1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are Nikon and Canon falling behind in view of Sony launches?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by P_Stoddart, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Great shout Atavar - Don't remember this, but it's great!
  2. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Very good Atavar. :D
  3. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Not far beyond 12fps.
  4. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    They threw away a lot then! Must have been rubbish.

    Had they not got a bulk film back available for THE 'system' camera ... ?

    The shot in the mirror worries me. The photographers grip on the camera, not very pro! His hair's grip on his head. The reflection looks a lot like me ... :confused:

    ... but I had more hair back then, surely? :eek:
  5. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Well, double for many cameras, actually - my P7000 is 24fps and the 5D mk II (one of the best) is 24,25 or 30 fps. That's a true movie mode mind you - the F5 ad has proved a movie effect can be achieved with a lot less (albeit more 'Harold Lloyd' than 'Harry Potter'!!)
  6. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    1. Impecuneous teenagers have been known to try to make movies at 18 fps - certainly my first clockwork camera had this speed setting. Not recommended for quality or much movement!

    2. At the turn of the century (20>21!) wedding videographers were pulling stills of up to 8x6 from the first 'affordable' quality digital (Sony) cameras' output.
  7. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    2. At the turn of the century (20>21!) wedding videographers were pulling stills of up to 8x6 from the first 'affordable' quality digital (Sony) cameras' output.[/QUOTE]

    Crikey! I'd be interested to see what's possible using this method now. With the development in source quality Full HD) and enhancement tools, I bet this is more than a possibility for 10 by 8s....
  8. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Pah!:rolleyes: My compact will do 50fps video and these little things will do 60fps....

    Not that higher frame rates produce better quality results....quite the opposite usually.

    Still, wouldn't mind one of those cameras that can do 1200fps:eek::cool:
  9. Steve52

    Steve52 Well-Known Member

    Who make those and would I need to win the lottery to buy one?
  10. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Yes and no.

    There are specialist high speed cameras as in the first link and compact cameras like in the second link.( I think the Casio that did up to 1200fps has been discontinued)
  11. filmlover

    filmlover Well-Known Member

    You should be grateful Nikon & Canaon have not launched any new models lately. It might mean the value of your current model won't depreciate so rapidly.

    Why do people keep craving "new models" anyway?.....worry about pictures, not pixels.
  12. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Because the market and growth driven economic system our society currently favours has been subtly, and not so subtly, 'educating' the mass market that new automatically equals better...

    To some extent with digiboxes this can be true in that the potential resolution, noise control and processing speed has improved considerably in less than a decade and the electronics have a far greater impact on image quality than was ever the case with film.
  13. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Had a quick, post prandial, look at a couple of early '60's APs. {Well, where else would I go ... ? :)} Obviously my memory is already sliding into 'old geezerdom' even if my birth certificate is not there yet! :rolleyes: Several of the movie cameras on offer had three or four speed set-ups 12, 16 (not 18), 24 and 32fps. Then there were a load of Bolex: their P1 went up to 64fps. There was also a camera offering 18fps but it was a fixed speeder.

    My old Admira (wonderful pic of David Williams clutching one in advert in 18 July '62 AP) had, I think, three or four speeds, so what I recalled as 18 was probably 16fps.

    I had thought I recalled the old silent movies as being shot at 14fps, but 12fps now seems more likely. One of the factors to bear in mind were low sensitivities of the film stock in use which would limit frame speed, even with early sixties colour stock.
  14. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    For me it's because each new model can do things I couldn't before - the more pixels they can cram onto a given sized sensor the more detail I can get in my macro shots and it makes it possible to get useful images of even smaller subjects.

    Otherwise I like upgrading cameras for the reasons Nigel gives too....and like most folk I like getting new toys;)
  15. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Well, if you are well-heeled, plenty of disposable, why not? It helps keep the economy going. Most of us cannot go that route and serious photographers can be notoriously conservative, pros especially so. "I've got it. It works! Why change? It'll cost me!!"

    I will probably use less than half of the capabilities in a D700 or similar.

    Even using most of the capabilities of my OM1 :D , still leaves some avenues untravelled ...

    ... photo-micrography for one.

    And there I was looking at eBay the other night and up pops the microscope attachment. Well, well! :confused:
  16. Alex1994

    Alex1994 Well-Known Member

    I think you need to wait to see what new SLRs Nikon and Canon announce before asking if they're falling behind.
  17. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Interestly Avatar raised a point in the A77 thread about diffraction.

    It seems the A77 at say f8 & smaller can end up with lower quality than a Canon 5DMK2.

    So it would appear designers are running into problems upping pixel counts.

    Avatar found this site explaining and showing the issue. Not good. :(

  18. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    The point is that an APSc is being compared with a full frame. If the a77 is better than a 5D2 up to f8 it is a truely fantastic achievement by Sony.
  19. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!


    With landscapes I tend to use <f/13 on APS-C and >f/16 on FF so whether one choses to define better by pixel peeping or printing might make all the difference.

    I was hoping Canon might try cramming 21MP on APS-C next but if Sony have crammed even more on and set the bar higher maybe I'll be even more tempted by a 7D mk2 or something:)
  20. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    But it would suggest going high is not a good idea ie say 30MP. Not because of noise but it would appear because of the diffraction. If 24MP APS starts having problems at f7.1. Then 30MP might have problems at f5.6.

    Also surely the same is true for FF. Will the rumoured 48MP camera have problems at f8 or smaller?

    Could we see for the pro market a slightly larger sensor than 35mm to avoid diffraction. Not as big as MF but designed to avoid diffraction but gives more pixels. It would mean new lenses I suspect. But probably mirrorless.

Share This Page