Sony's EVIL GUI revealed (a bit) in CP+

badlydrawnroy wrote: Oh dear, I wish you had not asked.

I got that drift a while back in this thread. No need to worry.

This thread is exhausted, as we do not really discuss any GUI anymore, nor anything about GUIs.

I guess most people here are more interested in a small and great camera, but most of all are frustrated about what is at hand. It will pretty much be impossible to write anything about m43 like cameras without the "2mm R1" or the "Leica M8" tipping up. I will probably waste my time trying to point out the design issues with these every time, or what is needed to be great an pocket able.

Also, there is an issue with the very way dyxum threads develops, as only the very last few post are effectively read by the readers. I sometimes do make a valid point that is opposite to common believes, which can be a bit frustrating at times. Such points needs quite a bit of explanations for other people to understand them, only to find that a lot of users do not read the posts on the previous page.

I guess I just have to live with the "perceived" (what an annoying thing to throw in there) advantages of leaf shutters, the 2mm R1, the Leica, and protruding elements. It is a battle lost, as it is not a design discussion, but a discussion of what we all want: A small pocket able great camera.

Frode

roweraay wrote: Even the R1 used a leaf-shutter in its lens with no focal-plane shutter. I would expect this new mount to follow that direction. Sophisticated leaf-shutters can operate faster than the fastest focal plane shutters available currently.....while providing full flash x-sync at all shutter speeds.

That's easy for a camera without interchangeable lenses. I doubt that Sony will do this with their new system as that would mean higher lens costs due to having the shutter in each one. Also what about using existing A-mount lenses on it? I suppose it might be possible to put the shutter in the adapter but I can't image they would go that route.

I think it sounds interesting.

Sondermann wrote: Nevertheless I still think that it remains to be seen whether people disagree with your points simply because ... they are, well, questionable.

This is exactly, again, what I speak off. I do not care who says what, I care about the good argument and the why and the how.

A lot of people just throw out that they disagree or as in this case, that my points are questionable. I rather want to know what is questionable and why, so I can get the most accurate understanding of the issues. I do not feel the need to start a new thread, I am simply giving up discussing design in this forum, until there is a real interest to do so.

Those who care to engage in a real discussion beyond "look at the R1 and Leica and ignore their design limits", then I will be interested. Being labeled "questionable" do not really add any to a constructive debate, nor does it give me any desire to participate any further.

Continuing the registration distance discussion in this thread is a dead end. I might give a real design thread discussion a go one of these days, hoping to keep it on topic and about the topic.

Frode

Again, registration distance has nothing to do with the telecentrism of the lens. Registration distance it's completely independent of the optics.   Oly made the registration distance so deep because they wanted to be able to do a sideways swinging mirror, which the only ended up using in 2 bodies (E330 and E300).

They designed their mount around a bad idea, which they only tried twice, which were failed bodies, and lead them to making a whole new mount years later instead of being able to call their current mount good enough.

On the Leica, off set micro lenses work fine as you go more tele. They aren't going to hurt things. Yes, M bodies only go out to 135mm. But it's not that the design from an optic stand point couldn't go further. M bodies are just limited by the Range Finder.   But there are practical reasons too. Only big tele stuff happens beyond 135. A great deal of folks could go throughout there lives and never have a lens longer than 135. People did exactly that for decades. If you had a 180 or a 200 mm lens in the manual focus era you were about as far as non-pro's went.    With a small camera, not much interest is there in going super tele. That's why such needs will be covered with adapters for years to come. But also the days of the big tele are ticking down. As things move forwards, tele end of things will be handled more and more with cropping. 35mm FF cameras in the 30MP range may be just a heart beat away, and expecting a 60MP camera isn't to much of a stretch. Eventually cameras will just be single (or an assortment of 3-4) fixed lenses and do all the zoom with cropping.

I bet a lot of folks are looking at the future evil mounts and just wanting 3-4 (maybe 5 if they go for a macro) lenses. All small primes. Ranging from 14 to 135mm equivalent. And that becomes their entire kit in a nice small, high quality kit. Just like Leica M users have done for a half century.

RubberDials wrote: PhotoTraveler wrote: You don't want to be stuck with too big of a mount.   Original 4/3rds messed that bit up. That was done to maximise the posibilities of telecentricism in lens design. PhotoTraveler wrote: Offset micro lenses can almost cure any issue from the lens being close to sensor, this has been seen in the Leica M9. The m9 sensor was built to match existing M lenses (designed for film) - a unique situation for Leica where users don't tend to buy new lenses often and wouldn't tolerate a camera that made all lenses to date seriously underperform. Also the Leica M system doesn't really do tele, where the offset microlenses would start to be a drawback. No doubt the offset sensor is more expensive to produce as well. Starting a system from scratch with a range of lenses from wide to tele the Olympus method makes perfect sense and Sony will go the same way.

PhotoTraveler wrote: I bet a lot of folks are looking at the future evil mounts and just wanting 3-4 (maybe 5 if they go for a macro) lenses. All small primes. Ranging from 14 to 135mm equivalent. And that becomes their entire kit in a nice small, high quality kit. Just like Leica M users have done for a half century.

This is exactly what I want. I love my A900, but I've considered selling all of my a mount gear for an M9 and a lens or two. I haven't quite been able to stomach the cost, so a more affordable solution is welcome.


p.s. interestingly enough.....link to rangefinder news

Edited by douglasf13 - 30 March 2010 at 04:33

RubberDials wrote: Also a 35mm f1.2 is impossible.

Voigtlander makes a 35mm f/1.2. I've heard that Samyang does as well.