September 01, 2014, 10:44:35 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RAKAMRAK

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are DSLRs so Big?
« on: November 05, 2013, 05:09:19 PM »
DSLRs are big (well compared to what exactly?) because when DSLRs came into market the idea of the camera manufacturers were to put the available technology inside the body (or a similar body) of the existing film cameras - the form factor remained the same. For canon that form factor probably drew on T90; for Nikon it was probably something like the body of Nikon F401 or F4. At that time there was a technological limitation on the miniaturization of the digital components. And photographers have grown accustomed with the form factor so much that there have never really been any revolutionary change in that form (What can Lytro lightfield form factor do is yet to be seen). In future the size is bound to go down a bit... with further miniaturization of the digital and electronic components. For example with the new AF technology of 70D I can foresee that the AF sensor at the base of the camera (the are located at the base of the camera right?) will surely be eliminated - so will the secondary mirror. As SL1 has shown the sensor mount mechanism can also be made smaller - in near future that will go to full frame as well, but making full frame cameras smaller may not be in the primary goal list of camera manufactureres. 


OP is forgetting that the DSLRs need space for several motherboards, chips and much more wiring than the film/analogue cameras. Roger cicala of Lens Rentals stripped down the 5D III long back,.... it is worthwhile to have a look at what it has inside

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/5d-iii-strip-tease


47
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 05, 2013, 01:43:50 AM »
This camera, at this price, is just an EPIC FAIL.

Someone at Sony's opened a good bottle tonight.
It's only one model in their line-up.  Even if it doesn''t turn out to be a huge success, good on them for trying.  I like seeing camera companies doing new things, even more-so when they know that it won't appeal to the mass market.  And Canon's no stranger to this.  Just look at the 60Da.  Despite all of the doom and gloom about DSLR makers, to me the 60Da suggests that Canon does look to niche markets and tries to supply what people want.

Nikon have done exactly the same. They've identified that a lot of people want simplicity, and this is their take on it.  And I think it should do well.

I'm also surprised/exicited to see that everything (including ISO) is controllable manually (if using a lens with an aperture ring).  While I'm not really a "retro" design person, I know I prefer direct access dials to buttons, LCD screens and menus, and I suspect I'm not the only one.  Another big positive for this camera.

Canon will give us DAE1.... someday....

48
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 05, 2013, 01:41:09 AM »
I would like to see Canon make a competing model.

Me too..... come on Canon.... give us DAE1

49
I like the look and the manual controls.

If Canon comes up with something like this I shall surely buy.

Me too!

I was only born when the last great film cameras were in the last leg of their journey. So I never had the chance to use them, and I am not willing to buy a 30 year old film camera and some films to enjoy those pleasures. So if Canon comes up with something like this and I have the money I will jump onto it like crazy. The silver/black leather version is the one that catches my imagination the most. That is just gorgeous.

50
I like the look and the manual controls.
If Canon comes up with something like this I shall surely buy.

and I shall surely puke.

Indeed. Then I need to get a vomit bag and some pepto bismol with me when I go to buy that camera. Thanks for the heads up.

If I remember correctly, time and again I have seen posts (may not be by you but by other forum members of course) asking for "still only" and "easy manual control" camera. Interestingly or unfortunately (depending on the view point) Nikon came up with something of that sort and canon did not. Do I sense some vain frustration?

51
I like the look and the manual controls.

If Canon comes up with something like this I shall surely buy.

52
Doesn't Tamron have any fast primes at all?

Other than the Macro lenses (60mm, 90mm, 180mm) I do not think Tamron produces any Prime at all (at least not for Crop or Full Frame DSLRs). seems they want to concentrate only on the zoom side.....

53
Street & City / Re: Washington DC, in my imaginative Idea.
« on: October 24, 2013, 12:20:47 AM »
Taken in 2011

Wow, Wow, Wow----Dear Mr. RAKAMRAK
Wow, Beautiful Colors and Great Point Of Views in Artistic  Eyes.
Thanks you, Sir , to share with us .
Surapon

I am glad you enjoyed Mr. Surapon....

54
Street & City / Re: Washington DC, in my imaginative Idea.
« on: October 23, 2013, 03:20:29 PM »
Taken in 2011

55
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: October 14, 2013, 10:35:49 PM »
Well it is actually a sunset lit cityscape.....

56
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 06, 2013, 11:42:16 PM »
Just because people use electronic post processing rather than mechanical post processing really makes no difference to me.
 
Film images were doctored just as electronic images are, objects and people were inserted or removed from images, areas of the image lightened or darkened, exposures changed, colors changed, contrast changed, its just that some people do not know how it used to be done and think that post processing is something new.

My understanding exactly.

On second thought, my answer to OP's question (topic heading) is "I would take lot less photos, my photos would be qualitatively much worse than they are today, and I would not be so immersed in photography as I am now, something else would be my first preference hobby. Photoshop makes my photographs better, and me a better photographer."

57
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 06, 2013, 05:46:05 PM »
"Let's do the best we can now"

That is the best possible mindset that we could have...

58
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 06, 2013, 05:44:33 PM »
It is sure good to learn to do "good" technique and everything using just the camera. But Photoshop is nothing but a glorified darkroom. So what the photographers of yesteryear's were doing (including the likes of Ansel Adams) in Dark Room, we are just doing that in Photoshop. Photography is a form of art, and that means the artist's imagination plays a major role here. And darkroom from the days bygone and today's Photoshop just helps us in doing that - for some a bit more and for some a bit less. It is just about the degree. With the advancement in technology we can now do a lot more that we could in analogue days - that is the natural way of progress of technology. Photographers today quibbling about what would we do without photoshop is like doctors talking about how lazy they have become with the use of xray/MRI/anaesthesia in surgery/bloodtests/painkiller (take your pick).

When you are photographing the shot of the day with two energetic kids in the lucky composition that you could ever imagine and there is a tree trunk portruding from the back of the head of one of the kids then you neither have the luxury walking back and forth, change lens or anything - you just have to take the shot and thank the developers of photoshop in your mind.

59
I have not been chiming in after my first post, but I have been following your replies. Thank you all for your helps. So, now my understanding is low ISO (and the different techniques mentioned by Neuro and Pi) is the better choice.

60
Are "High ISO" noise and "long exposure" (at low ISO) noise the same qualitatively? Or is one slightly more managegable than the other? (Practical Reference: When photographing a night scene of a city is it preferable to choose high ISO and faster shutter speed, or is it preferable to choose low ISO slower shutter speed, assuming I do not want to consider the motion blur of moving subjects resulting from slower shutter speed as a factor)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20