« Baker's Dozen: Sheet Film (Call for Work) | Main | Are Classic Photographs Still Relevant? »

Monday, 16 October 2017

Comments

I've actually been considering some sort of underwater rig for my Nikons, right now a quality Aquatech housing is North of $2k. So with my (((awesome))) power of rationalization a 1" Sony Action Camera for only $700 sounds like a fantastic bargain.

Of course it will be an even (((awesomer))) bargain next year when they exit the marketplace and blow them out for 1/3 the price.

And now even 'Tessar' is nothing more than marketing jibberish.

The lens is "six elements in six groups", so...maybe hektor, then (hektos = Greek for six)? Granted according to wikipedia, the Leitz Hektor was named such by Max Berek after his dog, so maybe not.

Mike, four big laughs in one post? Your gift for writing has finally given the internet a useful purpose. Who knew?

I’m glad Sony finally, finally got back the full zoom range in the RX100. 70mm max was ridic. I had to get a Canon GX7 II to get a modern camera. That one is really good, but a little larger than the RX100.

At 75+, I think you would consider me a graybeard, although I think of myself as a 16 y.o. trapped in a greybeard body. I've never owned a digicam or bridgecam.—never saw the need.

My first digital camera was a Canon 20D. I'm still using xxD Canons. I've considered a mirrorless Canon M6, but lack of short primes keeps me away—I already own a system with a dearth of short primes, why would I buy into another one?

Now to the meat. The Sony RX0 is nothing more or less than a digital crash-cam. Bell & Howell made a 35mm spring-wound movie camera that was used by combat cameramen during WW2.
Hollywood converted many of the inexpensive Eyemos into crash-cams. They were used when you didn't want to risk an expensive Arri, Mitchell or Panavision camera.

Today an inexpensive RX0 would stand-in for an expensive Sony CineAlta. camera. Sony should sell half-a-dozen, or more, to every TV show and feature film. A camera that could be profitable while never selling a single one to consumers. Just my $.02 opinion, based on movie-biz experience.

I have nothing to say about these cameras, but Yr. Hmbl. Ed's comment about his possibly deficient technical skills leads me to a non-relevant boast: today, on my own, I set up a new Canon wireless printer. It required me to download a driver for my Mac as well as a user guide that ran to several hundred pages. On one of those pages I found a brief numbered paragraph that said something to the effect (I can't quote it because I'd have to find it again, and I probably couldn't) of "Turn the printer on and push the WPS button on your router." I turned the printer on, went to the router, which is an unexamined box that sits on my desk collecting dust and flashing lights at me, and sure enough, it had a WPS button. I pushed it, and a second later, the Canon beeped and said, "Connected."

Much to my astonishment, it was, and I printed out a manuscript page. Is this a great country, or what? Okay, maybe Japan is.

Minox has 8mm x 11mm negative size, and a non-zoom 15mm lens.

I almost got excited about the RX-0 when you described a proper Tessar regarding it's lens. Alas, it's just another marketing lie.

I'd dearly love for some company to come out with a cheap pancake 25/2.8 true Tessar for m4/3, like all the classic ones that for so many years was the look of 35mm photography. But I suppose that wouldn't be "sophisticated" enough for the modern marketplace.

Maybe even make a limited run with one or (gasp!) no coatings like the Tessar/Elmar that came with the earliest Contax & Leicas?

A 25/2 Sonnar would be a killer lens too - or a 25/2 Summitar/early Summicron clone would be fun too.

But everyone seems to want clinically sharp scalpels with a gazillion aspherical & ultra high reflective index elements rather than interesting lenses that you can take out in the field and have fun with. The fast Panasonic 25/1.7 I have is a good lens, no doubt, but unlike some folks the best lenses I've ever owned are all older than I am at a mere 54 years. A real Tessar would make me a very happy camper but I'm probably going to have more success getting the kids to stay off my lawn...

There are several cameras that I really wish I had a use for (but at the same time my wallet is glad that I don't) - and the RX1 might be at the top of that list.

Slightly related: A while back my wife and I looked at GoPros for use as underwater (scuba) cameras. But in the end we went for an RX100 Mk? and a good underwater housing instead.

Turned out to be a good choice.

The larger sensor gives it a large boost in low-light, which you find a lot of when you get under 20 meters of water. It's also better at stills, but still amazing for video.

But most importantly, it has the option of shooting RAW, which is great, since white balance under water is not something camera makers design into their JPEG engines (I know of one, but they only update their camera once every 5 years or so).

I am having lots of fun with my GoPro 5, just saying...

...full-frame (24x36mm, or 35mm size, sometimes confusingly called 135)...

Calling it 35mm is just as confusing as calling it 135, because it refers to the width of the perforated filmstrip that Oscar Barnack used in the first Kleinbild Leica. It has nothing to to with the measures of a 24x36mm sensor.

[Not correct. 35mm refers to the standard film and anything associated with it, including most cameras that use it. And of course it has everything to do with the size of "full frame" sensors, a size that was chosen because it is the standard size of the image area of a 35mm negative or slide and is the area that the image circles of "full frame" (35mm) lenses cover.

You're confusing the origin of the term "35mm" with what it denotes. --Mike]

The spherical camera Dennis referenced may be the Insta 360 Air (https://www.amazon.com/Insta360-Air-Android-connector-CINMAIR/dp/B01MZBPQQV/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508248910&sr=8-1&keywords=insta360+air) which is used for 360 video by users of the Periscope app, aka "scopers." It's actually very cool to watch (participate) in one of those scopes.

To risk following on from Hugh Crawford, on should know that aside from Horsepower which can be measured according to various US standards, there is also a German version defined by DIN, which is denoted by PS (Pfeffenstarck). The thing is, a German horse is about 1% smaller than an American horse, so motorcycle companies started specifying engine performance in PS rather than HP because they were "metric horsepower," a conceit that was happily followed by the magazines.
That the correct "metric" mesure of power is the KW was of no interest, since 200hp must be better than 152kW...

Mike,
1) I have a chronic distrust for retracting lens systems of small digital cameras, including some micro 4/3 systems. They all have given me trouble with the cables in the lens assembly. I suspect this camera too has that sort of system.
2) These cameras are far too expensive. At the present price levels of one of these cute little cameras I can get a middle order larger sensor Canikon DSLR and a decent set of lenses. Except for the small size, they have nothing to write home about. Those Canikons have better functionality than those over hyped small cameras.

I think foot and inch is more human. In fact if you google it, the measurement standard is human based. Not like meter. Every one very few exception is 1.x meter. You may think it is easy to remember but that is due more to familiarity but not logic. Any good number system for human shall be x.y e.g. 5 feet 3 inch or 6 feet 7 inch. Not 1 meter something.

It is modern standard to have meter.

it is pre and post modern to have a human scale.

I think the biggest shame for me is that the RX0 could instantly become the Scuba video camera of choice for many of us hobby divers, however WHY is the underwater case $900? That's $200 more than the camera.
I really hope a 3rd party makes a more affordable option.

Well, my RX100 is dearly loved, but also clearly abused. Used it outdoors, accompanying me on hikes and trail runs, so not exactly the softest of circumstances.
Now, I'd love to have something like an RX1RII, but since I couldn't afford it, that might not be good. RX100 again? Well, expensive enough that I could get an a6300 or such, at least.
But then, everything would get too big, again.
It's all a mess.

In comes, possibly, the RX0. Maybe it would be just about as good as my RX100 when it comes to still photography; it's definitely better in low-light than an action cam... and I put most of my photos just on my blog (meaning, though I dislike the "only" 15MP of the RX0, they're still overkill) and more and more videos on YouTube.
Both should be doable with the RX0, at a price I can afford - and that would be a much better cam to have with me on trail runs, in rain, around rocks. And in the city and in restaurants, where I love to try photography or videos but hate being one of those obvious shooters...

[Then again, the RX0 doesn't have an eyepiece viewfinder, so how is it much different from a good phone if you're not going to use it remotely? If you're not into Apple (a friend just got the iPhone 8+ and loves it), check out the Google Pixel XL, Samsung Galaxy S8+, or Huawei Mate 9.

For that matter, if you already have a phone, check out the DxO One. Apple only for the moment, but it's coming to Android soon. --Mike]

You might wish to caution John Camp and any others that still have WPS enabled on their routers, that feature is a known security vulnerability and should be disabled in your router preferences. Don't know how to get to your router preferences? That means that you likely didn't change the default admin password on your router, either, the leading cause of remote hacks on said routers. The problem with modern electronics, is that you must sign up for the 'care and feeding' of said electronics, else they may bite you in the nether regions.

The comments to this entry are closed.