Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,981   Posts: 1,523,821   Online: 1178
      
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 82
  1. #21
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,131
    Images
    340
    I hate autofocus and any technical bullshit like this. Even when given a DSLR, I immediately set it to manual function and manual focus. Firmware??????????? The way the technology is going, photographers will soon be only concerned with introspective aspects within the camera. What you see through the viewfinder, if they bother to still include one will be entirely irrelevant.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I hate autofocus and any technical @#!*% like this. Even when given a DSLR, I immediately set it to manual function and manual focus. Firmware??????????? The way the technology is going, photographers will soon be only concerned with introspective aspects within the camera. What you see through the viewfinder, if they bother to still include one will be entirely irrelevant.
    I give it back.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by HTF III View Post
    Sure am happy with the Aluminum Powerglide on my 68 Camaro Convertible. Works nice, easy to rebuild. Dependable. A trans job on a later model car can cost you 6 or 8 thousand.
    Classic slushbox! I sold an iron one a few years ago.
    I've never had to rebuild a manual transmission...

  4. #24
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,910
    Images
    6
    My questions is will there be computers with USB ports and a current software to up date it 20 years from now? Will the firmware stick or it will get erased over time and you have a useless chunk of glass?
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    My questions is will there be computers with USB ports and a current software to up date it 20 years from now? Will the firmware stick or it will get erased over time and you have a useless chunk of glass?
    Dunno. My 45 year old Nikon works just fine. So does my 63 year old Deardorff.

  6. #26
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,131
    Images
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    My questions is will there be computers with USB ports and a current software to up date it 20 years from now? Will the firmware stick or it will get erased over time and you have a useless chunk of glass?
    There probably will, but by that time galleries wont exhibit images, but histograms to show how good the image would have been if they had actually taken the picture.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,940
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    I don't even like things that use batteries. If it has a built in chip, I won't use it - unless it's a calculator.
    I do use a lot of things that have built in chips but I also use calculators that don't have built in chip (slide rules). When the users have to fine tune focusing that is actually a bad thing and we users don't have instruments to check for critical focus. But they do it because focusing error is what people can see. Shutter speed accuracy on most cameras even today is not that good but they don't provide us way to fine tune it.

  8. #28
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,910
    Images
    6

    Oh boy

    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    There probably will, but by that time galleries wont exhibit images, but histograms to show how good the image would have been if they had actually taken the picture.
    It's like a wine tasting room telling you the Ph the wine and how many brix the grape juice was when the grapes were crushed with no tasting. On second though maybe it's like virtual sex. All data and no soul.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wiltshire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    394
    Apologies if this is seen as "provocative", it's honestly not meant to be such.

    For most of our technology, yes, firmware updates is too much technology - most of our tech has no electronic firmware! but for the current and recent equipment used to take pictures, I think it is a useful addition to the armoury. Once a piece of equipment has a computer on board, it can be updated/changed etc fairly easily - providing it can be accessed. With the prevalence of the internet, being able to update functionality via a download is an improvement over needing to send it to a service centre for the update/patch to be applied. Yes, it can be use to "tweak" the focus accuracy, which could imply sloppy quality control but can also imply ability to massively fine tune equipment to particular cameras. Tolerances required for optimal image production are much much tighter now than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Whilst it can be used for fine tuning focus etc the ability to alter the responses of the equipment to new cameras or functions is a valuable facility, for the current technology.

    The ability to fine tune equipment is nothing new - my canon 200/1,8 had to have the focus fine tuned to my analogue cameras back in the nineties, but that was a service item that cost time & money, oh to be able to do that myself!

    Yes, for manual equipment it is too much technology but once a step to electronic equipment is taken, this is a quite sensible and useful facility to employ - horses for courses as they say. I like my eos gear, with all its faults and I equally like my 'blad gear, with all its faults!

    Sim2
    *hiding*

  10. #30
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,131
    Images
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Sim2 View Post
    Apologies if this is seen as "provocative", it's honestly not meant to be such.

    For most of our technology, yes, firmware updates is too much technology - most of our tech has no electronic firmware! but for the current and recent equipment used to take pictures, I think it is a useful addition to the armoury. Once a piece of equipment has a computer on board, it can be updated/changed etc fairly easily - providing it can be accessed. With the prevalence of the internet, being able to update functionality via a download is an improvement over needing to send it to a service centre for the update/patch to be applied. Yes, it can be use to "tweak" the focus accuracy, which could imply sloppy quality control but can also imply ability to massively fine tune equipment to particular cameras. Tolerances required for optimal image production are much much tighter now than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Whilst it can be used for fine tuning focus etc the ability to alter the responses of the equipment to new cameras or functions is a valuable facility, for the current technology.

    The ability to fine tune equipment is nothing new - my canon 200/1,8 had to have the focus fine tuned to my analogue cameras back in the nineties, but that was a service item that cost time & money, oh to be able to do that myself!

    Yes, for manual equipment it is too much technology but once a step to electronic equipment is taken, this is a quite sensible and useful facility to employ - horses for courses as they say. I like my eos gear, with all its faults and I equally like my 'blad gear, with all its faults!

    Sim2
    *hiding*
    When I focus a Summilux lens the screw on the thread will allow me to turn it about 2” or 3” between infinity and the closest focus. Most digital SLR’s I have used on manual focus turn about ½”. This does not need firmware, just better design.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin