Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: ray on 6 Jul 2010 22:09 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:24:05 -0700, nospam wrote: > In article <89i2oqF8kiU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris F.A. Johnson > <cfajohnson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> No comment on your ignorance about number of Linux users. >> > >> > Oh, my mistake. The _6_ people who use Linux as a desktop etc. etc. >> >> I know hundreds of Linux desktop Linux users in one city alone. (And >> that's probably a small percentage of those who use it.) > > hundreds! that many?? If there are only a few hundred users there, that could indeed be a very large percentage. > > now go look at how many mac and windows users there are. Checked - seven and five.
From: Bruce on 7 Jul 2010 03:54 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:01:16 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: >Bruce wrote: >> >> It isn't a reflex camera. It has no reflex mirror, and no reflex >> viewfinder. >> >> It is therefore not - by any stretch of anyone's imagination - an SLR. >> >> This isn't just semantics. It is about the fundamental principle of >> what type of camera it is. No matter how many times you claim that it >> is an SLR (single lens reflex) camera, it is *not* and never will be. >> >> You're showing your ignorance, and you know it. Don't! >> >> >You're right. I spoke too hastily. You're forgiven. ;-) But you have pointed out a problem with the marketing methods used by digital camera manufacturers. They really want you to think you are buying an DSLR. Their product looks like a DSLR and feels like one. It's only when you look into the viewfinder that you realise it isn't, and of course the noisy results from the tiny sensor confirm that. I think one manufacturer actually has the cheek to call their superzoom product a "DSLR-style camera". It's a not-so-subtle way of hinting at DSLR image quality without actually providing it. (no doubt the resident anti-DSLR troll will be along in a minute with his usual anti-DSLR rant!)
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 7 Jul 2010 08:12 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:201007040740318930-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-07-04 07:03:10 -0700, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> said: > >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, james wrote: >> >>> SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why >>> high end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off, >>> not a feature. >> >> I think one significant reason is that many purchasers are repeat buyers >> - they already HAVE CF cards. IMHO - best route is to make a camera >> capable of using CF and SD. > > ...and that is what I have with my D300s. But not my 7d :) That is the one feature I wish my camera had. Not a deal breaker as I already had plenty of CF cards but I do wish it used SD cards also like the Nikon.
From: ray on 7 Jul 2010 11:02 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:08:21 -0400, krishnananda wrote: > In article <89hiahF852U33(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:14:24 -0400, krishnananda wrote: >> >> > In article <89gu75F852U27(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:27:43 -0400, krishnananda wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article <i0v17o$pee$1(a)qmul>, >> >> > "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "ray" <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:89f1q4F852U22(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:43:15 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > See other reply. Canon makes things other than cameras - e.g. >> >> >> > printers. Until they show a little Linux support, I prefer to >> >> >> > ignore all their offerings. I don't expect you or anyone else >> >> >> > to be with me - but that is my reason. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can almost understand your stance, it's similar to some friends >> >> >> I have that are vegetarian and refuse to go in to McDonalds . >> >> >> >> >> >> But I'm curious about one thing is it that Canon OS doesn't >> >> >> support Linux or is it that Linux don't support Canon ? >> >> > >> >> > Perhaps users of FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, NetBSD, and other *server* >> >> > operating systems should also boycott Canon, Nikon, and other >> >> > vendors of *consumer-level* software? >> >> > >> >> > For the 5 people using Linux as their desktop OS, well Linux >> >> > itself was always roll your own. Don't like Canon? Write your own >> >> > software. >> >> >> >> Folk have indeed written software to handle, for example, Canon raw >> >> file types. What they can't do is write software for 'winprinters' >> >> and other Canon products - at least without proper documentation. >> >> >> >> No comment on your ignorance about number of Linux users. >> > >> > Oh, my mistake. The _6_ people who use Linux as a desktop etc. etc. >> > >> > Canon won't even release their latest RAW file specs to Adobe let >> > alone the innards of something called a "WIN-printer". I'll go out on >> > a limb and guess that there will never be a Mac driver for a >> > WINprinter and I don't care. I don't find it necessary to boycott >> > Canon or whine interminably about how everyone picks on my computer's >> > operating system. >> > >> > >> Not whining at all. Also not trying to convert anyone. I was asked why >> I eschew Canon and I replied - no more, no less. >> >> > Get over it. Their legal department probably had mass apoplexy at the >> > thought of all those pissed off Linux users suing Canon over some >> > teenager's "open source" software that is supposed to work perfectly >> > on all computers and all Canon devices but crashes instead. >> > >> > Remember, the corollary to free software is the deep-pockets rule of >> > lawsuits. >> >> I'm not asking that Canon develop Linux drivers - simply allow others >> to write them. They don't, so I don't. > > All kidding and tongue-in-cheek aside (and I _was_ kidding...) it seems > to me that trying to get Winprinters to print from operating systems > other than Windows would only be worth it if the printer itself is > something special. > > Like Winmodems of days gone by, Winprinters (technically Graphics Device > Interface printers) rely on the host OS for all image processing and > therefore can be manufactured extremely cheaply. If there was something > like ultra-high resolution or hexachrome printing I could see making the > effort, but for the el-cheapo printers Canon makes as GDI devices I'd > rather use a decent printer instead. None of the GDI printers uses a > proper RIP, certainly not PostScript. > > What I don't know is whether you could hook up a Winprinter and then > print to it under WINE. That is a kluge, of course, but I'd rather use a > high-end high-resolution printer anyway. > > Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winprinter#GDI_printers> (just > because it's on the wiki thing doesn't automatically mean it's wrong...) > > Oh, and according to <www.numberof.net> their estimate as of June 2010 > there are approximately 19 million Linux users :-) Does the term 'example' mean anything to you?
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Jul 2010 15:19
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:t8c8361e99j167jvk3hvm7kcupg0vkof0l(a)4ax.com... > > (no doubt the resident anti-DSLR troll will be along in a minute with > his usual anti-DSLR rant!) Yep, there he is, right on cue. |