the population of India) > > It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see that if a manufacturer > pisses off _every_ Linux user it's no skin off their nose. no kidding. supporting a third platform is a lot of work and there is very little reason to bother when it's not going to appreciably increase sales, especially when linux users tend to prefer free options (even when they're far worse) and have an inherent dislike for anything mainstream.
From: Jeff Jones on 7 Jul 2010 20:37 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:53:31 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:12:14 +0100, in ><k3q9365esb70s00lqquk5o92ecbqa44id9(a)4ax.com>, Bruce ><docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>P.S. ... comparison with film is a red herring. No-one has yet made >>a small sensor digital camera whose results even come anywhere near >>being close to those from a good quality camera and lens on good >>quality ISO 100 film. > >Nonsense. I have the images to prove it otherwise. Here's a teeny tiny sensor with a 10.3 EV dynamic range from quite a few years ago that doesn't even use the new backlit sensor designs. <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg> That beats 100 ISO film all to hell. Considering too that in visual terms, 3 megapixels was already proved to rival the images from 35mm Velvia many years ago.
From: ray on 7 Jul 2010 23:41 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:56:26 -0400, krishnananda wrote: > In article <89kdsoF852U40(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> > wrote: > >> Geez - I didn't think you'd totally miss the point. I used the Canon >> winprinter as an EXAMPLE. They make other equipment that is equally >> useless for Linux. Another EXAMPLE - their scanners used to be nearly >> as bad. > > Whatever floats your boat. But while you're busy boycotting Canon you > better boycott HP, Epson, Kodak and Lexmark, because they make way more > GDI printers than Canon does. For example. > > As I've been using a "minority operating system" for a very long time I > know it is quite useless to whine. The peripheral manufacturers couldn't > care less what Linux and Mac OS users want. All they have to do is look > at the numbers. > > Linux: 19 million (the population of Angola) Mac: 94 million > (the population of the Philippines) Windows: 1.087 billion (the > population of India) > > It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see that if a manufacturer > pisses off _every_ Linux user it's no skin off their nose. In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with Linux. Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market instead of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's perfectly within my purview to ignore you. I'll iterate once more, I'm not here to convert others. I was asked why I eschew Canon and I replied. BTW - HP has excellent support for Linux - unlike Canon. Epson likewise. I have an Epson photo printer that works perfectly well - also have an older, Apollo (made by HP) - same story.
From: nospam on 7 Jul 2010 23:51
In article <89kvmjF852U41(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with > Linux. where in the world did you get that idea? however, the opposite is true. almost all linux apps run natively on mac os x. the exceptions are non-portable apps that assume specifics about linux. > Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market > instead of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's > perfectly within my purview to ignore you. doesn't linux include a calculator? |