Counterfit said:
It would have been quite an undertaking for Sony to get people to switch from Canon/Nikon, although the supposedly great image quality of the R1 (and the Zeiss lens, which certainly doesn't hurt
) would have gone quite a ways in helping them to that end. Perhaps they would have partnered with CZ to make lenses. It's all moot now anyway.
Sometimes it is about getting people to switch; mostly IMO it is about capturing new users for these manufacturers. Getting someone to switch means giving them something that can not be had under their current brand of ownership.
In the Nikon/Canon debate it is about Canon offering 1.6x, 1.3x and 1x field of view factors. For some it is the HS crop that Nikon offers on the D2X. In the case of Olympus it is the potential promise of dust free images, and for the pro shooters their new line of 2.0 and 2.8 lenses.
The ugly truth about the names behind the lenses is that they may not be made by the the people you think they are. It is a branding exercise in some cases.
Look at the recent announcement by Samsung with their Pentax inspired DSLR. According to DPR the Schnieder lenses on the Samsung are exact copies of what Pentax has already been offering. Time will tell if we see a Sony DSLR with a 11-18mm with the CZ name on it. The current Konica-Minolta 11-18 lens is the same basic lens that Tamron is offering.
The truth is that for "popularly" priced lenses, camera manufactures are hard pressed to meet the pricing demands of the consumer. So they will go to the likes of Tamron, Sigma, and others to produce these lenses.
Think of the auto industry that uses their primarily Asian affiliates to help build affordable entry level vehicles. The profits for auto makers is in uniquely American vehicles like the SUV's. Same for Nikon or Canon.
The thing about marketing agreements is that companies like CZ, Schneider , and Leica have a stake in what is put out their with their name on it. So far based on DPR reviews, Leica seems to have the greatest sway with Panasonic on what is put out there. Not to say the others are not good, but as the lenses go, Panasonic with Leica lenses has always gotten top reviews.
Does anyone make a good IR film currently?
AFAIK, Kodak is the last company doing IR film. It is a shame since the Konica offering had people lined up for the once a year production their IR film.
A medium format company went under?
I'm surprised it wasn't Seagull
Too bad about the meters going away too
I know what you mean. Your sarcasm was not lost on me. The end of Bronica meant more to those that wanted MF on a budget. Contax was lost last year too. That leaves Hassleblad and Mamiya. And both of these are trying hard to move to digital.
Hassleblad killed off for the most part their V series line, the traditional 501 series. And now are focusing more on their H series MF, and their X series panoramic 35mm cameras. Until late last year Mamiya struggled to bring their ZD digital series to market. At least now the ZD is shipping in Japan, and this Spring in the US.
For those of us that have either followed or used MF digital cameras, it is sad to see the passing of Bronica. IMO their RF645 was a perfect platform for MF digital.
Some may question the discussion of P&S vs APSC vs full frame (35mm) vs MF sized sensors for digital. Why does it make a difference? First off, if you take 10mp in any of the above formats, the more densely you pack the same info in the megapixel space, the noisier the image will be at any given ISO. Then you have field of view (FOV) and depth of field (DOF) factors.
FOV is what you see at a given focal length at a given distance. In 35mm photography, 50mm is consider normal. In MF it is consider to about 80mm. In APSC is about 30mm. For some P&S digital cameras it might be 12mm.
With DOF the laws of optics are "generally" consistent. Meaning that if you have a 50mm focal length focused at 10 feet at an aperture of 2.8, you will get the same DOF regardless of the format you shoot in. I say generally, since there is another factor in figuring DOF, and that is circle of confusion - which I will not even try to explain here (sorry
).
DOF plays a part in separating your subject from the background. Smaller sensors require shorter focal lengths that in the end give greater DOF. For many consumers this is a great benefit. For others that learned photography with 35mm and MF cameras (like I have), this is sore point. It never ceases to amaze me when picking up a MF camera with a 80mm lens at 2.8 at how the background disappears.
This is one of the reasons that you see so many waxing on and on about the Canon EOS 5D. For most of us are more familiar to the 35mm over the MF. In the end it is about DOF.
Sorry about the photography lesson tonight. But we also have the issue of perspective. Longer focal lengths "compress" the perspective. This is one of the reasons we are "wowed" by some older photographs of buildings, compared to what we tried to photograph.
About the Seagull MF cameras. We sometimes look at things from an American or European view. Meaning we have the money to buy what ever we want. KOdak and others realize there are emerging markets like China and others that photography is a new and interesting past time. But they don't have the money to make the jump to digital just yet.
Add to that, there are those that want to hold on to "old tech" for as long as they can. Also for those that realize there is a true difference between film and digital.
As to meters, it seems that Gossen and Sekonic are the only ones left. Though it does give pause to the Sekonic brand. I had someone in the last few years tell me that the "konic" in Sekonic was a nod to Konica. Don't know if this true or not.
