Prejudice against non-photo camera brands

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
was with film cameras. Not many people mention
owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
lenses for film cameras that they now use on
digitals?
-Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
>
> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
> digitals?

For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy from a
company that specializes in the type of product you're buying is never
bad advice.

Lisa
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> writes:
> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon cameras, with Minolta,
> Pentax and Olympus bringing up the rear, pretty much what it was
> with film cameras. Not many people mention owing Fuji, or HP, etc.
> Is this because there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning lenses for film
> cameras that they now use on digitals? -Rich

Probably a little of both. A camera is all about optics, and a
digital camera is all about optics and sensors. Am I going to buy a
Kodak or Fuji digital camera ever? Probably not. Unless they start
reselling made by Nikon or Canon with the same functionality and a
cheaper price.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
> digitals?

Three main camps.

Those who have lenses and want to maintain that investment. I'm typical with 5
high value lenses and one el-cheapo. I need the body that preserves that
investment.

Second camp are those who, pretty much regardless of what camera they own, have
a kit lens with their body. They feel more free to choose whatever pleases them
and are not particularly brand loyal.

Third camp. New to photography or upgrading from P&S/zlr. Again free to choose
as they're not bound by other investment.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The s2 is an in-between camera. It is an extremely good performing
camera. And excellent sensor, and the camera is quite speedy and
feature rich.

But it is not rugged not TRULY expensive, nor is it cheap. It is
therefor is used quite a bit by the portrait folks.

It is also popular by the truly geeky prosumer crowd (raises hand), that
does other dumb things from a pocket book standpoint, like buys audio
equipment with tubes, or speaker wire that would also be well suited for
substation work.

I am not getting the s3 this year, instead it is *the* 70-200 AF ED VR
lense. costs about the same as the camera, but will actually take
better pictures

I also own an e550 for PS stuff, (and movies).

The s3 will probably rock. But again will be not rugged enough for the
journalist crowd, and not cheap enough for the prosumer masses.

HP, wrong group.



RichA wrote:
> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
> digitals?
> -Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Todd H. wrote:
> Probably a little of both. A camera is all about optics, and a
> digital camera is all about optics and sensors. Am I going to buy a
> Kodak or Fuji digital camera ever? Probably not. Unless they start
> reselling made by Nikon or Canon with the same functionality and a
> cheaper price.

Well you know little about the s2. Nikon Body, Nikon Optics. Fuji
Sensor (arguably better), Fuji Software (arguably better). But more
expensive.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:cbe6s0h3gip3fd5rbouhi8pe8gvuujorfr@4ax.com...
>I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
> digitals?

As an SLR group, I guess regulars here avoid HP because they don't make
SLRs. Fuji's S2 is well respected, yet ageing- hopefully the S3 will be
remedy this.

As for the compacts- plenty of people own Fuji- the S3500 and S5500 are
popular, and the F810 should be more so. HP tend to borrow other people's
tech for cameras, so they shouldn't be too bad... if you really want to deal
the HP, that is.

--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:34:45 -0800, Lisa Horton
<Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote:

>
>
>RichA wrote:
>>
>> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
>> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
>> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
>> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
>> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
>> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
>> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
>> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
>> digitals?
>
>For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy from a
>company that specializes in the type of product you're buying is never
>bad advice.
>
>Lisa

How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
You know who does? Kodak.
-Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <i967s0pgcj2bbct6kqoq8g0a9n2lrei9et@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> >For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy from
> >a company that specializes in the type of product you're buying is
> >never bad advice.
> >
> >Lisa
>
> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?

So they buy the sensors from the electronics companies that make the
sensors, but they have the experience in designing and building lenses
and camera bodies.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:csKwd.118$_62.106@trnddc01...
>I should state a SWEAR BY HP printers (with or w/o HP JetDirect
>print-servers). As a IT
> professional all my laser and inkjet printers are HP (except a Xerox
> Document Center 432ST
> copier and printer).
>
> However I bought 6 HP Vectras They were junk. I would never get HP
> computers again.
>
> Dave
>

HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a subsidiary
called Agilent. HP is now like RCA (well, perhaps not quite that bad). Yet
another once-great American trade name being used to sell. IBM personal
computers have also joined this ignominious group. Sigh!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> writes:

> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
> You know who does? Kodak.

Indeed, Kodak has had some very smart people working that problem and
have for quite a long time. In fact, the Bayer after whom the "Bayer
pattern" of Cyan Magenta and yellow pixels in a single-chip sensor was
a Kodak guy and his patent dates back to 1976:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/papersArticles/kacBetterColorCMY.pdf

But, product history wise, Kodak isn't much in the way of shutters,
glass, exposure metering, accessories, system reliability are all part
of the rest of the picture. Unless you're one who'd run out and buy a
Goodyear automobile or a Sears Diehard SUV if they started producing
them.

So, this prejudice is a hard one to overcome from a marketing
perspective, at least among those of us serious enough to be talking
photography here in newsgroups and dissecting this stuff. It's hard
to compete on reputation with a company like Canon that is deep deep
deep in consumer video and has been doing CCD and CMOS for a very long
time too, long before anyone thought of dropping such a sensor into a
still camera, and they have the full lineage of conventional film
camera experience to carry forward. The image sensor is just one
small (albeit important) piece of the camera puzzle.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>>> For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy
>>> from a company that specializes in the type of product you're
>>> buying is never bad advice.

>> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS
>> sensors?

> So they buy the sensors from the electronics companies that make
> the sensors,

Nikon does (from Sony, AFAIK). Canon uses third party sensors in
their compacts, but makes their own CMOS sensors for their DSLR
bodies. I believe the CPU used in the newer Canon digital cameras
(DIGIC II) is homegrown as well.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:51:11 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Those who have lenses and want to maintain that investment. I'm typical with 5
>high value lenses and one el-cheapo. I need the body that preserves that
>investment.

Alan, can you tell us what lenses you have?

I am shooting with a 300D. My primary lens is the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM
L lens, I use this for taking photos of horses, you need a long lens
to avoid having perspective distortion. I also have the kit lens
(18-55, f3.5-5.6 I think), and the 75-300 f4.5-5.6 zoom. I'm looking
at getting a better short lens (perhaps the 28-70 f2.8), as well as an
overlap lens (ideally, I want an f2.8 ~35-~115 but they don't make
one).

jc
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
> You know who does? Kodak.

Success in the marketplace, not to mention superb image quality at APS-C and
larger, puts Canon squarely in the lead. Nikon are doing fine too and everyone
else is scrambling to catch up in the market.

The groundbreaking 14n Mpix Kodak was quickly derided for its high noise at
higher ISO's (eg: above 100), lifeless image quality and lack of antialiasing
filters and microlenses. Kodak had intro problems galore and had to supsede the
model shortly after (SLR/n) even offering an upgrade program (14nx) for the
first version.

Being first does not necessarilly mean being best.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JC Dill wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:51:11 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Those who have lenses and want to maintain that investment. I'm typical with 5
>>high value lenses and one el-cheapo. I need the body that preserves that
>>investment.
>
>
> Alan, can you tell us what lenses you have?

20mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.7, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 80-200
f/2.8. All Maxxum. The el-cheapo is of course the 50 f/1.7 but it is a very
good little lens as most 50mm f/1.8's should be.

>
> I am shooting with a 300D. My primary lens is the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM
> L lens, I use this for taking photos of horses, you need a long lens
> to avoid having perspective distortion.

I did some jumping shots this past summer using mainly the 300 f/2.8 and the
80-200 f/2.8 as well.

I also have the kit lens
> (18-55, f3.5-5.6 I think), and the 75-300 f4.5-5.6 zoom. I'm looking
> at getting a better short lens (perhaps the 28-70 f2.8), as well as an
> overlap lens (ideally, I want an f2.8 ~35-~115 but they don't make
> one).

The main problem with all of our carefully chosen film lenses is the crop factor
when going to 1.5 cropped sensors. My 20mm becomes a strange wide angle, my
28-70 f/2.8 becomes a viable portrait lens (but I prefer primes) the 50 f/.7 may
turn into a portrait jewel, my 100 f/2.8 macro is now too long for its secondary
roll as a portrait lens, the 80-200 becomes a bit too long for candid shots, but
great for sports and nature. the 300 f/2.8 becomes a killer, esp. with the 1.4
TC attached. 2x TC reamins to be seen...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:58:12 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
>> You know who does? Kodak.
>
>Success in the marketplace, not to mention superb image quality at APS-C and
>larger, puts Canon squarely in the lead. Nikon are doing fine too and everyone
>else is scrambling to catch up in the market.
>
>The groundbreaking 14n Mpix Kodak was quickly derided for its high noise at
>higher ISO's (eg: above 100), lifeless image quality and lack of antialiasing
>filters and microlenses. Kodak had intro problems galore and had to supsede the
>model shortly after (SLR/n) even offering an upgrade program (14nx) for the
>first version.
>
>Being first does not necessarilly mean being best.

I understood that many of the problems with some cameras when it
comes to overall image quality stemmed from processing done to the
image in-camera. Don't most cameras allow for "raw" image storage
now?
-Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:


>
> I understood that many of the problems with some cameras when it
> comes to overall image quality stemmed from processing done to the
> image in-camera. Don't most cameras allow for "raw" image storage
> now?
> -Rich

Processing in-camera cannot compensate well enough for aliasing (if at all) nor
can it increase the gain due to a lack of microlenses, without increasing
noise. Noise can be smoothed, aliasing can be reduced, but the lack of the
(more expensive) optical layers compromises the image. Having RAW is always an
advantage, but again there is little the user can do post process to increase
the signal or avoid aliasing.

My take on in-camera processing is:
Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cq48db$3jf$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I understood that many of the problems with some cameras when it
>> comes to overall image quality stemmed from processing done to the
>> image in-camera. Don't most cameras allow for "raw" image storage
>> now?
>> -Rich
>
>Processing in-camera cannot compensate well enough for aliasing (if at all) nor
>can it increase the gain due to a lack of microlenses, without increasing
>noise. Noise can be smoothed, aliasing can be reduced, but the lack of the
>(more expensive) optical layers compromises the image. Having RAW is always an
>advantage, but again there is little the user can do post process to increase
>the signal or avoid aliasing.
>
>My take on in-camera processing is:
>Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
>Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
>Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).

Which cameras sharpen a raw image?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis wrote:

>>My take on in-camera processing is:
>>Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
>>Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
>>Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).
>
>
> Which cameras sharpen a raw image?

I stated that a bit quickly and simply.

From what I gather in other NG discussions, most of them do sharpen at RAW, but
I may be remembering a misperception. I can't cite a source offhand.

It may also, rather than specific sharpening, be artifacts of interpolating
seperate R,G,B sensors into RGB pixels that makes sharpening-like artifacts in
the RAW image.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cq4nq2$gqb$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>
>>>My take on in-camera processing is:
>>>Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
>>>Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
>>>Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).
>>
>>
>> Which cameras sharpen a raw image?
>
>I stated that a bit quickly and simply.
>
> From what I gather in other NG discussions, most of them do sharpen at RAW, but
>I may be remembering a misperception. I can't cite a source offhand.
>
>It may also, rather than specific sharpening, be artifacts of interpolating
>seperate R,G,B sensors into RGB pixels that makes sharpening-like artifacts in
>the RAW image.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of just what a RAW image is.
It is a direct measure of the sensor values, prior to any conversion
to RGB pixels. Interpolation artifacts, etc., would be introduced
during processing stages that take place later on in the chain, and
so are not present in the RAW capture.

In general the only camera settings that affect the content of a RAW
image are the effective ISO (maybe including exposure compensation),
white balance (sometimes), and possibly the contrast. Other settings
such as sharpening will be generally be recorded along with the data,
and may very well affect the way the manufacturer-supplied conversion
software behaves, but don't change the recorded pixel values directly.

Adobe have recently announced a new "Digital Negative" file format
(DNG) which attempts to provide a vendor-neutral format for RAW images.
They have a converter to go from the RAW format of many cameras to DNG.
Converting the RAW images from your camera to a well-documented format,
and then seeing just what is in there, is a good way to get an initial
understanding of just what a RAW file contains.

You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
(which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).

Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with Adobe, except as a customer.
I recently purchased Elements 3.0, and consider it money well spent.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Digital Cameras 0
L Digital Cameras 1
M Digital Cameras 6
I Digital Cameras 2
R Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 0
M Digital Cameras 3
T Digital Cameras 5
mprospero Digital Cameras 2
M Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 0
P Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 1
S Digital Cameras 3
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
H Digital Cameras 5
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
4 Digital Cameras 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY