Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's A Professional Grade Digital Cinema Camera Powered By Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I assume you mean a DSLR kit? Because that's a bit pretentious to say you can barely buy a decent DSLR (body only) for $2k. You can buy a decent DSLR body for $1k nowadays. Sure, maybe you don't get 11FPS+, dual memory card slots, weatherproofing, hundreds of focus points, 30MP+ sensor, and so on. But, even $500 cameras today can give you very professional results with a good lens.
    As any good photographer will tell you, the body isn't the most important part. Spending more money on it doesn't always mean better results, it just means you can minimize your post-processing and while adding more flexibility.
    Prices have come down a bit I guess, so maybe I should say $1200 body only rather than $2k. But whatever, the point being, there's no way in hell this 5k resolution cinema camera is going to be anywhere near $2k as GraysonPeddie was asking.

    * I define "decent" DSLR body to be any current model with a full frame sensor. e.g. Nikon D750, Canon 6D Mk2. I wouldn't personally bother with anything in the $500 range, as the cropped sensor cameras have crap for lens choices, and perform noticeably worse in low light. I can attest, I sold my Nikon D7100 and replaced with a D750, and at least for sunrise/sunset vacation type pics I use it for, the D750 performs *way* better.
    Last edited by torsionbar28; 25 June 2019, 10:04 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
      Prices have come down a bit I guess, so maybe I should say $1200 body only rather than $2k. But whatever, the point being, there's no way in hell this 5k resolution cinema camera is going to be anywhere near $2k as GraysonPeddie was asking.

      * I define "decent" DSLR body to be any current model with a full frame sensor. e.g. Nikon D750, Canon 6D Mk2. I wouldn't personally bother with anything in the $500 range, as the cropped sensor cameras have crap for lens choices, and perform noticeably worse in low light. I can attest, I sold my Nikon D7100 and replaced with a D750, and at least for sunrise/sunset vacation type pics I use it for, the D750 performs *way* better.
      Fair enough; I would agree $1200 would get you a decent full-frame camera, and I also definitely agree that you're not going to get a 5K cinema camera for $2000 or less.

      Though, how exactly do Canon crop sensors have crap choices for lenses? They support both EF (which only full-frame models support) and EF-S as an additional bonus. I can understand if you might not like the EF-S lenses, but all of them are optional. So, whatever full-frame lenses you want/like are available on their crop sensors. In other words: Canon's crop sensors can't have inferior lens choices.
      But yes - pretty much THE benefit of full-frame is increased light intake, and in turn, more data. If you regularly take photos in dark places, full-frame is a smarter choice, as is paying extra for a more sensitive (but not noisy) sensor.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        Though, how exactly do Canon crop sensors have crap choices for lenses? They support both EF (which only full-frame models support) and EF-S as an additional bonus. I can understand if you might not like the EF-S lenses, but all of them are optional. So, whatever full-frame lenses you want/like are available on their crop sensors. In other words: Canon's crop sensors can't have inferior lens choices.
        Same thing in Nikon land, you can use a full frame "FX" lens on a crop sensor "DX" body. But the FX lenses are a lot more expensive than DX. I'd bet the same is true for Canon where EF lenses will cost a lot more than a "similar" EF-S lens. So I don't think many folks would do that. The entire reason to select a crop sensor body is cost, so spending more than you need to on full frame lenses doesn't really jive with that. You're also then doing math, as the lens that says "50 mm" on it is effectively an 80 mm lens when used on a crop sensor body. This crop factor also limits your useful focal length choices.

        At least with Nikon, the full frame "FX" lenses are of much nicer construction, with metal mounts, metal bodies, and more & better glass. Most of the crop "DX" lenses have plastic bodies and flimsy plastic mounts. Bump the lens even just slightly and bam, you just cracked the mount (BTDT), the whole lens is trash now. And because the full frame lenses are built better, they're also heavier, so using them on a light weight crop sensor body makes for poor camera balance.

        But yes, you're right about the lens compatibility, although I don't think too many folks actually do this i.e. use full frame lenses on a crop sensor body.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
          Same thing in Nikon land, you can use a full frame "FX" lens on a crop sensor "DX" body. But the FX lenses are a lot more expensive than DX. I'd bet the same is true for Canon where EF lenses will cost a lot more than a "similar" EF-S lens. So I don't think many folks would do that. The entire reason to select a crop sensor body is cost, so spending more than you need to on full frame lenses doesn't really jive with that. You're also then doing math, as the lens that says "50 mm" on it is effectively an 80 mm lens when used on a crop sensor body. This crop factor also limits your useful focal length choices.
          Buying a crop sensor isn't entirely because of cost. There are some functional benefits. For example, I deliberately went for a crop sensor because I often take photos of far away subjects. Having a crop sensor with a decently high MP count (24.2 in my case) allows you to get a greater zoom without the additional cost and deficits of a larger focal length lens. Very rarely do I find myself needing anything less than 18mm and in the case I need something ultra-wide, there are still options out there to go smaller. So, I got more desirable results in a substantially lower-cost body. So far, I've rarely had issues getting enough light.
          Another functional benefit of crop sensors is being able to get away with using full-frame lenses that have vignetting, blurring, or chromatic aberration only along the edges. Such lenses are usually very cheap because of their major flaws, but very often, those flaws often get totally cropped out.
          Also, size is a big factor to consider. I care a lot about portability.
          At least with Nikon, the full frame "FX" lenses are of much nicer construction, with metal mounts, metal bodies, and more & better glass. Most of the crop "DX" lenses have plastic bodies and flimsy plastic mounts. Bump the lens even just slightly and bam, you just cracked the mount (BTDT), the whole lens is trash now. And because the full frame lenses are built better, they're also heavier, so using them on a light weight crop sensor body makes for poor camera balance.
          For Canon, there are some pretty solid EF-S lenses. I have a 24mm STM prime lens that is all-metal, has incredibly fast and quiet autofocus, and is at least 1 full stop faster than the crappy kit lens at the same focal length (which is plastic, loud, and cheaply made, but at least the image quality is good).
          But yes, you're right about the lens compatibility, although I don't think too many folks actually do this i.e. use full frame lenses on a crop sensor body.
          I'm not sure how common it is. I myself have 4 lenses, 2 of which are full-frame.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

            2 words. Patents/Licensing
            Cry me a river, someone wants to get paid for their work.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rabcor View Post
              Cry me a river, someone wants to get paid for their work.
              I wish. Patents and Licensing under the current system is most people wanting to get paid for someone else work that they bought cheap.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                I wish. Patents and Licensing under the current system is most people wanting to get paid for someone else work that they bought cheap.
                If it's so easy to get it for cheap, why don't we have something better then?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rabcor View Post
                  If it's so easy to get it for cheap, why don't we have something better then?
                  https://www.investopedia.com/article...-they-work.asp
                  I did not say it was exactly easy to get cheap.

                  Company goes bankrupt a patent troll backing account comes to do receivership massively under values the patents and licensing and sells the patents and licensing to there own friendly patent troll who does their their books with them..

                  So this truly does sux badly you can spend millions R&D something go under because it and never see the money from the item you invented. One of the historic VR inventors was finding that he was having to be in court at his own cost to talk about the patent he took out before his company went bankrupt and all the profit from the case was going to a patent troll who got the patent by receiver ship.

                  Remember after a patent troll as got patents normal for less money than the paperwork of transfer was written on they will want the max possible payment.

                  So most of those wanting patent payments did not invent the work and just got the patents and licenses by receivership.

                  Really I do think it should be impossible to transfer patent. So its that you invent something you are the patent holder and if a company wants to use the items you invented/patented they have to employee the inventor. This would reduce the patent troll shark problem.

                  Please note this is real inventions. Patent trolls are also not past having someone legal write up a totally bogus patent that seams to have all the right words and get that patented so they may have spent zero dollars on R&D yet what to be paid for written up garbage they got past the patent office..

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X