Steve Spencer wrote:
Actually cognitive dissonance theory would predict that in this situation people would come to love their cameras and not become disappointed with them. The theory suggests we come to overvalue whatever we buy (or choose) and we do so more when the thing we bought wasn't worth what we paid for it. This may seem far fetched, but it actually helps explain why almost everyone (myself included) rates their gear so highly and generally is very attached to it.
It seems to me that psychologists continues to discover what the Buddhists have know for a very long time. Now we have articles on how gratitude can increase satisfaction and happiness. Something a Buddhist or Jesuit monk could explain in the tenth century.
Anyway, sometimes we don't appreciate the fantastic technology we have in camera equipment. Reading the web I could swear the autofocus is getting progressively worse. I guess we need to keep our consumer economy going.
Sep 04, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Really Buddhists and Jesuits suggested that after we buy something we come to like it more because of it deficiencies. I hadn't realized that and I don't think it was something they ever said. Psychology is full of surprising findings and some not so surprising findings, and some (even many findings) seem so easily predicted after the fact, but not before the outcome is known. Here are just a couple of examples from cognitive dissonance theory. Will we like a boring activity more if we are paid a lot to do it or if we are grossly underpaid for doing it? Will we be more satisfied with our decision after making it if we choose between two closely valued products or between two products in which one is clearly better than the other?
Anyway I am not denying that people don't appreciate cameras--there are times that is true as well--but cognitive dissonance won't explain those times and we will have to look to an explanation elsewhere perhaps the Budhists and Jesuits have some ideas that will help. I suspect they do.
jamesf99 wrote:
The term he used was "pass". A FF sensor requires two, and the second mask must be aligned to the first which is more difficult, but has been done for at least 8 years now. APS_H only requires a single pass
Actually, I believe that Canon has single pass FF production capability now.
Sony had it before them, which might account for the pricing and ("sudden") availability of the D3/D700.
skibum5 wrote:
well since i couldnt imagine them suddenly doing away with somehting they had already done i thought maybe you hadn't realized they had done it yet
Perhaps I should have stressed 'any format'. This would be interesting if Canon were to implement gapless micro lenses in a APS-H or FF sensor to possibly further increase high ISO performance. I don't know if this is doable or if the new technology actually works as expected but it is something I've wondered about.
M Vers wrote:
Perhaps I should have stressed 'any format'. This would be interesting if Canon were to implement gapless micro lenses in a APS-H or FF sensor to possibly further increase high ISO performance. I don't know if this is doable or if the new technology actually works as expected but it is something I've wondered about.
Diode size is probably more important than 100% coverage. I expect the outer edge of the microlens contributes a very small percentage of photons. I though I saw that the 7D diodes were relatively bigger than previous 1.6 crop semsors.
It seems that the the diodes themselves are also more sensitive to light. This could of course lead to problems with not being able to get to ISO 100 (if a diode is more sensitive, it's harder to get the lower ISO speeds) but to counter this, the diodes have been made larger so the gradation steps are finer.
jamesf99 wrote:
The term he used was "pass". A FF sensor requires two, and the second mask must be aligned to the first which is more difficult, but has been done for at least 8 years now. APS_H only requires a single pass
.