That was the Contax AX. I had one for a while. It worked just fine -- not exactly like normal AF, but fine within it's design specification ( in some cases, you had to put the lens in range,and the back finished the job). The camera was a bit thick (it added about 10mm to the camera thickness) but it was something you got used to pretty fast.
It really was an innovative camera with some amazing engineering. It really showed what Kyocera could do when they put their mind to something. It's a real shame, and a loss that they are no longer in the camera business.
brainiac wrote:
Was it the Contax RX which moved the film back and forth? Neat trick. Did it work? I never tried one.
dasrocket wrote:
BTW, in answer to all those who dont see the value of good design, take a look at what the IPOD did for APPLE, the new BEETLE did for VW, the new CTS did for Cadillac, the new....
...Aztec for Pontiac....err, waitaminnit....
So we're good for registration. The enthusiasm of the M42-adapting, Sony-using clique shows that not all Minolta users are locked into the 'only G=good' mindset – though, to be far, most are.
Placing some of my Minolta lenses into an EF extension tube reveals the Sony mount to be about 3mm smaller in diameter. Of course the usual problems about lenses with protruding rear elements will apply, but of course we have no idea about the size of the Sony FF mirror. But all the usual suspects should be useable on the current Sony APS-C bodies, barring some unpredicted devil in the detail.
I'm increasingly militant about lens mounts: they're all basically the same: if your favourite lens doesn't work on your favourite camera, and there's no adaptor available, just hack it off and replace it. My Olympus 35mm shift is perfectly at home in a Mamiya 645 mount and now tilts, too, in its Mirex adaptor.
Thanks for correction... lol... how childish this can get? The message was, the booming market where there is a place for every one to make a buck is vanishing. The exact numbers of when, and at what rate the DSLR market will contract are a matter of speculation - industry trends, economic clairvoyance - things that are not hard facts yet. What is exactly your point on insisting one speculation is tremendously more predictive than the other when both point in the same direction? Basically you are saying the same thing citing mystical authorities ("they") and dropping a few percentages to give impression of "certainty".
HerbChong wrote:
you're behind the times. 2007 will be the peak DSLR market growth year at 42%. this year, they are talking in the low 20% range and by 2010 ro 2011, it will become mostly a replacement market.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
With Olympus, I assume you mean Olympus OM?
Yes, sorry – OM.
Further fiddling today: looks like a Nikon F adaptor is doable; the G version would be very tricky. I don't think a Contax/Yashica adaptor will be possible – at least, not without making irreversible tweaks to the C/Y mount. Ditto Leica. M42 is there already, with chips. I don't have any Zuiko lenses in stock to experiment with . . . .
This is a photography forum and I am a Nikon shooter with a D300. But I also know many wealthy individuals have bought a prof level cameras to take family or travel pics. Sony has a good name recognition among high end consumers and with right marketing compaign Sony could sell these high end dslrs to consumers if not to die hard nikon & Canon fans. Well competetion is good and with it comes newer models and may be lower prices. Hold on to your wallets.
Speaking of focusing rings:
The absolute BEST focusing ring in the freaking world is on the Canon 50mm Compact Macro. It is so super precise, it's incredible. It's very easy to snap in the exact focus when using it manually, especially closeup.
Drewvan wrote:
i dont see the need for 24.6megs, it just sounds like too much
This totally depends on your application. Large Format is unnecessary for certain applications. But for landscapes it is really the standard for fine detail that all other forms of media are measured. I know some landscape photographers who shoot both digital and LF film simply because the LF provides more absolute detail and control when they really need it for large prints. As digital technology evolves this gap between digital and film narrows. So not only is 24 mp needed but we will see much more resolution in the next 5 years for said applications. And of course MF digital is already above the 35mm current threshold. This is also going to compete for MF digital $$. So it should drive MF prices down as well. It is all a part of the digital evolution/revolution.
I agree with the above. Even during film days, manufacturers used to compete on resolution numbers and fine grain. I don't see why more megapixels is not good, as long as the quality of the pixels is similar or better than previous models.
This totally depends on your application. Large Format is unnecessary for certain applications. But for landscapes it is really the standard for fine detail that all other forms of media are measured. I know some landscape photographers who shoot both digital and LF film simply because the LF provides more absolute detail and control when they really need it for large prints. As digital technology evolves this gap between digital and film narrows. So not only is 24 mp needed but we will see much more resolution in the next 5 years for said applications. And of course MF digital is already above the 35mm current threshold. This is also going to compete for MF digital $$. So it should drive MF prices down as well. It is all a part of the digital evolution/revolution.
large format isn't all about resolution. Most large format people I know print on 8x10" paper (which depending on your format, is no enlargement at all, just straight contract print). Myself included
Here's another vote FOR the ergonomics of the KM/Sony cameras.
Until you use one of these cameras, you really don't know how nice it is to not have to access the menus for every little thing. Nearly every often-used feature has a dedicated button or switch on the outside of the camera. A day with the camera will familiarize you with their functions and I guarantee you'll NEVER hit the wrong button while using the camera. In fact, the feel of the buttons on my 7D is so distinct that I can recognize individual buttons by feel and/or location without taking my eye from the viewfinder.
The a900 (or whatever it will be called) has even nicer layout than the 7D, and the vertical grip almost exactly replicates the button layout in the horizontal mode. One review of the a700 (which appears to have a similar layout as the new flagship) noted that the user often forgot which aspect he was shooting in as the camera feels exactly the same horizontally or vertically.
True, everyone has different aesthetic tastes, and mine run toward function over form, but I can say that I've tried using a friend's Nikon and the ergonomic feel was TERRIBLE for me. I really hated holding that camera. Everything about it made me miss my 7D.
Personally, I can't wait to get my hands on the new Sony. And the 24-70 2.8 SSM lens.
I really don't get the ergonomics superiority thing. I shot Minolta from 1988 to last year ending with a KM 7D. I also had to Maxxum bodies for a very long time. Nice layout and I did enjoy using them. But when I got my 30D it only took about 30 minutes and I was out shooting BIFs with it. I just don't find the Canon layout any harder to use then the KM. It's just different. Everyone always claims you have to dig through Canon's menus to change anything and I'm like, huh It's normally press a dedicated button and turn a wheel. Isn't that how the superior K/M-Sony's work? I finally picked up an a700 this past weekend to play with. Seems like the same basic layout design as everyone elses cameras now. One dail, a bunch of buttons and some turnwheels.
Please don't take this as a negative view of Sony because that is not what I mean. I just don't see all the hoopla about how superior it's layout is. I have yet to find anything harder about my EOS bodies compared to my K/Ms. Heck the Canon menu is even easier to use if you need to than the multi-page setup in my K/M 7D but that appears to have been fixed in the later Sony models.
So can someone with significant time with both systems tell me how they see this, just curious.
jamesdak wrote:
I really don't get the ergonomics superiority thing.
Me neither, you are not alone .
It takes time getting used to things, especially when you change medium. As far as I see, users adapt to the controls way faster than manufacturers adapt to users' requests. Not saying we pay money to suck up, but remember Canon or Nikon or Minolta or Sony are not serving only you, infact millions of you, it's a tough job for them to please everybody.
So get used to the system and grow to love it, of course some companies listen to complaints and make amendments but it takes time.
But what beats me is what is so hard for Canon to implement a dedicated button to do Mirror-Lock-Up and save the world *stares at the Direct Print button and sighs*.
These days I think camera designers have forgotten the virtues of the basic 4 controls: shutter, aperture, focus and ISO. there are numerous functions that look better for the clutter than the use.
Heres a thought: how about buttons completely adjustable in function by the photog. Let us dictate what we want, its all software anyway!
..in terms of whether 24mp resolution is necessary or not, I think its the one area where a camera can quantify itself as better than others of the same level as well as being a marketing seller for them. I think saying that the SONY 900 blows away CANONs 1DsMKIII is like saying the lamborghini is 30klm faster than the ferrari...
by the way..have you noticed the laest discussed topic about DSLRs is longevity?...hmmm the marketing strategy toward a throw-away society comes to fruition
The MP race is becoming like what the Mhz/GHz race was with CPU's. Quantity, not quality. Oh well, maybe I speak too soon, lets see how the quality of the Sony is. Though, it is somewhat of a shame that when there is a shift to 14-bit sensors, Sony decides more MP's with a 12-bit sensor is the way for them to go. Hopefully they went with function over form, because it certainly doesn't have form, so it better have function.
Lleon wrote: But what beats me is what is so hard for Canon to implement a dedicated button to do Mirror-Lock-Up and save the world *stares at the Direct Print button and sighs*
Answer: Canon Printer 'Division' (holding too much political power within the corp.) with the idiotic assumption people will actually use the thing and in some bizarre way, boost printer sales. Some VP needs a corporate smack-down.
It's normally press a dedicated button and turn a wheel. Isn't that how the superior K/M-Sony's work? I finally picked up an a700 this past weekend to play with. Seems like the same basic layout design as everyone elses cameras now. One dail, a bunch of buttons and some turnwheels. 