flickr-free-ic3d pan white
View allAll Photos Tagged Systems+management

The Val D'Orcia at Dawn of a new day CF004718

 

Cambo WD + Phase One IQ140

Lens : Schneider APO-Digitar 35mm f/5.6 XL

 

Exposition 0,6 sec; F11 ISO 50

Filter : Formatt Hitech Glass Fog 1/2 and Lee 03 Soft

Post production: Capture One 8 Pro & PS

 

Hello everyone,

Thank you so much for your visit and support ..

 

All Right Reserved. Pictures can not be used without explicit permission by the creator Fabrizio Massetti

 

28COM 14B.51 - Nominations of Cultural Properties to the World Heritage List (Val d'Orcia)

 

Val d'Orcia

 

The landscape of Val d’Orcia is part of the agricultural hinterland of Siena, redrawn and developed when it was integrated in the territory of the city-state in the 14th and 15th centuries to reflect an idealized model of good governance and to create an aesthetically pleasing picture. The landscape’s distinctive aesthetics, flat chalk plains out of which rise almost conical hills with fortified settlements on top, inspired many artists. Their images have come to exemplify the beauty of well-managed Renaissance agricultural landscapes. The inscription covers: an agrarian and pastoral landscape reflecting innovative land-management systems; towns and villages; farmhouses; and the Roman Via Francigena and its associated abbeys, inns, shrines, bridges, etc.

 

Justification for Inscription.

 

Criterion (iv): The Val d’Orcia is an exceptional reflection of the way the landscape was re-written in Renaissance times to reflect the ideals of good governance and to create an aesthetically pleasing pictures.

Criterion (vi): The landscape of the Val d’Orcia was celebrated by painters from the Siennese School, which flourished during the Renaissance. Images of the Val d’Orcia, and particularly depictions of landscapes where people are depicted as living in harmony with nature, have come to be seen as icons of the Renaissance and have profoundly influenced the development of landscape thinking.

 

Source: Advisory Body Evaluation

The Green at ValD'Orcia.CF004781

 

Hello everyone,

Thank you so much for your visit and support ..

 

All Right Reserved. Pictures can not be used without explicit permission by the creator Fabrizio Massetti

 

28COM 14B.51 - Nominations of Cultural Properties to the World Heritage List (Val d'Orcia)

 

Val d'Orcia

 

The landscape of Val d’Orcia is part of the agricultural hinterland of Siena, redrawn and developed when it was integrated in the territory of the city-state in the 14th and 15th centuries to reflect an idealized model of good governance and to create an aesthetically pleasing picture. The landscape’s distinctive aesthetics, flat chalk plains out of which rise almost conical hills with fortified settlements on top, inspired many artists. Their images have come to exemplify the beauty of well-managed Renaissance agricultural landscapes. The inscription covers: an agrarian and pastoral landscape reflecting innovative land-management systems; towns and villages; farmhouses; and the Roman Via Francigena and its associated abbeys, inns, shrines, bridges, etc.

 

Justification for Inscription.

 

Criterion (iv): The Val d’Orcia is an exceptional reflection of the way the landscape was re-written in Renaissance times to reflect the ideals of good governance and to create an aesthetically pleasing pictures.

Criterion (vi): The landscape of the Val d’Orcia was celebrated by painters from the Siennese School, which flourished during the Renaissance. Images of the Val d’Orcia, and particularly depictions of landscapes where people are depicted as living in harmony with nature, have come to be seen as icons of the Renaissance and have profoundly influenced the development of landscape thinking.

 

Source: Advisory Body Evaluation

The Amsterdam canal system is the result of conscious city planning. In the early 17th century, when immigration was at a peak, a comprehensive plan was developed that was based on four concentric half-circles of canals with their ends emerging at the IJ bay. Known as the Grachtengordel, three of the canals were mostly for residential development: the Herengracht (Gentlemen's or more accurately Patricians' Canal), Keizersgracht (Emperor's Canal), and Prinsengracht (Prince's Canal). The fourth and outermost canal is the Singelgracht, which is often not mentioned on maps, because it is an collective name for all canals in the outer ring. The Singelgracht should not be confused with the oldest and most inner canal Singel. The canals served the purposes of defense and water management. The defenses took the form of a moat and earthen dikes, with gates at transit points, but otherwise no masonry superstructures. The original plans have been lost, so some historians need to speculate on the original intentions: it is thought that the considerations of the layout were purely practical and defensive rather than ornamental.

The eastern part of the concentric canal plan, covering the area between the Amstel river and the IJ bay, has never been implemented. In the following centuries, the land was used for parks, senior citizens' homes, theaters, other public facilities, and waterways without much planning.

Over the years, several canals have been filled in, becoming streets or squares...

Actually the territory of canals divided by swans and ducks, sometimes they have a wars... Here is the winner observing his posessions.

 

Much better viewed large View On Black

A nice spot coming up from the bottom of the Grassmarket with a view of Lothians Edinburgh castle, close to the place of the Flodden wall. Some call it school steps I think. The street lamps have recently been changed to something more in keeping with a "Sherlock Holmes in Edinburgh" period type feel.

 

View for legal use on Alamy here here

 

Taken here between Christmas and New Year on the night of Hogmanay, the snow and ice of December give it a nice lightness, even at dusk. This is the calm before the storm as the party starts in Princes St and the gardens as the stage fires up to welcome in the new years celebrations. 2009 2010 2011 2012. Everyone needs a street party ticket and a wristband to enter the city arena area, unlike many years ago when it was a bit more easy going. Now there is a midnight torchlight procession from Parliament Square via the historic Lothian Edinburgh Royal Mile to the Son et Lumiére and fireworks finale on Calton Hill. On Edinburg new years day the the loony dook is the place to take a swim at South Queensferry in the river Forth in the shadow of the Forth Railway Bridge over to Fife.

 

Edinburgh Castle is a castle fortress which dominates the skyline of the city of Edinburgh, Scotland, from its position atop the volcanic Castle Rock. Human habitation of the site is dated back as far as the 9th century BC, although the nature of early settlement is unclear. There has been a royal castle here since at least the reign of David I in the 12th century, and the site continued to be a royal residence until the Union of the Crowns in 1603.

 

As one of the most important fortresses in the Kingdom of Scotland, Edinburgh Castle has been involved in many historical conflicts, from the Wars of Scottish Independence in the 14th century, up to the Jacobite Rising of 1745, and has been besieged, both successfully and unsuccessfully, on several occasions. From the later 17th century, the castle became a military base, with a large garrison. Its importance as a historic monument was recognised from the 19th century, and various restoration programmes have been carried out since.

 

Few of the present buildings pre-date the Lang Siege of the 16th century, when the medieval fortifications were largely destroyed by artillery bombardment. The notable exception is St Margaret's Chapel, the oldest surviving building in Edinburgh, which dates from the early 12th century. Among other significant buildings of the castle are the Royal Palace, and the early-16th-century Great Hall. The castle also houses the Scottish National War Memorial, and National War Museum of Scotland.

 

A panorama from Scotland's Western Isles www.flickr.com/photos/hotpixuk/3890901488/

 

Another dusk shot from close to Edinburgh www.flickr.com/photos/hotpixuk/4241055295/

 

A similar shot, a panorama this time from Liverpool and the river mersey www.flickr.com/photos/hotpixuk/4392932861/

 

 

Have a look at some of my other Edinburgh images on Flickr - www.flickr.com/search/?q=Edinburgh&w=33062170@N08 .

 

Keep in touch, add me as a contact www.flickr.com/relationship.gne?id=33062170@N08

 

(c) Hotpix / HotpixUK Tony Smith - Hotpix.freeserve.co.uk WDCC 07092182899

 

This image is copyright and must not be used on websites or reproduced without express permission of the author.

The countryside of the Val d'Orcia at sunrise CF004747

Phase One DF+ Phase One IQ140

  

Exposition 0,3 sec; F16 ISO 50

Lens: Mamiya 55-110 F 4.5

Filter : Formatt Hitech Glass Fog 1/2 and Lee 06 Soft

Post production: Capture One 8 Pro & PS

 

Hello everyone,

Thank you so much for your visit and support ..

 

All Right Reserved. Pictures can not be used without explicit permission by the creator Fabrizio Massetti

 

28COM 14B.51 - Nominations of Cultural Properties to the World Heritage List (Val d'Orcia)

 

Val d'Orcia

 

The landscape of Val d’Orcia is part of the agricultural hinterland of Siena, redrawn and developed when it was integrated in the territory of the city-state in the 14th and 15th centuries to reflect an idealized model of good governance and to create an aesthetically pleasing picture. The landscape’s distinctive aesthetics, flat chalk plains out of which rise almost conical hills with fortified settlements on top, inspired many artists. Their images have come to exemplify the beauty of well-managed Renaissance agricultural landscapes. The inscription covers: an agrarian and pastoral landscape reflecting innovative land-management systems; towns and villages; farmhouses; and the Roman Via Francigena and its associated abbeys, inns, shrines, bridges, etc.

 

Justification for Inscription.

 

Criterion (iv): The Val d’Orcia is an exceptional reflection of the way the landscape was re-written in Renaissance times to reflect the ideals of good governance and to create an aesthetically pleasing pictures.

Criterion (vi): The landscape of the Val d’Orcia was celebrated by painters from the Siennese School, which flourished during the Renaissance. Images of the Val d’Orcia, and particularly depictions of landscapes where people are depicted as living in harmony with nature, have come to be seen as icons of the Renaissance and have profoundly influenced the development of landscape thinking.

 

Source: Advisory Body Evaluation

You were the shadow to my light

Did you feel us

Another Start

You fade away

Afraid our aim is out of sight

Wanna see us

Alive

Where are you now

Where are you now

Where are you now

Was it all in my fantasy

Where are you now

Were you only imaginary

 

Where are you now - Atlantis

Under the sea

Under the sea

Where are you now

Another dream

The monsters running wild inside of me

I'm faded

I'm faded

So lost, I'm faded

I'm faded

So lost, I'm faded

 

These shallow waters, never met

What i needed

I'm letting go - A deeper dive

Eternal silence of the sea - I'm breathing

Alive

Where are you now

Where are you now

Under the bright - but faded lights

You've set my heart on fire

Where are you now

 

- Faded / Alan Walker

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

Lake Biwa ( Biwako )

 

Lake Biwa is Japan's largest lake, which has a total area of approximately 670 ㎢ and a circumference of approximately 235 km. Its average depth is approximately 41 meters and deepest point approximately 104 meters. It supports an abundance of life and industry around the area widely.

 

It is also regarded as the third oldest ancient lake in the world, after Lake Baikal and LakeTanganyika,and which is calculated at over four million years old. It was designated as a UNESCO Ramsar Wetland(1993) in accordance with the Ramsar Convention.

- Wikipedia

  

Water Quality of Lake Biwa

 

In 1977, a large-scale freshwater red tide occurred in Lake Biwa . However, due to subsequent efforts to improve the lake’s water quality, the inflow of phosphorous has decreased, which has led to reductions in both phosphorus concentration and eutrophication. Meanwhile, however, we have seen the emergence of a new problem: the level of chemical oxygen demand (COD), an indicator of organic matter pollution, has gradually increased in the lake, despite the reduced pollutant inflow into the lake. This gradual increase may be partly attributable to persistent organic pollutants, which are hard to decompose by microorganisms. Based on research findings obtained so far, Shiga Prefecture will promote further studies to see what impacts persistent organic pollutants have on Lake Biwa’s environment, including its ecosystems.

   

Global warming and Lake Biwa

 

The average annual temperature of Hikone City, Shiga Prefecture is increasing by 1.2℃ per 100 years. Similarly, the temperature of Lake Biwa’s surface has also been on the rise. Ongoing global warming may be causing new problems for Lake Biwa such as depleted oxygen levels in the hypolimnion of the northern basin Global warming is also considered to adversely affect the lake’s ecosystems, rice and other agricultural products, and people’s everyday lives.

  

Shiga Prefecture aims to realize a low-carbon society, where greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 will be reduced by 50% compared with 1990 levels. Toward this end, the Shiga Prefecture’s Ordinance to Promote a Low-Carbon Society went into effect on April 1, 2011. Moreover, Shiga Prefecture has drawn up its Roadmap for a Low-Carbon Society, which shows a course for moving ahead while striving for optimal balance between environmental conservation and economic development.

   

Biodiversity in and around Lake Biwa

 

The Lake Biwa water system is home to 1,000 or more species of aquatic fauna and flora, with more than 60 confirmed to be indigenous. However,nigorobuna crucian carp (Carassius auratus grandoculis), setashijimi or Seta clam (Corbicula sandai), and other endemic species that are familiar to local residents have been listed as endangered in the 2010 Shiga Prefecture Red Data Book.

 

The factors contributing to the decline of endemic species include a decrease in the number of spawning and breeding grounds, and increase of invasive alien species, such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and blue gill (Lepomis macrochiru). The propagation of introduced alien fish and plants has disrupted the pristine ecosystem of Lake Biwa. In recent years, the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries have been seriously damaged by wild birds and animals, such as macaque, deer, and great cormorants. In the fishing grounds in Lake Biwa and connected rivers, serious concerns have arisen regarding great cormorants, which eat a large amount of fish and damage fishing implements. At the nesting places of the cormorants, tree branches are broken when they build nests, and trees are killed by the birds’ droppings, causing damage to forests and landscapes.

  

Biodiversity in and around Lake Biwa

   

In March 2006, the Ordinance on Symbiosis with Wild Fauna and Flora was enacted. This Ordinance aims to realize harmonious coexistence between people and wildlife by promoting measures to protect rare wild species and countermeasures against alien species and harmful wildlife. Through such legislation, Shiga Prefecture endeavors to achieve optimal coexistence with wild fauna and flora.

   

Forests and Lake Biwa

 

In Shiga Prefecture, forests cover 200,000 hectares, i.e. roughly half the total area of the prefecture, accounting for about 60% of the land area. Most rainwater falling in forests surrounding Lake Biwa flows into the lake, which nurtures rich ecosystems and thereby sustains our lives.

 

In addition to playing these roles as a water source, forests offer a variety of values such as disaster prevention and timber production.

 

Currently, an increasing number of forests are ill-managed and devastated due to various changes in socioeconomic conditions and people’s lifestyles. If we allow these forests to continue to deteriorate, the subsequent decline in the multifunctionality of forests will have significant impact on our everyday lives. - Shiga prefecture

 

Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy

The cultural landscape of Bali consists of five rice terraces and their water temples that cover 19,500 ha. The temples are the focus of a cooperative water management system of canals and weirs, known as subak, that dates back to the 9th century. Included in the landscape is the 18th-century Royal Water Temple of Pura Taman Ayun, the largest and most impressive architectural edifice of its type on the island. The subak reflects the philosophical concept of Tri Hita Karana, which brings together the realms of the spirit, the human world and nature. This philosophy was born of the cultural exchange between Bali and India over the past 2,000 years and has shaped the landscape of Bali. The subak system of democratic and egalitarian farming practices has enabled the Balinese to become the most prolific rice growers in the archipelago despite the challenge of supporting a dense population.

Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy

The cultural landscape of Bali consists of five rice terraces and their water temples that cover 19,500 ha. The temples are the focus of a cooperative water management system of canals and weirs, known as subak, that dates back to the 9th century. Included in the landscape is the 18th-century Royal Water Temple of Pura Taman Ayun, the largest and most impressive architectural edifice of its type on the island. The subak reflects the philosophical concept of Tri Hita Karana, which brings together the realms of the spirit, the human world and nature. This philosophy was born of the cultural exchange between Bali and India over the past 2,000 years and has shaped the landscape of Bali. The subak system of democratic and egalitarian farming practices has enabled the Balinese to become the most prolific rice growers in the archipelago despite the challenge of supporting a dense population.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy

The cultural landscape of Bali consists of five rice terraces and their water temples that cover 19,500 ha. The temples are the focus of a cooperative water management system of canals and weirs, known as subak, that dates back to the 9th century. Included in the landscape is the 18th-century Royal Water Temple of Pura Taman Ayun, the largest and most impressive architectural edifice of its type on the island. The subak reflects the philosophical concept of Tri Hita Karana, which brings together the realms of the spirit, the human world and nature. This philosophy was born of the cultural exchange between Bali and India over the past 2,000 years and has shaped the landscape of Bali. The subak system of democratic and egalitarian farming practices has enabled the Balinese to become the most prolific rice growers in the archipelago despite the challenge of supporting a dense population.

This specific image was made with Sony A7R

  

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So will Nikon/Canon/Sony still be around in 2020?

I think Canon may survive but Nikon will not be around in this business by 2020(I do not mean it will go bankrupt). They are severely criticized for their slow adaptation of new techs. In Hokkaido, I met many many people still shooting D-SLRs and they were rude and blindedly believing in the ancient semi-analogue 1950th tech of their Canon Nikon cameras the absolute best, it was like a bad religion. But even in D-SLR land, there are not many guys still shooting Nikons any more, I think 8 out of 10 people still using DSLRs today shooting Canon, and they seem to ratiocinating their choice to the better lens selection of Canon, the better support and QC of Canon and Nikon's long neglecting of a proper D300s update. Actually, I was kind of able to relate to some of them if I still had some Nikon glass, I was waiting for a D700 successor in addition to my D810 for a long time, but I got tired of it and moved to Sony.

Now, they can get the D500 but many of them told me it was just too late, they've already bought a couple of EOS7DM2 with more than 10k worth of EF glass.

And Nikon is very very slow adapting to new tech and sudden market changes or environmental changes surrounding this unceasingly contracting stills camera market. How many years did they actually need to produce actual 4k capable consumer grade cameras in the D500 and the D5? How many years did they need to actually make their very first FF camera in the D3?

 

So is Nikon sinking or doing just fine?

The camera companies(especially Nikon) do need to listen to our iPhone generation photographers.

By carefully studying our young gen customers' shooting behaviors I find they do almost never use the OVF when they try out one of our displayed D-SLRs.

They cellphone generation boys always just hold cameras we display at our shops in front of their face with arms stretched out to see the LCD, never looking into the EVF or OVF when they try out any camera we display at our shops.

This means to them DSLR AF feels extremely slow, they always pan the DSLRs as slower than their smartphones in AF. We older people around 30 or older know if they shoot through the VF, the D-SLRs are actually still faster than most of mirrorless cameras out there(at least in C AF mode), maybe the Panasonic GH4, the GX8, maybe also the new GX85 and some latest gen Olympus being rare exceptions. But the young boys/girls almost never shoot through the VF unless they are already pretty well experienced or educated in this very odd hobby or art.

So after trying out a Canon or a Nikon FF D-SLR for about 10 minutes, many of our lovely young customers tell us,"we just gave up on DSLR AF already, it is too slow, just so annoying and we do not have time waiting for it to AF on what we want it to focus on,they are useless ".

 

Well, while I think they have no patience and the problem is obviously themselves not the camera, honestly, even if I were not a mirrorless shooter, I would still likely think very similarly about the D-SLRs and the dated tunnel view OVF since I have been quite used to using LCD and EVF devices since about I was 18y/o. So I definitely have no hard feeling on the EVF and the LCD LV shooting like many of my aged people have on the Sony or Fuji EVF cameras. I actually much prefer the current generation EVF and LCD to any of the current best tunnel view OVF from Canon or Nikon. I think even the 1DXMk2 OVF is not as good as the best EVF on the XT1 or the A7R2 for precise manual focus.

I think camera makers are too narrow-minded and conservative or stupid to ignore those kind of younger after digital era or iPhone gen people, but they should focus on them and they even need to educate them how to use cameras properly.

Many many those who claim themselves pro reviewers think the OVF cameras are faster in AF than the EVF cameras and they still always recommend the DSLRs for action shooters.

But I know many of our customers who are younger than me never use the VF when they try any camera out at our shops, and therefore, they think the DSLRs are actually much slower in AF even in C(action tracking mode), and they are right, the D-SLRs are super slow and unreliable in LV mode. The D-SLRs(especially Nikons) are slow, I mean super slow to the point I consider it is useless in LV mode. In fact, the only 2 D-SLRs I know of to have fast LV AF are the EOS80D and the EOS7DMK2, which I've panned a few times for the poor quality sensor with the terrible conversion noise issue. All the Nikon FX D-SLRs that have a superb sensor with clean base ISO performance have terribly slow, almost useless LV AF, which has never got better since the D7000 era.

Now, we have realized many of our customers telling us something like below after using any of our displayed DSLRs at our shops.

"Well, I still have and enjoy a DSLR, but I think that as a category, "DSLR Auto-focus" is overrated. Can you really put the Canon SL1 in the same boat as the Nikon D4s and generalize that the category is always the best? Why do you guys always compare the best D-SLR AF in the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the average class AF system of the mirrorless type cameras? It is simply wrong". I agree, many many reviewers and camera sales persons compare the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the cheap mirrorless AF performance to pan or even bash the cheap mirrorless as slow or not capable of tracking action. It is not fair.

There are all kinds of problems with the general-comparison-discussion I see on the net.

First: very few people have deep experience with many different systems, so their comparison is actually "camera I have two years, with 50,000 frames of field experience shooting" (DSLR) vs. "camera I tried once in a local camera shop and didn't really understand in the two minutes I held it" (Mirrorless X).

Second: people obnoxiously mix categories to serve their argument. So we see comparisons of the very latest or flagship DLSR bodies (D5, 1Dx2,D810, D750,etc) vs. the very cheapest mirrorless cameras (Fuji X-T10, Sony A6000, Panasonic GX85,etc). When the $500 mirrorless camera can't topple the $6000 pro FX DSLR, mirrorless technology is proclaimed generally insufficient as a category. Scott Kelby and his Canon-schilling cabal favor this approach. Someone asks him if he sees mirrorless as a viable alternative and he starts explaining all the ways an Olympus OM-D E-M10M2 won't get him the decisive shot on an NFL sideline. Um . . . yeah. How honest, sincere ? Why not compare your Canon to the best mirrorless the Sony A6300 or the Panasonic GH4 or the Fuji X-Pro2(in terms of AF)?

Third: people skip camera generations to serve their point. They compare the newest DSLRs ($1700 D750 from 2015) with much older mirrorless technology ($450 Olympus E-M5 from 2012) and, again, when the five-year-old mirrorless camera (that costs 1/4 as much) can't best the year-old DSLR in every possible test, mirrorless as a wholesale category fails. Some of so-called reviewers intentionally compare the D750 to the ORIGINAL A7R with the lamest AF tech to bash the entire Sony system as slow or useless fail in AF department. Why not compare the D750 to the A7M2 or even better to A6300 if you want to be taken seriously?

But we all real A7X shooters know that only the original A7R had slow(but accurate) AF and even that worst AF in the A7X camera history was decent enough for many of us. At least for me it was good enough, and actually I even say the worst AF in the A7X system- the A7R AF system was more accurate than any of the best D-SLRs I have used in my life, therefore, the A7R is better than any DSLRs even in AF department(at least for me). They-DSLR guys should realize not all of us shoot BIF or boring sports, in fact many of us have no interest in sports at all.

Honestly, It'd be easy to reverse these goofy arguments to "justify" an opposing conclusion. Compare an A6300 with a Nikon D3300, and conclude that DSLR autofocus categorically sucks. Voila, right? I guess now you get my point,right?

 

But the D-SLR guys always do this anyway to keep stereotyping all different AF systems and EVF systems of all different brand mirroless systems as though they were all made to be the same lousy.

What we really need to see is tier-to-tier, generation-to-generation comparisons, conducted by photographers who're just curious--folks who aren't interested in jamming a point down the industry's throat. And they must be neutral persons not old farts who have crazy long history of shooting film and SLR type gear with the super analogue tunnel view finder.

My sense, there is that you'd see pretty much even give-and-take in those comparisons. Pit a Sony A6300 against a Nikon D500, and I imagine you'd see that the Sony would win a few of the contests (accuracy / consistency, for sure, given that it uses the focal plane) and the Nikon would win a few (predictive, continuous acquisition speed). Neither victory would be decisive--it'd be give-and-take of a few points, either way,don't you think? And even if the A6300 is a lot worse than the Nikon D500, it is still 1k cheaper than the unreasonably oversized Nikon.

Pit a Fuji X-Pro2 against a Nikon D7200 and the X-P2 is going to come away with some AF victories. So will the D7200. Stack an A7R II up next to a D810 and you'd see the same thing. Neither camera will win all the tests for every subject. They'll be competitive, and some shooters(me included) will favor the mirrorless strengths. There's nothing strange about that. I personally cannot accept the size(not the weight) of the D810 and the inaccurate focus system of it. The AF fine tune thing was really annoying and almost never worked well in real use.

And as we start comparing the LV AF of the 2 different camera types, then the latest mirrorless system(even the cheapest one) is vastly better. In fact, even the current best D-SLRs such as the Nikon D810, the D750 and the Canon 5DS cannot touch the slowest LV AF of the OM-D E-M5 from 2012, let alone the cheapest m43 or Sony A7X of today.

 

As I said a couple of months ago, I really really wanted to buy a new camera system because my 5 A7X cameras died in rain in the last December, and I have been testing many many camera systems that I might buy into. Like many of my young customers, I quickly lost interest in any of the best D-SLR options from Nikon and Pentax as I tested their terribly slow LV AF compared to my ancient Sony NEX5n(not even A6000 that I also owned at the time and now replaced by the A6300).

Honestly, none of current the best DSLRs can keep up with even an ancient primitive mirrorless camera like my 6 year-old NEX5n in LV AF mode shooting down slowly moving people from over my head height. It is just simply embarrassing, how bad the current DSLRs are in terms of LV/video AF. And it is really deplorable to see how conservative Canon Nikon really are, maybe not just conservative but arrogant, not to listen to the young gen photogs?

The D7000,which I shot in 2010-2011 had the same LV AF speed and accuracy as the D750, the D7200 and the D810(which I had in 2014-2015). It is seriously embarrassing that Nikon has not made any progress in LV AF speed in the last 6 years. The D750, the D7200 are the same slow as the ancient D7000 that I owned in 2010-11.

I think as Canon has dual pixel AF tech and already using that in their latest APS-C D-SLRs, they may be able to make the LV AF of their next gen cameras as fast as that of the last gen mirrorless from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. Hopefully, they will improve their fullframe DSLR LV AF dramatically in the next gen 5D4 and 6D2. But I think Nikon really needs to take this issue seriously to rectify their Dxxx line of D-SLR into more modern hybrid camera system( if they do not want to go serious FX mirrorless route to compete against Sony and Leica/Panasonic).

As I said many times, the iPhone gen people simply ignore cameras having slow AF in LV mode. I emphasize this again " they always shoot it with the LCD monitor, not with the EVF or the OVF when they try any of our displayed cameras at our shops".

Most of boys and girls coming from their smartphones or tablets or even from point and shoot cameras rarely use the OVF and thus, they think the D-SLRs are slower in AF and video mode than anything else including their cheap $99 US Casio. I know it is not the best way to shoot moving things, but like or not they do it anyway, they do use the monitor not the OVF, period. This means Nikon has to up their game in this specific area or they will be ignored to be an irrelevant player. Personally,I shoot most of stills images with the EVF, but there are times I need to shoot or prefer to shoot with the LCD monitor of my A7X camera. When I shoot video, I do not use the EVF because I always use a tripod or stabilizer for video but I sometimes wish if I could shoot handheld snap like easy video with AF. So even some middle aged person like me find the real fast LV AF very important these days. And I am actually thinking I am and our generation might be the last people who actually use any type of VF on any camera.

 

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

  

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

     

.

   

Our Genetic Weight Loss System is a program that enables you to reprogram your gene responses to lose weight, reduce inflammation, repair cells, avoid illness and age well. Through this eating plan, you can turn on positive genes and silence negative ones. Located online and in Tempe, AZ. bit.ly/12AuKrC

This specific image was made with Nikon D600

  

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So will Nikon/Canon/Sony still be around in 2020?

I think Canon may survive but Nikon will not be around in this business by 2020(I do not mean it will go bankrupt). They are severely criticized for their slow adaptation of new techs. In Hokkaido, I met many many people still shooting D-SLRs and they were rude and blindedly believing in the ancient semi-analogue 1950th tech of their Canon Nikon cameras the absolute best, it was like a bad religion. But even in D-SLR land, there are not many guys still shooting Nikons any more, I think 8 out of 10 people still using DSLRs today shooting Canon, and they seem to ratiocinating their choice to the better lens selection of Canon, the better support and QC of Canon and Nikon's long neglecting of a proper D300s update. Actually, I was kind of able to relate to some of them if I still had some Nikon glass, I was waiting for a D700 successor in addition to my D810 for a long time, but I got tired of it and moved to Sony.

Now, they can get the D500 but many of them told me it was just too late, they've already bought a couple of EOS7DM2 with more than 10k worth of EF glass.

And Nikon is very very slow adapting to new tech and sudden market changes or environmental changes surrounding this unceasingly contracting stills camera market. How many years did they actually need to produce actual 4k capable consumer grade cameras in the D500 and the D5? How many years did they need to actually make their very first FF camera in the D3?

 

So is Nikon sinking or doing just fine?

The camera companies(especially Nikon) do need to listen to our iPhone generation photographers.

By carefully studying our young gen customers' shooting behaviors I find they do almost never use the OVF when they try out one of our displayed D-SLRs.

They cellphone generation boys always just hold cameras we display at our shops in front of their face with arms stretched out to see the LCD, never looking into the EVF or OVF when they try out any camera we display at our shops.

This means to them DSLR AF feels extremely slow, they always pan the DSLRs as slower than their smartphones in AF. We older people around 30 or older know if they shoot through the VF, the D-SLRs are actually still faster than most of mirrorless cameras out there(at least in C AF mode), maybe the Panasonic GH4, the GX8, maybe also the new GX85 and some latest gen Olympus being rare exceptions. But the young boys/girls almost never shoot through the VF unless they are already pretty well experienced or educated in this very odd hobby or art.

So after trying out a Canon or a Nikon FF D-SLR for about 10 minutes, many of our lovely young customers tell us,"we just gave up on DSLR AF already, it is too slow, just so annoying and we do not have time waiting for it to AF on what we want it to focus on,they are useless ".

 

Well, while I think they have no patience and the problem is obviously themselves not the camera, honestly, even if I were not a mirrorless shooter, I would still likely think very similarly about the D-SLRs and the dated tunnel view OVF since I have been quite used to using LCD and EVF devices since about I was 18y/o. So I definitely have no hard feeling on the EVF and the LCD LV shooting like many of my aged people have on the Sony or Fuji EVF cameras. I actually much prefer the current generation EVF and LCD to any of the current best tunnel view OVF from Canon or Nikon. I think even the 1DXMk2 OVF is not as good as the best EVF on the XT1 or the A7R2 for precise manual focus.

I think camera makers are too narrow-minded and conservative or stupid to ignore those kind of younger after digital era or iPhone gen people, but they should focus on them and they even need to educate them how to use cameras properly.

Many many those who claim themselves pro reviewers think the OVF cameras are faster in AF than the EVF cameras and they still always recommend the DSLRs for action shooters.

But I know many of our customers who are younger than me never use the VF when they try any camera out at our shops, and therefore, they think the DSLRs are actually much slower in AF even in C(action tracking mode), and they are right, the D-SLRs are super slow and unreliable in LV mode. The D-SLRs(especially Nikons) are slow, I mean super slow to the point I consider it is useless in LV mode. In fact, the only 2 D-SLRs I know of to have fast LV AF are the EOS80D and the EOS7DMK2, which I've panned a few times for the poor quality sensor with the terrible conversion noise issue. All the Nikon FX D-SLRs that have a superb sensor with clean base ISO performance have terribly slow, almost useless LV AF, which has never got better since the D7000 era.

Now, we have realized many of our customers telling us something like below after using any of our displayed DSLRs at our shops.

"Well, I still have and enjoy a DSLR, but I think that as a category, "DSLR Auto-focus" is overrated. Can you really put the Canon SL1 in the same boat as the Nikon D4s and generalize that the category is always the best? Why do you guys always compare the best D-SLR AF in the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the average class AF system of the mirrorless type cameras? It is simply wrong". I agree, many many reviewers and camera sales persons compare the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the cheap mirrorless AF performance to pan or even bash the cheap mirrorless as slow or not capable of tracking action. It is not fair.

There are all kinds of problems with the general-comparison-discussion I see on the net.

First: very few people have deep experience with many different systems, so their comparison is actually "camera I have two years, with 50,000 frames of field experience shooting" (DSLR) vs. "camera I tried once in a local camera shop and didn't really understand in the two minutes I held it" (Mirrorless X).

Second: people obnoxiously mix categories to serve their argument. So we see comparisons of the very latest or flagship DLSR bodies (D5, 1Dx2,D810, D750,etc) vs. the very cheapest mirrorless cameras (Fuji X-T10, Sony A6000, Panasonic GX85,etc). When the $500 mirrorless camera can't topple the $6000 pro FX DSLR, mirrorless technology is proclaimed generally insufficient as a category. Scott Kelby and his Canon-schilling cabal favor this approach. Someone asks him if he sees mirrorless as a viable alternative and he starts explaining all the ways an Olympus OM-D E-M10M2 won't get him the decisive shot on an NFL sideline. Um . . . yeah. How honest, sincere ? Why not compare your Canon to the best mirrorless the Sony A6300 or the Panasonic GH4 or the Fuji X-Pro2(in terms of AF)?

Third: people skip camera generations to serve their point. They compare the newest DSLRs ($1700 D750 from 2015) with much older mirrorless technology ($450 Olympus E-M5 from 2012) and, again, when the five-year-old mirrorless camera (that costs 1/4 as much) can't best the year-old DSLR in every possible test, mirrorless as a wholesale category fails. Some of so-called reviewers intentionally compare the D750 to the ORIGINAL A7R with the lamest AF tech to bash the entire Sony system as slow or useless fail in AF department. Why not compare the D750 to the A7M2 or even better to A6300 if you want to be taken seriously?

But we all real A7X shooters know that only the original A7R had slow(but accurate) AF and even that worst AF in the A7X camera history was decent enough for many of us. At least for me it was good enough, and actually I even say the worst AF in the A7X system- the A7R AF system was more accurate than any of the best D-SLRs I have used in my life, therefore, the A7R is better than any DSLRs even in AF department(at least for me). They-DSLR guys should realize not all of us shoot BIF or boring sports, in fact many of us have no interest in sports at all.

Honestly, It'd be easy to reverse these goofy arguments to "justify" an opposing conclusion. Compare an A6300 with a Nikon D3300, and conclude that DSLR autofocus categorically sucks. Voila, right? I guess now you get my point,right?

 

But the D-SLR guys always do this anyway to keep stereotyping all different AF systems and EVF systems of all different brand mirroless systems as though they were all made to be the same lousy.

What we really need to see is tier-to-tier, generation-to-generation comparisons, conducted by photographers who're just curious--folks who aren't interested in jamming a point down the industry's throat. And they must be neutral persons not old farts who have crazy long history of shooting film and SLR type gear with the super analogue tunnel view finder.

My sense, there is that you'd see pretty much even give-and-take in those comparisons. Pit a Sony A6300 against a Nikon D500, and I imagine you'd see that the Sony would win a few of the contests (accuracy / consistency, for sure, given that it uses the focal plane) and the Nikon would win a few (predictive, continuous acquisition speed). Neither victory would be decisive--it'd be give-and-take of a few points, either way,don't you think? And even if the A6300 is a lot worse than the Nikon D500, it is still 1k cheaper than the unreasonably oversized Nikon.

Pit a Fuji X-Pro2 against a Nikon D7200 and the X-P2 is going to come away with some AF victories. So will the D7200. Stack an A7R II up next to a D810 and you'd see the same thing. Neither camera will win all the tests for every subject. They'll be competitive, and some shooters(me included) will favor the mirrorless strengths. There's nothing strange about that. I personally cannot accept the size(not the weight) of the D810 and the inaccurate focus system of it. The AF fine tune thing was really annoying and almost never worked well in real use.

And as we start comparing the LV AF of the 2 different camera types, then the latest mirrorless system(even the cheapest one) is vastly better. In fact, even the current best D-SLRs such as the Nikon D810, the D750 and the Canon 5DS cannot touch the slowest LV AF of the OM-D E-M5 from 2012, let alone the cheapest m43 or Sony A7X of today.

 

As I said a couple of months ago, I really really wanted to buy a new camera system because my 5 A7X cameras died in rain in the last December, and I have been testing many many camera systems that I might buy into. Like many of my young customers, I quickly lost interest in any of the best D-SLR options from Nikon and Pentax as I tested their terribly slow LV AF compared to my ancient Sony NEX5n(not even A6000 that I also owned at the time and now replaced by the A6300).

Honestly, none of current the best DSLRs can keep up with even an ancient primitive mirrorless camera like my 6 year-old NEX5n in LV AF mode shooting down slowly moving people from over my head height. It is just simply embarrassing, how bad the current DSLRs are in terms of LV/video AF. And it is really deplorable to see how conservative Canon Nikon really are, maybe not just conservative but arrogant, not to listen to the young gen photogs?

The D7000,which I shot in 2010-2011 had the same LV AF speed and accuracy as the D750, the D7200 and the D810(which I had in 2014-2015). It is seriously embarrassing that Nikon has not made any progress in LV AF speed in the last 6 years. The D750, the D7200 are the same slow as the ancient D7000 that I owned in 2010-11.

I think as Canon has dual pixel AF tech and already using that in their latest APS-C D-SLRs, they may be able to make the LV AF of their next gen cameras as fast as that of the last gen mirrorless from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. Hopefully, they will improve their fullframe DSLR LV AF dramatically in the next gen 5D4 and 6D2. But I think Nikon really needs to take this issue seriously to rectify their Dxxx line of D-SLR into more modern hybrid camera system( if they do not want to go serious FX mirrorless route to compete against Sony and Leica/Panasonic).

As I said many times, the iPhone gen people simply ignore cameras having slow AF in LV mode. I emphasize this again " they always shoot it with the LCD monitor, not with the EVF or the OVF when they try any of our displayed cameras at our shops".

Most of boys and girls coming from their smartphones or tablets or even from point and shoot cameras rarely use the OVF and thus, they think the D-SLRs are slower in AF and video mode than anything else including their cheap $99 US Casio. I know it is not the best way to shoot moving things, but like or not they do it anyway, they do use the monitor not the OVF, period. This means Nikon has to up their game in this specific area or they will be ignored to be an irrelevant player. Personally,I shoot most of stills images with the EVF, but there are times I need to shoot or prefer to shoot with the LCD monitor of my A7X camera. When I shoot video, I do not use the EVF because I always use a tripod or stabilizer for video but I sometimes wish if I could shoot handheld snap like easy video with AF. So even some middle aged person like me find the real fast LV AF very important these days. And I am actually thinking I am and our generation might be the last people who actually use any type of VF on any camera.

 

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

  

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

     

.

   

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So will Nikon/Canon/Sony still be around in 2020?

I think Canon may survive but Nikon will not be around in this business by 2020(I do not mean it will go bankrupt). They are severely criticized for their slow adaptation of new techs. In Hokkaido, I met many many people still shooting D-SLRs and they were rude and blindedly believing in the ancient semi-analogue 1950th tech of their Canon Nikon cameras the absolute best, it was like a bad religion. But even in D-SLR land, there are not many guys still shooting Nikons any more, I think 8 out of 10 people still using DSLRs today shooting Canon, and they seem to ratiocinating their choice to the better lens selection of Canon, the better support and QC of Canon and Nikon's long neglecting of a proper D300s update. Actually, I was kind of able to relate to some of them if I still had some Nikon glass, I was waiting for a D700 successor in addition to my D810 for a long time, but I got tired of it and moved to Sony.

Now, they can get the D500 but many of them told me it was just too late, they've already bought a couple of EOS7DM2 with more than 10k worth of EF glass.

And Nikon is very very slow adapting to new tech and sudden market changes or environmental changes surrounding this unceasingly contracting stills camera market. How many years did they actually need to produce actual 4k capable consumer grade cameras in the D500 and the D5? How many years did they need to actually make their very first FF camera in the D3?

 

So is Nikon sinking or doing just fine?

The camera companies(especially Nikon) do need to listen to our iPhone generation photographers.

By carefully studying our young gen customers' shooting behaviors I find they do almost never use the OVF when they try out one of our displayed D-SLRs.

They cellphone generation boys always just hold cameras we display at our shops in front of their face with arms stretched out to see the LCD, never looking into the EVF or OVF when they try out any camera we display at our shops.

This means to them DSLR AF feels extremely slow, they always pan the DSLRs as slower than their smartphones in AF. We older people around 30 or older know if they shoot through the VF, the D-SLRs are actually still faster than most of mirrorless cameras out there(at least in C AF mode), maybe the Panasonic GH4, the GX8, maybe also the new GX85 and some latest gen Olympus being rare exceptions. But the young boys/girls almost never shoot through the VF unless they are already pretty well experienced or educated in this very odd hobby or art.

So after trying out a Canon or a Nikon FF D-SLR for about 10 minutes, many of our lovely young customers tell us,"we just gave up on DSLR AF already, it is too slow, just so annoying and we do not have time waiting for it to AF on what we want it to focus on,they are useless ".

 

Well, while I think they have no patience and the problem is obviously themselves not the camera, honestly, even if I were not a mirrorless shooter, I would still likely think very similarly about the D-SLRs and the dated tunnel view OVF since I have been quite used to using LCD and EVF devices since about I was 18y/o. So I definitely have no hard feeling on the EVF and the LCD LV shooting like many of my aged people have on the Sony or Fuji EVF cameras. I actually much prefer the current generation EVF and LCD to any of the current best tunnel view OVF from Canon or Nikon. I think even the 1DXMk2 OVF is not as good as the best EVF on the XT1 or the A7R2 for precise manual focus.

I think camera makers are too narrow-minded and conservative or stupid to ignore those kind of younger after digital era or iPhone gen people, but they should focus on them and they even need to educate them how to use cameras properly.

Many many those who claim themselves pro reviewers think the OVF cameras are faster in AF than the EVF cameras and they still always recommend the DSLRs for action shooters.

But I know many of our customers who are younger than me never use the VF when they try any camera out at our shops, and therefore, they think the DSLRs are actually much slower in AF even in C(action tracking mode), and they are right, the D-SLRs are super slow and unreliable in LV mode. The D-SLRs(especially Nikons) are slow, I mean super slow to the point I consider it is useless in LV mode. In fact, the only 2 D-SLRs I know of to have fast LV AF are the EOS80D and the EOS7DMK2, which I've panned a few times for the poor quality sensor with the terrible conversion noise issue. All the Nikon FX D-SLRs that have a superb sensor with clean base ISO performance have terribly slow, almost useless LV AF, which has never got better since the D7000 era.

Now, we have realized many of our customers telling us something like below after using any of our displayed DSLRs at our shops.

"Well, I still have and enjoy a DSLR, but I think that as a category, "DSLR Auto-focus" is overrated. Can you really put the Canon SL1 in the same boat as the Nikon D4s and generalize that the category is always the best? Why do you guys always compare the best D-SLR AF in the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the average class AF system of the mirrorless type cameras? It is simply wrong". I agree, many many reviewers and camera sales persons compare the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the cheap mirrorless AF performance to pan or even bash the cheap mirrorless as slow or not capable of tracking action. It is not fair.

There are all kinds of problems with the general-comparison-discussion I see on the net.

First: very few people have deep experience with many different systems, so their comparison is actually "camera I have two years, with 50,000 frames of field experience shooting" (DSLR) vs. "camera I tried once in a local camera shop and didn't really understand in the two minutes I held it" (Mirrorless X).

Second: people obnoxiously mix categories to serve their argument. So we see comparisons of the very latest or flagship DLSR bodies (D5, 1Dx2,D810, D750,etc) vs. the very cheapest mirrorless cameras (Fuji X-T10, Sony A6000, Panasonic GX85,etc). When the $500 mirrorless camera can't topple the $6000 pro FX DSLR, mirrorless technology is proclaimed generally insufficient as a category. Scott Kelby and his Canon-schilling cabal favor this approach. Someone asks him if he sees mirrorless as a viable alternative and he starts explaining all the ways an Olympus OM-D E-M10M2 won't get him the decisive shot on an NFL sideline. Um . . . yeah. How honest, sincere ? Why not compare your Canon to the best mirrorless the Sony A6300 or the Panasonic GH4 or the Fuji X-Pro2(in terms of AF)?

Third: people skip camera generations to serve their point. They compare the newest DSLRs ($1700 D750 from 2015) with much older mirrorless technology ($450 Olympus E-M5 from 2012) and, again, when the five-year-old mirrorless camera (that costs 1/4 as much) can't best the year-old DSLR in every possible test, mirrorless as a wholesale category fails. Some of so-called reviewers intentionally compare the D750 to the ORIGINAL A7R with the lamest AF tech to bash the entire Sony system as slow or useless fail in AF department. Why not compare the D750 to the A7M2 or even better to A6300 if you want to be taken seriously?

But we all real A7X shooters know that only the original A7R had slow(but accurate) AF and even that worst AF in the A7X camera history was decent enough for many of us. At least for me it was good enough, and actually I even say the worst AF in the A7X system- the A7R AF system was more accurate than any of the best D-SLRs I have used in my life, therefore, the A7R is better than any DSLRs even in AF department(at least for me). They-DSLR guys should realize not all of us shoot BIF or boring sports, in fact many of us have no interest in sports at all.

Honestly, It'd be easy to reverse these goofy arguments to "justify" an opposing conclusion. Compare an A6300 with a Nikon D3300, and conclude that DSLR autofocus categorically sucks. Voila, right? I guess now you get my point,right?

 

But the D-SLR guys always do this anyway to keep stereotyping all different AF systems and EVF systems of all different brand mirroless systems as though they were all made to be the same lousy.

What we really need to see is tier-to-tier, generation-to-generation comparisons, conducted by photographers who're just curious--folks who aren't interested in jamming a point down the industry's throat. And they must be neutral persons not old farts who have crazy long history of shooting film and SLR type gear with the super analogue tunnel view finder.

My sense, there is that you'd see pretty much even give-and-take in those comparisons. Pit a Sony A6300 against a Nikon D500, and I imagine you'd see that the Sony would win a few of the contests (accuracy / consistency, for sure, given that it uses the focal plane) and the Nikon would win a few (predictive, continuous acquisition speed). Neither victory would be decisive--it'd be give-and-take of a few points, either way,don't you think? And even if the A6300 is a lot worse than the Nikon D500, it is still 1k cheaper than the unreasonably oversized Nikon.

Pit a Fuji X-Pro2 against a Nikon D7200 and the X-P2 is going to come away with some AF victories. So will the D7200. Stack an A7R II up next to a D810 and you'd see the same thing. Neither camera will win all the tests for every subject. They'll be competitive, and some shooters(me included) will favor the mirrorless strengths. There's nothing strange about that. I personally cannot accept the size(not the weight) of the D810 and the inaccurate focus system of it. The AF fine tune thing was really annoying and almost never worked well in real use.

And as we start comparing the LV AF of the 2 different camera types, then the latest mirrorless system(even the cheapest one) is vastly better. In fact, even the current best D-SLRs such as the Nikon D810, the D750 and the Canon 5DS cannot touch the slowest LV AF of the OM-D E-M5 from 2012, let alone the cheapest m43 or Sony A7X of today.

 

As I said a couple of months ago, I really really wanted to buy a new camera system because my 5 A7X cameras died in rain in the last December, and I have been testing many many camera systems that I might buy into. Like many of my young customers, I quickly lost interest in any of the best D-SLR options from Nikon and Pentax as I tested their terribly slow LV AF compared to my ancient Sony NEX5n(not even A6000 that I also owned at the time and now replaced by the A6300).

Honestly, none of current the best DSLRs can keep up with even an ancient primitive mirrorless camera like my 6 year-old NEX5n in LV AF mode shooting down slowly moving people from over my head height. It is just simply embarrassing, how bad the current DSLRs are in terms of LV/video AF. And it is really deplorable to see how conservative Canon Nikon really are, maybe not just conservative but arrogant, not to listen to the young gen photogs?

The D7000,which I shot in 2010-2011 had the same LV AF speed and accuracy as the D750, the D7200 and the D810(which I had in 2014-2015). It is seriously embarrassing that Nikon has not made any progress in LV AF speed in the last 6 years. The D750, the D7200 are the same slow as the ancient D7000 that I owned in 2010-11.

I think as Canon has dual pixel AF tech and already using that in their latest APS-C D-SLRs, they may be able to make the LV AF of their next gen cameras as fast as that of the last gen mirrorless from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. Hopefully, they will improve their fullframe DSLR LV AF dramatically in the next gen 5D4 and 6D2. But I think Nikon really needs to take this issue seriously to rectify their Dxxx line of D-SLR into more modern hybrid camera system( if they do not want to go serious FX mirrorless route to compete against Sony and Leica/Panasonic).

As I said many times, the iPhone gen people simply ignore cameras having slow AF in LV mode. I emphasize this again " they always shoot it with the LCD monitor, not with the EVF or the OVF when they try any of our displayed cameras at our shops".

Most of boys and girls coming from their smartphones or tablets or even from point and shoot cameras rarely use the OVF and thus, they think the D-SLRs are slower in AF and video mode than anything else including their cheap $99 US Casio. I know it is not the best way to shoot moving things, but like or not they do it anyway, they do use the monitor not the OVF, period. This means Nikon has to up their game in this specific area or they will be ignored to be an irrelevant player. Personally,I shoot most of stills images with the EVF, but there are times I need to shoot or prefer to shoot with the LCD monitor of my A7X camera. When I shoot video, I do not use the EVF because I always use a tripod or stabilizer for video but I sometimes wish if I could shoot handheld snap like easy video with AF. So even some middle aged person like me find the real fast LV AF very important these days. And I am actually thinking I am and our generation might be the last people who actually use any type of VF on any camera.

 

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

  

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

     

.

   

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So will Nikon/Canon/Sony still be around in 2020?

I think Canon may survive but Nikon will not be around in this business by 2020(I do not mean it will go bankrupt). They are severely criticized for their slow adaptation of new techs. In Hokkaido, I met many many people still shooting D-SLRs and they were rude and blindedly believing in the ancient semi-analogue 1950th tech of their Canon Nikon cameras the absolute best, it was like a bad religion. But even in D-SLR land, there are not many guys still shooting Nikons any more, I think 8 out of 10 people still using DSLRs today shooting Canon, and they seem to ratiocinating their choice to the better lens selection of Canon, the better support and QC of Canon and Nikon's long neglecting of a proper D300s update. Actually, I was kind of able to relate to some of them if I still had some Nikon glass, I was waiting for a D700 successor in addition to my D810 for a long time, but I got tired of it and moved to Sony.

Now, they can get the D500 but many of them told me it was just too late, they've already bought a couple of EOS7DM2 with more than 10k worth of EF glass.

And Nikon is very very slow adapting to new tech and sudden market changes or environmental changes surrounding this unceasingly contracting stills camera market. How many years did they actually need to produce actual 4k capable consumer grade cameras in the D500 and the D5? How many years did they need to actually make their very first FF camera in the D3?

 

So is Nikon sinking or doing just fine?

The camera companies(especially Nikon) do need to listen to our iPhone generation photographers.

By carefully studying our young gen customers' shooting behaviors I find they do almost never use the OVF when they try out one of our displayed D-SLRs.

They cellphone generation boys always just hold cameras we display at our shops in front of their face with arms stretched out to see the LCD, never looking into the EVF or OVF when they try out any camera we display at our shops.

This means to them DSLR AF feels extremely slow, they always pan the DSLRs as slower than their smartphones in AF. We older people around 30 or older know if they shoot through the VF, the D-SLRs are actually still faster than most of mirrorless cameras out there(at least in C AF mode), maybe the Panasonic GH4, the GX8, maybe also the new GX85 and some latest gen Olympus being rare exceptions. But the young boys/girls almost never shoot through the VF unless they are already pretty well experienced or educated in this very odd hobby or art.

So after trying out a Canon or a Nikon FF D-SLR for about 10 minutes, many of our lovely young customers tell us,"we just gave up on DSLR AF already, it is too slow, just so annoying and we do not have time waiting for it to AF on what we want it to focus on,they are useless ".

 

Well, while I think they have no patience and the problem is obviously themselves not the camera, honestly, even if I were not a mirrorless shooter, I would still likely think very similarly about the D-SLRs and the dated tunnel view OVF since I have been quite used to using LCD and EVF devices since about I was 18y/o. So I definitely have no hard feeling on the EVF and the LCD LV shooting like many of my aged people have on the Sony or Fuji EVF cameras. I actually much prefer the current generation EVF and LCD to any of the current best tunnel view OVF from Canon or Nikon. I think even the 1DXMk2 OVF is not as good as the best EVF on the XT1 or the A7R2 for precise manual focus.

I think camera makers are too narrow-minded and conservative or stupid to ignore those kind of younger after digital era or iPhone gen people, but they should focus on them and they even need to educate them how to use cameras properly.

Many many those who claim themselves pro reviewers think the OVF cameras are faster in AF than the EVF cameras and they still always recommend the DSLRs for action shooters.

But I know many of our customers who are younger than me never use the VF when they try any camera out at our shops, and therefore, they think the DSLRs are actually much slower in AF even in C(action tracking mode), and they are right, the D-SLRs are super slow and unreliable in LV mode. The D-SLRs(especially Nikons) are slow, I mean super slow to the point I consider it is useless in LV mode. In fact, the only 2 D-SLRs I know of to have fast LV AF are the EOS80D and the EOS7DMK2, which I've panned a few times for the poor quality sensor with the terrible conversion noise issue. All the Nikon FX D-SLRs that have a superb sensor with clean base ISO performance have terribly slow, almost useless LV AF, which has never got better since the D7000 era.

Now, we have realized many of our customers telling us something like below after using any of our displayed DSLRs at our shops.

"Well, I still have and enjoy a DSLR, but I think that as a category, "DSLR Auto-focus" is overrated. Can you really put the Canon SL1 in the same boat as the Nikon D4s and generalize that the category is always the best? Why do you guys always compare the best D-SLR AF in the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the average class AF system of the mirrorless type cameras? It is simply wrong". I agree, many many reviewers and camera sales persons compare the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the cheap mirrorless AF performance to pan or even bash the cheap mirrorless as slow or not capable of tracking action. It is not fair.

There are all kinds of problems with the general-comparison-discussion I see on the net.

First: very few people have deep experience with many different systems, so their comparison is actually "camera I have two years, with 50,000 frames of field experience shooting" (DSLR) vs. "camera I tried once in a local camera shop and didn't really understand in the two minutes I held it" (Mirrorless X).

Second: people obnoxiously mix categories to serve their argument. So we see comparisons of the very latest or flagship DLSR bodies (D5, 1Dx2,D810, D750,etc) vs. the very cheapest mirrorless cameras (Fuji X-T10, Sony A6000, Panasonic GX85,etc). When the $500 mirrorless camera can't topple the $6000 pro FX DSLR, mirrorless technology is proclaimed generally insufficient as a category. Scott Kelby and his Canon-schilling cabal favor this approach. Someone asks him if he sees mirrorless as a viable alternative and he starts explaining all the ways an Olympus OM-D E-M10M2 won't get him the decisive shot on an NFL sideline. Um . . . yeah. How honest, sincere ? Why not compare your Canon to the best mirrorless the Sony A6300 or the Panasonic GH4 or the Fuji X-Pro2(in terms of AF)?

Third: people skip camera generations to serve their point. They compare the newest DSLRs ($1700 D750 from 2015) with much older mirrorless technology ($450 Olympus E-M5 from 2012) and, again, when the five-year-old mirrorless camera (that costs 1/4 as much) can't best the year-old DSLR in every possible test, mirrorless as a wholesale category fails. Some of so-called reviewers intentionally compare the D750 to the ORIGINAL A7R with the lamest AF tech to bash the entire Sony system as slow or useless fail in AF department. Why not compare the D750 to the A7M2 or even better to A6300 if you want to be taken seriously?

But we all real A7X shooters know that only the original A7R had slow(but accurate) AF and even that worst AF in the A7X camera history was decent enough for many of us. At least for me it was good enough, and actually I even say the worst AF in the A7X system- the A7R AF system was more accurate than any of the best D-SLRs I have used in my life, therefore, the A7R is better than any DSLRs even in AF department(at least for me). They-DSLR guys should realize not all of us shoot BIF or boring sports, in fact many of us have no interest in sports at all.

Honestly, It'd be easy to reverse these goofy arguments to "justify" an opposing conclusion. Compare an A6300 with a Nikon D3300, and conclude that DSLR autofocus categorically sucks. Voila, right? I guess now you get my point,right?

 

But the D-SLR guys always do this anyway to keep stereotyping all different AF systems and EVF systems of all different brand mirroless systems as though they were all made to be the same lousy.

What we really need to see is tier-to-tier, generation-to-generation comparisons, conducted by photographers who're just curious--folks who aren't interested in jamming a point down the industry's throat. And they must be neutral persons not old farts who have crazy long history of shooting film and SLR type gear with the super analogue tunnel view finder.

My sense, there is that you'd see pretty much even give-and-take in those comparisons. Pit a Sony A6300 against a Nikon D500, and I imagine you'd see that the Sony would win a few of the contests (accuracy / consistency, for sure, given that it uses the focal plane) and the Nikon would win a few (predictive, continuous acquisition speed). Neither victory would be decisive--it'd be give-and-take of a few points, either way,don't you think? And even if the A6300 is a lot worse than the Nikon D500, it is still 1k cheaper than the unreasonably oversized Nikon.

Pit a Fuji X-Pro2 against a Nikon D7200 and the X-P2 is going to come away with some AF victories. So will the D7200. Stack an A7R II up next to a D810 and you'd see the same thing. Neither camera will win all the tests for every subject. They'll be competitive, and some shooters(me included) will favor the mirrorless strengths. There's nothing strange about that. I personally cannot accept the size(not the weight) of the D810 and the inaccurate focus system of it. The AF fine tune thing was really annoying and almost never worked well in real use.

And as we start comparing the LV AF of the 2 different camera types, then the latest mirrorless system(even the cheapest one) is vastly better. In fact, even the current best D-SLRs such as the Nikon D810, the D750 and the Canon 5DS cannot touch the slowest LV AF of the OM-D E-M5 from 2012, let alone the cheapest m43 or Sony A7X of today.

 

As I said a couple of months ago, I really really wanted to buy a new camera system because my 5 A7X cameras died in rain in the last December, and I have been testing many many camera systems that I might buy into. Like many of my young customers, I quickly lost interest in any of the best D-SLR options from Nikon and Pentax as I tested their terribly slow LV AF compared to my ancient Sony NEX5n(not even A6000 that I also owned at the time and now replaced by the A6300).

Honestly, none of current the best DSLRs can keep up with even an ancient primitive mirrorless camera like my 6 year-old NEX5n in LV AF mode shooting down slowly moving people from over my head height. It is just simply embarrassing, how bad the current DSLRs are in terms of LV/video AF. And it is really deplorable to see how conservative Canon Nikon really are, maybe not just conservative but arrogant, not to listen to the young gen photogs?

The D7000,which I shot in 2010-2011 had the same LV AF speed and accuracy as the D750, the D7200 and the D810(which I had in 2014-2015). It is seriously embarrassing that Nikon has not made any progress in LV AF speed in the last 6 years. The D750, the D7200 are the same slow as the ancient D7000 that I owned in 2010-11.

I think as Canon has dual pixel AF tech and already using that in their latest APS-C D-SLRs, they may be able to make the LV AF of their next gen cameras as fast as that of the last gen mirrorless from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. Hopefully, they will improve their fullframe DSLR LV AF dramatically in the next gen 5D4 and 6D2. But I think Nikon really needs to take this issue seriously to rectify their Dxxx line of D-SLR into more modern hybrid camera system( if they do not want to go serious FX mirrorless route to compete against Sony and Leica/Panasonic).

As I said many times, the iPhone gen people simply ignore cameras having slow AF in LV mode. I emphasize this again " they always shoot it with the LCD monitor, not with the EVF or the OVF when they try any of our displayed cameras at our shops".

Most of boys and girls coming from their smartphones or tablets or even from point and shoot cameras rarely use the OVF and thus, they think the D-SLRs are slower in AF and video mode than anything else including their cheap $99 US Casio. I know it is not the best way to shoot moving things, but like or not they do it anyway, they do use the monitor not the OVF, period. This means Nikon has to up their game in this specific area or they will be ignored to be an irrelevant player. Personally,I shoot most of stills images with the EVF, but there are times I need to shoot or prefer to shoot with the LCD monitor of my A7X camera. When I shoot video, I do not use the EVF because I always use a tripod or stabilizer for video but I sometimes wish if I could shoot handheld snap like easy video with AF. So even some middle aged person like me find the real fast LV AF very important these days. And I am actually thinking I am and our generation might be the last people who actually use any type of VF on any camera.

 

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

  

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

     

.

   

Congress established the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in 1993 to protect a unique environment that supports one of the world's most dense concentrations of nesting birds of prey. Falcons, eagles, hawks and owls are found here in unique profusion and variety. It is part of the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 officially added the name of conservationist Morley Nelson to the NCA, in honor of Nelson's work on behalf of birds of prey and their habitats.

 

The BLM manages the area to preserve its remarkable wildlife habitat while providing for other compatible uses of the land, so that birds of prey flourish here as they have for thousands of years.

 

In addition to outstanding bird and wildlife viewing, this area hosts various recreational opportunities. Visitors can sightsee, ride on horseback, hike, hunt, mountain bike, picnic and camp.

 

Learn more about the NCA and about birds of prey: www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/birds_of_prey...

 

Photo: Bob Wick, BLM-California

Physical Description: The Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) manages a large and diverse preserve in the Coachella Valley called the CNLM Thousand Palms Oasis Preserve (CNLM Preserve). This Preserve is approximately 880 acres in size and is contiguous with other conserved areas collectively known as the Coachella Valley Preserve System. Tucked into the northern edge of the Indio Hills, the CNLM Preserve offers sweeping views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains and the southern edge of Joshua Tree National Park.

Conservation Purpose: The Coachella Valley Preserve System (see “Coachella Valley Preserve System” below) was designed to protect an endemic, threatened reptile, the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata). This lizard is found on the sand dunes that are located on the southern edge of the Coachella Valley Preserve (CV Preserve). The CNLM Preserve protects the Thousand Palms Canyon, part of the alluvial system that feeds the sand dunes of the CV Preserve. This wide canyon sweeps down from the little San Bernardino Mountains, through the Indio Hills, and washes onto the wide alluvial fan that borders the north edge of Palm Desert. Rainfall in the upper reaches of the hills moves rock, sand, and soil in torrential flash floods from the hills onto the vast floodplain at the foot of the Indio Hills. From there the fierce desert winds pick up the lightest of the soil particles, and carry them southeast along the valley floor. As wind speed slows, the particles drop onto the desert floor, creating sweeping dunes of glittering sand. Only a fragment of the once-abundant dunes remain. The canyon contains a large, rare desert wetland and two palm oases. Many rare and listed species use these habitats. Protected southern yellow bats (Lasiurus ega) flit and twitter in the rare desert palm oases. Endangered Swainson’s hawks(Buteo swainsonii) soar over the valley floor as they migrate between their breeding and wintering territories. Rosy boas (Lichanura trivirgata) slither between the California fan palm shadows, and the endangered desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) finds refuge in the desert seeps.

Habitat Types:The Preserve contains a rare and fragile habitat type ˗˗ palm woodland oasis and desert wetland. Water from the springs along the San Andreas earthquake fault feed perpetual water features in the form of seeps, creeks, and ponds. A rare resource in the desert, the water feeds the majestic California fan palm which creates a cool and shady respite from the hot summer sun. Wide sweeps of desert wash, dotted with smoke tree and indigo bush, feed into the oasis, and tucked around the oasis lie the rare desert wetlands, lined with arrowweed, willows, cattails, and cottonwoods.

Management: CNLM’s objective is to manage and protect the desert wetlands that are the focus of this Preserve. The hydrologic and fluvial processes that occur in the wash are crucial for the protection and creation of the sand dune habitat that occurs at the base of the Indio Hills on the south side of the Coachella Valley Preserve System. In addition, the oases are important migration stopovers for migrating birds and bats, as well as an important resource for the desert animals in the hot, arid summers. An important part of CNLM’s management strategy includes control of invasive species like tamarisk. These plants can clog and damage fluvial systems and can spread widely and quickly. Current work also includes restoration of the Simone Pond at McCallum Grove. Invasive crayfish and several aquarium snails and fish have caused all the native species of frogs and fish to die off. This restoration work hopes to reclaim the pond for our native species.

Coachella Valley Preserve System: The Coachella Valley Preserve System includes the CNLM Preserve, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Area of Conservation and Ecological Concern (ACEC), the US Fish and Wildlife Service Coachella Valley Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Ecological Reserve and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) Indio Hills State Park. BLM is the largest landowner. The BLM ACEC surrounds the Thousand Palms Preserve. This special ACEC is set aside as a special conservation zone, protecting threatened, endangered and rare plants and animals. Next largest is the Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge that harbors the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard. Adjacent to this, and also part of the lizard’s sand-blown habitat, is the CDFG Ecological Reserve. The eastern side of the Preserve contains the remote Indio Hills State Park, owned and managed by State Parks. The size of the entire Coachella Valley Preserve System is just over 18,000 acres. The Preserve system also includes two other preserves, the Edom Hill/Willow Hole Preserve and the Whitewater Preserve. These two preserves are on the western side of the valley.

Visitor Opportunities: CNLM maintains a Visitors’ Center and a gated parking lot at the hub of the trail system of the Coachella Valley Preserve System in Thousand Palms Canyon. The CNLM Preserve gates are open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from May through September and from 7:00 am to 5:00 p.m. October through April. The parking area at the Visitors’ Center is small, so plan on carpooling or bringing a smaller vehicle as the lot is not well-suited for RVs and campers. Large groups should call ahead. At the heart of the CNLM Preserve in the shade of the Thousand Palms Oasis, CNLM maintains a rustic Visitors’ Center. This charming old building was built in the 1930s and 1940s and contains displays of the natural and historic features of the CNLM and CV Preserves. It is closed in the summer from June 1 through August 31, but the preserve remains open for hiking and picnicking year-round. The Visitor Center hours are dependent on the availability of Volunteer staffing. Call the Visitors’ Center for the current hours of operation at 760-343-2733.

From the Visitors’ Center, 28 miles of trails lead to a wide range of habitats. From easy to moderately difficult, from flat terrain to ridges, hikes of all varieties are available for your enjoyment. There are several designated equestrian trails as well as hiking. Currently there are no bike trails or dog-friendly trails available. During the visitors’ season (October through March) we offer a variety of guided hikes. Call the Visitors’ center (760-343-2733) for current schedules.

There are picnic tables at the 1000 Palms Oasis, McCallum Grove, and Pushwalla for picnics. No fires or barbecues are permitted as a precaution towards protecting the ecologically important palm groves from fire. Please pack out what you bring in! The Visitors’ Center is located at 29200 Thousand Palms Canyon Road. From Palm Springs take Ramon Rd. to Thousand Palms Canyon Rd., turn left and come up Thousand Palms Canyon Road to the Visitors’ Center parking lot.

   

This specific image was made with Nikon D600

  

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So will Nikon/Canon/Sony still be around in 2020?

I think Canon may survive but Nikon will not be around in this business by 2020(I do not mean it will go bankrupt). They are severely criticized for their slow adaptation of new techs. In Hokkaido, I met many many people still shooting D-SLRs and they were rude and blindedly believing in the ancient semi-analogue 1950th tech of their Canon Nikon cameras the absolute best, it was like a bad religion. But even in D-SLR land, there are not many guys still shooting Nikons any more, I think 8 out of 10 people still using DSLRs today shooting Canon, and they seem to ratiocinating their choice to the better lens selection of Canon, the better support and QC of Canon and Nikon's long neglecting of a proper D300s update. Actually, I was kind of able to relate to some of them if I still had some Nikon glass, I was waiting for a D700 successor in addition to my D810 for a long time, but I got tired of it and moved to Sony.

Now, they can get the D500 but many of them told me it was just too late, they've already bought a couple of EOS7DM2 with more than 10k worth of EF glass.

And Nikon is very very slow adapting to new tech and sudden market changes or environmental changes surrounding this unceasingly contracting stills camera market. How many years did they actually need to produce actual 4k capable consumer grade cameras in the D500 and the D5? How many years did they need to actually make their very first FF camera in the D3?

 

So is Nikon sinking or doing just fine?

The camera companies(especially Nikon) do need to listen to our iPhone generation photographers.

By carefully studying our young gen customers' shooting behaviors I find they do almost never use the OVF when they try out one of our displayed D-SLRs.

They cellphone generation boys always just hold cameras we display at our shops in front of their face with arms stretched out to see the LCD, never looking into the EVF or OVF when they try out any camera we display at our shops.

This means to them DSLR AF feels extremely slow, they always pan the DSLRs as slower than their smartphones in AF. We older people around 30 or older know if they shoot through the VF, the D-SLRs are actually still faster than most of mirrorless cameras out there(at least in C AF mode), maybe the Panasonic GH4, the GX8, maybe also the new GX85 and some latest gen Olympus being rare exceptions. But the young boys/girls almost never shoot through the VF unless they are already pretty well experienced or educated in this very odd hobby or art.

So after trying out a Canon or a Nikon FF D-SLR for about 10 minutes, many of our lovely young customers tell us,"we just gave up on DSLR AF already, it is too slow, just so annoying and we do not have time waiting for it to AF on what we want it to focus on,they are useless ".

 

Well, while I think they have no patience and the problem is obviously themselves not the camera, honestly, even if I were not a mirrorless shooter, I would still likely think very similarly about the D-SLRs and the dated tunnel view OVF since I have been quite used to using LCD and EVF devices since about I was 18y/o. So I definitely have no hard feeling on the EVF and the LCD LV shooting like many of my aged people have on the Sony or Fuji EVF cameras. I actually much prefer the current generation EVF and LCD to any of the current best tunnel view OVF from Canon or Nikon. I think even the 1DXMk2 OVF is not as good as the best EVF on the XT1 or the A7R2 for precise manual focus.

I think camera makers are too narrow-minded and conservative or stupid to ignore those kind of younger after digital era or iPhone gen people, but they should focus on them and they even need to educate them how to use cameras properly.

Many many those who claim themselves pro reviewers think the OVF cameras are faster in AF than the EVF cameras and they still always recommend the DSLRs for action shooters.

But I know many of our customers who are younger than me never use the VF when they try any camera out at our shops, and therefore, they think the DSLRs are actually much slower in AF even in C(action tracking mode), and they are right, the D-SLRs are super slow and unreliable in LV mode. The D-SLRs(especially Nikons) are slow, I mean super slow to the point I consider it is useless in LV mode. In fact, the only 2 D-SLRs I know of to have fast LV AF are the EOS80D and the EOS7DMK2, which I've panned a few times for the poor quality sensor with the terrible conversion noise issue. All the Nikon FX D-SLRs that have a superb sensor with clean base ISO performance have terribly slow, almost useless LV AF, which has never got better since the D7000 era.

Now, we have realized many of our customers telling us something like below after using any of our displayed DSLRs at our shops.

"Well, I still have and enjoy a DSLR, but I think that as a category, "DSLR Auto-focus" is overrated. Can you really put the Canon SL1 in the same boat as the Nikon D4s and generalize that the category is always the best? Why do you guys always compare the best D-SLR AF in the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the average class AF system of the mirrorless type cameras? It is simply wrong". I agree, many many reviewers and camera sales persons compare the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the cheap mirrorless AF performance to pan or even bash the cheap mirrorless as slow or not capable of tracking action. It is not fair.

There are all kinds of problems with the general-comparison-discussion I see on the net.

First: very few people have deep experience with many different systems, so their comparison is actually "camera I have two years, with 50,000 frames of field experience shooting" (DSLR) vs. "camera I tried once in a local camera shop and didn't really understand in the two minutes I held it" (Mirrorless X).

Second: people obnoxiously mix categories to serve their argument. So we see comparisons of the very latest or flagship DLSR bodies (D5, 1Dx2,D810, D750,etc) vs. the very cheapest mirrorless cameras (Fuji X-T10, Sony A6000, Panasonic GX85,etc). When the $500 mirrorless camera can't topple the $6000 pro FX DSLR, mirrorless technology is proclaimed generally insufficient as a category. Scott Kelby and his Canon-schilling cabal favor this approach. Someone asks him if he sees mirrorless as a viable alternative and he starts explaining all the ways an Olympus OM-D E-M10M2 won't get him the decisive shot on an NFL sideline. Um . . . yeah. How honest, sincere ? Why not compare your Canon to the best mirrorless the Sony A6300 or the Panasonic GH4 or the Fuji X-Pro2(in terms of AF)?

Third: people skip camera generations to serve their point. They compare the newest DSLRs ($1700 D750 from 2015) with much older mirrorless technology ($450 Olympus E-M5 from 2012) and, again, when the five-year-old mirrorless camera (that costs 1/4 as much) can't best the year-old DSLR in every possible test, mirrorless as a wholesale category fails. Some of so-called reviewers intentionally compare the D750 to the ORIGINAL A7R with the lamest AF tech to bash the entire Sony system as slow or useless fail in AF department. Why not compare the D750 to the A7M2 or even better to A6300 if you want to be taken seriously?

But we all real A7X shooters know that only the original A7R had slow(but accurate) AF and even that worst AF in the A7X camera history was decent enough for many of us. At least for me it was good enough, and actually I even say the worst AF in the A7X system- the A7R AF system was more accurate than any of the best D-SLRs I have used in my life, therefore, the A7R is better than any DSLRs even in AF department(at least for me). They-DSLR guys should realize not all of us shoot BIF or boring sports, in fact many of us have no interest in sports at all.

Honestly, It'd be easy to reverse these goofy arguments to "justify" an opposing conclusion. Compare an A6300 with a Nikon D3300, and conclude that DSLR autofocus categorically sucks. Voila, right? I guess now you get my point,right?

 

But the D-SLR guys always do this anyway to keep stereotyping all different AF systems and EVF systems of all different brand mirroless systems as though they were all made to be the same lousy.

What we really need to see is tier-to-tier, generation-to-generation comparisons, conducted by photographers who're just curious--folks who aren't interested in jamming a point down the industry's throat. And they must be neutral persons not old farts who have crazy long history of shooting film and SLR type gear with the super analogue tunnel view finder.

My sense, there is that you'd see pretty much even give-and-take in those comparisons. Pit a Sony A6300 against a Nikon D500, and I imagine you'd see that the Sony would win a few of the contests (accuracy / consistency, for sure, given that it uses the focal plane) and the Nikon would win a few (predictive, continuous acquisition speed). Neither victory would be decisive--it'd be give-and-take of a few points, either way,don't you think? And even if the A6300 is a lot worse than the Nikon D500, it is still 1k cheaper than the unreasonably oversized Nikon.

Pit a Fuji X-Pro2 against a Nikon D7200 and the X-P2 is going to come away with some AF victories. So will the D7200. Stack an A7R II up next to a D810 and you'd see the same thing. Neither camera will win all the tests for every subject. They'll be competitive, and some shooters(me included) will favor the mirrorless strengths. There's nothing strange about that. I personally cannot accept the size(not the weight) of the D810 and the inaccurate focus system of it. The AF fine tune thing was really annoying and almost never worked well in real use.

And as we start comparing the LV AF of the 2 different camera types, then the latest mirrorless system(even the cheapest one) is vastly better. In fact, even the current best D-SLRs such as the Nikon D810, the D750 and the Canon 5DS cannot touch the slowest LV AF of the OM-D E-M5 from 2012, let alone the cheapest m43 or Sony A7X of today.

 

As I said a couple of months ago, I really really wanted to buy a new camera system because my 5 A7X cameras died in rain in the last December, and I have been testing many many camera systems that I might buy into. Like many of my young customers, I quickly lost interest in any of the best D-SLR options from Nikon and Pentax as I tested their terribly slow LV AF compared to my ancient Sony NEX5n(not even A6000 that I also owned at the time and now replaced by the A6300).

Honestly, none of current the best DSLRs can keep up with even an ancient primitive mirrorless camera like my 6 year-old NEX5n in LV AF mode shooting down slowly moving people from over my head height. It is just simply embarrassing, how bad the current DSLRs are in terms of LV/video AF. And it is really deplorable to see how conservative Canon Nikon really are, maybe not just conservative but arrogant, not to listen to the young gen photogs?

The D7000,which I shot in 2010-2011 had the same LV AF speed and accuracy as the D750, the D7200 and the D810(which I had in 2014-2015). It is seriously embarrassing that Nikon has not made any progress in LV AF speed in the last 6 years. The D750, the D7200 are the same slow as the ancient D7000 that I owned in 2010-11.

I think as Canon has dual pixel AF tech and already using that in their latest APS-C D-SLRs, they may be able to make the LV AF of their next gen cameras as fast as that of the last gen mirrorless from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. Hopefully, they will improve their fullframe DSLR LV AF dramatically in the next gen 5D4 and 6D2. But I think Nikon really needs to take this issue seriously to rectify their Dxxx line of D-SLR into more modern hybrid camera system( if they do not want to go serious FX mirrorless route to compete against Sony and Leica/Panasonic).

As I said many times, the iPhone gen people simply ignore cameras having slow AF in LV mode. I emphasize this again " they always shoot it with the LCD monitor, not with the EVF or the OVF when they try any of our displayed cameras at our shops".

Most of boys and girls coming from their smartphones or tablets or even from point and shoot cameras rarely use the OVF and thus, they think the D-SLRs are slower in AF and video mode than anything else including their cheap $99 US Casio. I know it is not the best way to shoot moving things, but like or not they do it anyway, they do use the monitor not the OVF, period. This means Nikon has to up their game in this specific area or they will be ignored to be an irrelevant player. Personally,I shoot most of stills images with the EVF, but there are times I need to shoot or prefer to shoot with the LCD monitor of my A7X camera. When I shoot video, I do not use the EVF because I always use a tripod or stabilizer for video but I sometimes wish if I could shoot handheld snap like easy video with AF. So even some middle aged person like me find the real fast LV AF very important these days. And I am actually thinking I am and our generation might be the last people who actually use any type of VF on any camera.

 

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

  

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

     

.

   

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So will Nikon/Canon/Sony still be around in 2020?

I think Canon may survive but Nikon will not be around in this business by 2020(I do not mean it will go bankrupt). They are severely criticized for their slow adaptation of new techs. In Hokkaido, I met many many people still shooting D-SLRs and they were rude and blindedly believing in the ancient semi-analogue 1950th tech of their Canon Nikon cameras the absolute best, it was like a bad religion. But even in D-SLR land, there are not many guys still shooting Nikons any more, I think 8 out of 10 people still using DSLRs today shooting Canon, and they seem to ratiocinating their choice to the better lens selection of Canon, the better support and QC of Canon and Nikon's long neglecting of a proper D300s update. Actually, I was kind of able to relate to some of them if I still had some Nikon glass, I was waiting for a D700 successor in addition to my D810 for a long time, but I got tired of it and moved to Sony.

Now, they can get the D500 but many of them told me it was just too late, they've already bought a couple of EOS7DM2 with more than 10k worth of EF glass.

And Nikon is very very slow adapting to new tech and sudden market changes or environmental changes surrounding this unceasingly contracting stills camera market. How many years did they actually need to produce actual 4k capable consumer grade cameras in the D500 and the D5? How many years did they need to actually make their very first FF camera in the D3?

 

So is Nikon sinking or doing just fine?

The camera companies(especially Nikon) do need to listen to our iPhone generation photographers.

By carefully studying our young gen customers' shooting behaviors I find they do almost never use the OVF when they try out one of our displayed D-SLRs.

They cellphone generation boys always just hold cameras we display at our shops in front of their face with arms stretched out to see the LCD, never looking into the EVF or OVF when they try out any camera we display at our shops.

This means to them DSLR AF feels extremely slow, they always pan the DSLRs as slower than their smartphones in AF. We older people around 30 or older know if they shoot through the VF, the D-SLRs are actually still faster than most of mirrorless cameras out there(at least in C AF mode), maybe the Panasonic GH4, the GX8, maybe also the new GX85 and some latest gen Olympus being rare exceptions. But the young boys/girls almost never shoot through the VF unless they are already pretty well experienced or educated in this very odd hobby or art.

So after trying out a Canon or a Nikon FF D-SLR for about 10 minutes, many of our lovely young customers tell us,"we just gave up on DSLR AF already, it is too slow, just so annoying and we do not have time waiting for it to AF on what we want it to focus on,they are useless ".

 

Well, while I think they have no patience and the problem is obviously themselves not the camera, honestly, even if I were not a mirrorless shooter, I would still likely think very similarly about the D-SLRs and the dated tunnel view OVF since I have been quite used to using LCD and EVF devices since about I was 18y/o. So I definitely have no hard feeling on the EVF and the LCD LV shooting like many of my aged people have on the Sony or Fuji EVF cameras. I actually much prefer the current generation EVF and LCD to any of the current best tunnel view OVF from Canon or Nikon. I think even the 1DXMk2 OVF is not as good as the best EVF on the XT1 or the A7R2 for precise manual focus.

I think camera makers are too narrow-minded and conservative or stupid to ignore those kind of younger after digital era or iPhone gen people, but they should focus on them and they even need to educate them how to use cameras properly.

Many many those who claim themselves pro reviewers think the OVF cameras are faster in AF than the EVF cameras and they still always recommend the DSLRs for action shooters.

But I know many of our customers who are younger than me never use the VF when they try any camera out at our shops, and therefore, they think the DSLRs are actually much slower in AF even in C(action tracking mode), and they are right, the D-SLRs are super slow and unreliable in LV mode. The D-SLRs(especially Nikons) are slow, I mean super slow to the point I consider it is useless in LV mode. In fact, the only 2 D-SLRs I know of to have fast LV AF are the EOS80D and the EOS7DMK2, which I've panned a few times for the poor quality sensor with the terrible conversion noise issue. All the Nikon FX D-SLRs that have a superb sensor with clean base ISO performance have terribly slow, almost useless LV AF, which has never got better since the D7000 era.

Now, we have realized many of our customers telling us something like below after using any of our displayed DSLRs at our shops.

"Well, I still have and enjoy a DSLR, but I think that as a category, "DSLR Auto-focus" is overrated. Can you really put the Canon SL1 in the same boat as the Nikon D4s and generalize that the category is always the best? Why do you guys always compare the best D-SLR AF in the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the average class AF system of the mirrorless type cameras? It is simply wrong". I agree, many many reviewers and camera sales persons compare the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the cheap mirrorless AF performance to pan or even bash the cheap mirrorless as slow or not capable of tracking action. It is not fair.

There are all kinds of problems with the general-comparison-discussion I see on the net.

First: very few people have deep experience with many different systems, so their comparison is actually "camera I have two years, with 50,000 frames of field experience shooting" (DSLR) vs. "camera I tried once in a local camera shop and didn't really understand in the two minutes I held it" (Mirrorless X).

Second: people obnoxiously mix categories to serve their argument. So we see comparisons of the very latest or flagship DLSR bodies (D5, 1Dx2,D810, D750,etc) vs. the very cheapest mirrorless cameras (Fuji X-T10, Sony A6000, Panasonic GX85,etc). When the $500 mirrorless camera can't topple the $6000 pro FX DSLR, mirrorless technology is proclaimed generally insufficient as a category. Scott Kelby and his Canon-schilling cabal favor this approach. Someone asks him if he sees mirrorless as a viable alternative and he starts explaining all the ways an Olympus OM-D E-M10M2 won't get him the decisive shot on an NFL sideline. Um . . . yeah. How honest, sincere ? Why not compare your Canon to the best mirrorless the Sony A6300 or the Panasonic GH4 or the Fuji X-Pro2(in terms of AF)?

Third: people skip camera generations to serve their point. They compare the newest DSLRs ($1700 D750 from 2015) with much older mirrorless technology ($450 Olympus E-M5 from 2012) and, again, when the five-year-old mirrorless camera (that costs 1/4 as much) can't best the year-old DSLR in every possible test, mirrorless as a wholesale category fails. Some of so-called reviewers intentionally compare the D750 to the ORIGINAL A7R with the lamest AF tech to bash the entire Sony system as slow or useless fail in AF department. Why not compare the D750 to the A7M2 or even better to A6300 if you want to be taken seriously?

But we all real A7X shooters know that only the original A7R had slow(but accurate) AF and even that worst AF in the A7X camera history was decent enough for many of us. At least for me it was good enough, and actually I even say the worst AF in the A7X system- the A7R AF system was more accurate than any of the best D-SLRs I have used in my life, therefore, the A7R is better than any DSLRs even in AF department(at least for me). They-DSLR guys should realize not all of us shoot BIF or boring sports, in fact many of us have no interest in sports at all.

Honestly, It'd be easy to reverse these goofy arguments to "justify" an opposing conclusion. Compare an A6300 with a Nikon D3300, and conclude that DSLR autofocus categorically sucks. Voila, right? I guess now you get my point,right?

 

But the D-SLR guys always do this anyway to keep stereotyping all different AF systems and EVF systems of all different brand mirroless systems as though they were all made to be the same lousy.

What we really need to see is tier-to-tier, generation-to-generation comparisons, conducted by photographers who're just curious--folks who aren't interested in jamming a point down the industry's throat. And they must be neutral persons not old farts who have crazy long history of shooting film and SLR type gear with the super analogue tunnel view finder.

My sense, there is that you'd see pretty much even give-and-take in those comparisons. Pit a Sony A6300 against a Nikon D500, and I imagine you'd see that the Sony would win a few of the contests (accuracy / consistency, for sure, given that it uses the focal plane) and the Nikon would win a few (predictive, continuous acquisition speed). Neither victory would be decisive--it'd be give-and-take of a few points, either way,don't you think? And even if the A6300 is a lot worse than the Nikon D500, it is still 1k cheaper than the unreasonably oversized Nikon.

Pit a Fuji X-Pro2 against a Nikon D7200 and the X-P2 is going to come away with some AF victories. So will the D7200. Stack an A7R II up next to a D810 and you'd see the same thing. Neither camera will win all the tests for every subject. They'll be competitive, and some shooters(me included) will favor the mirrorless strengths. There's nothing strange about that. I personally cannot accept the size(not the weight) of the D810 and the inaccurate focus system of it. The AF fine tune thing was really annoying and almost never worked well in real use.

And as we start comparing the LV AF of the 2 different camera types, then the latest mirrorless system(even the cheapest one) is vastly better. In fact, even the current best D-SLRs such as the Nikon D810, the D750 and the Canon 5DS cannot touch the slowest LV AF of the OM-D E-M5 from 2012, let alone the cheapest m43 or Sony A7X of today.

 

As I said a couple of months ago, I really really wanted to buy a new camera system because my 5 A7X cameras died in rain in the last December, and I have been testing many many camera systems that I might buy into. Like many of my young customers, I quickly lost interest in any of the best D-SLR options from Nikon and Pentax as I tested their terribly slow LV AF compared to my ancient Sony NEX5n(not even A6000 that I also owned at the time and now replaced by the A6300).

Honestly, none of current the best DSLRs can keep up with even an ancient primitive mirrorless camera like my 6 year-old NEX5n in LV AF mode shooting down slowly moving people from over my head height. It is just simply embarrassing, how bad the current DSLRs are in terms of LV/video AF. And it is really deplorable to see how conservative Canon Nikon really are, maybe not just conservative but arrogant, not to listen to the young gen photogs?

The D7000,which I shot in 2010-2011 had the same LV AF speed and accuracy as the D750, the D7200 and the D810(which I had in 2014-2015). It is seriously embarrassing that Nikon has not made any progress in LV AF speed in the last 6 years. The D750, the D7200 are the same slow as the ancient D7000 that I owned in 2010-11.

I think as Canon has dual pixel AF tech and already using that in their latest APS-C D-SLRs, they may be able to make the LV AF of their next gen cameras as fast as that of the last gen mirrorless from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. Hopefully, they will improve their fullframe DSLR LV AF dramatically in the next gen 5D4 and 6D2. But I think Nikon really needs to take this issue seriously to rectify their Dxxx line of D-SLR into more modern hybrid camera system( if they do not want to go serious FX mirrorless route to compete against Sony and Leica/Panasonic).

As I said many times, the iPhone gen people simply ignore cameras having slow AF in LV mode. I emphasize this again " they always shoot it with the LCD monitor, not with the EVF or the OVF when they try any of our displayed cameras at our shops".

Most of boys and girls coming from their smartphones or tablets or even from point and shoot cameras rarely use the OVF and thus, they think the D-SLRs are slower in AF and video mode than anything else including their cheap $99 US Casio. I know it is not the best way to shoot moving things, but like or not they do it anyway, they do use the monitor not the OVF, period. This means Nikon has to up their game in this specific area or they will be ignored to be an irrelevant player. Personally,I shoot most of stills images with the EVF, but there are times I need to shoot or prefer to shoot with the LCD monitor of my A7X camera. When I shoot video, I do not use the EVF because I always use a tripod or stabilizer for video but I sometimes wish if I could shoot handheld snap like easy video with AF. So even some middle aged person like me find the real fast LV AF very important these days. And I am actually thinking I am and our generation might be the last people who actually use any type of VF on any camera.

 

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

  

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

     

.

   

Boeing B737-800 Cockpit. A glass cockpit is an aircraft cockpit that features electronic (digital) flight instrument displays, typically large LCD screens, rather than the traditional style of analog dials and gauges. While a traditional cockpit (nicknamed as a "steam cockpit" within aviation circles) relies on numerous mechanical gauges to display information, a glass cockpit uses several displays driven by flight management systems, that can be adjusted (multi-function display) to display flight information as needed. This simplifies aircraft operation and navigation and allows pilots to focus only on the most pertinent information. They are also popular with airline companies as they usually eliminate the need for a flight engineer, saving costs. In recent years the technology has become widely available in small aircraft.

 

As aircraft displays have modernized, the sensors that feed them have modernized as well. Traditional gyroscopic flight instruments have been replaced by electronic Attitude and Heading Reference Systems (AHRS) and Air Data Computers (ADCs), improving reliability and reducing cost and maintenance. GPS receivers are usually integrated into glass cockpits.

 

Early glass cockpits, found in the McDonnell Douglas MD-80/90, Boeing 737 Classic, 757 and 767-200/-300, ATR 42, ATR 72 and in the Airbus A300-600 and A310, used Electronic Flight Instrument Systems (EFIS) to display attitude and navigational information only, with traditional mechanical gauges retained for airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, and engine performance. Later glass cockpits, found in the Boeing 737NG, 747-400, 767-400, 777, A320 and later Airbuses, Ilyushin Il-96 and Tupolev Tu-204 have completely replaced the mechanical gauges and warning lights in previous generations of aircraft, although they still retain some analog instruments as backups in case the EFIS displays malfunction.

 

An electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) is a flight deck instrument display system in which the display technology used is electronic rather than electromechanical. EFIS normally consists of a primary flight display (PFD), multi-function display (MFD) and engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS) display. Although cathode ray tube (CRT) displays were used at first, liquid crystal displays (LCD) are now more common.

 

The complex electromechanical attitude director indicator (ADI) and horizontal situation indicator (HSI) were the first candidates for replacement by EFIS. However, there are now few flight deck instruments for which no electronic display is available.

Leading Qld Aerial Photography Business For Sale

  

FUN!!!! VERY LUCRATIVE !!!! WELL ESTABLISHED!!!!

HIGH % RETURNS!!!!

This business has been operating in South East QLD for over 24 years, and with the current owner for 8 ½ years. This is a fun and exciting business where every day is different.

Get to see Queensland from a different perspective. Get paid to fly in helicopters & planes. Have your photos published on billboards, newspapers and magazines on a regular basis. We currently have more than 6 major billboard displays around Brisbane, and 4 major developer showrooms displaying our 'hero' images.

Proven consistent figures over the last 8 years, with 2011 being a very lucrative year. The business structures are in place to make money from the start, and there is still ample room for expansion.

This business can be owner-operated, but is also setup up with procedures and strategies to be managed and run by a manager. 25-30% return is achievable even after wages.

This is a unique yet in demand business.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A FRANCHISE!

* Suit an outgoing business minded person wanting a change of scenery

* 30% - 50% Return on investment

* Established 22+ years

* Cash flow positive business – no debtors

* Profit higher again in 2011

* Flexible working hours

* Home based business (ample Tax Deductions)

* Full training / 8 week handover period (by negotiation)

This business does not require any specific skills. A new owner can simply follow the systems, processes and procedures of this high quality service business to ensure ongoing success. Add your own marketing skills and management systems and see where else you can take this business.

The business would suit someone living in the SE Queensland area looking for the independence of running their own business or someone keen to move to the area to invest in a business that it powering along even in the current economic climate.

This is a very secure business with an excellent reputation and strong support systems that should allow a new owner the confidence to walk in, build on this very solid base and dream of the greater profits achievable in 2012! Make sure you enquire now to be ready to take advantage of the busy year ahead.

There is nothing else to do now but make money and have fun!!

 

Price: $380,000 All inclusive

  

Price : $355,000

  

View details here www.forsaleforlease.com.au/162822

This specific image was made with Nikon D600

  

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So will Nikon/Canon/Sony still be around in 2020?

I think Canon may survive but Nikon will not be around in this business by 2020(I do not mean it will go bankrupt). They are severely criticized for their slow adaptation of new techs. In Hokkaido, I met many many people still shooting D-SLRs and they were rude and blindedly believing in the ancient semi-analogue 1950th tech of their Canon Nikon cameras the absolute best, it was like a bad religion. But even in D-SLR land, there are not many guys still shooting Nikons any more, I think 8 out of 10 people still using DSLRs today shooting Canon, and they seem to ratiocinating their choice to the better lens selection of Canon, the better support and QC of Canon and Nikon's long neglecting of a proper D300s update. Actually, I was kind of able to relate to some of them if I still had some Nikon glass, I was waiting for a D700 successor in addition to my D810 for a long time, but I got tired of it and moved to Sony.

Now, they can get the D500 but many of them told me it was just too late, they've already bought a couple of EOS7DM2 with more than 10k worth of EF glass.

And Nikon is very very slow adapting to new tech and sudden market changes or environmental changes surrounding this unceasingly contracting stills camera market. How many years did they actually need to produce actual 4k capable consumer grade cameras in the D500 and the D5? How many years did they need to actually make their very first FF camera in the D3?

 

So is Nikon sinking or doing just fine?

The camera companies(especially Nikon) do need to listen to our iPhone generation photographers.

By carefully studying our young gen customers' shooting behaviors I find they do almost never use the OVF when they try out one of our displayed D-SLRs.

They cellphone generation boys always just hold cameras we display at our shops in front of their face with arms stretched out to see the LCD, never looking into the EVF or OVF when they try out any camera we display at our shops.

This means to them DSLR AF feels extremely slow, they always pan the DSLRs as slower than their smartphones in AF. We older people around 30 or older know if they shoot through the VF, the D-SLRs are actually still faster than most of mirrorless cameras out there(at least in C AF mode), maybe the Panasonic GH4, the GX8, maybe also the new GX85 and some latest gen Olympus being rare exceptions. But the young boys/girls almost never shoot through the VF unless they are already pretty well experienced or educated in this very odd hobby or art.

So after trying out a Canon or a Nikon FF D-SLR for about 10 minutes, many of our lovely young customers tell us,"we just gave up on DSLR AF already, it is too slow, just so annoying and we do not have time waiting for it to AF on what we want it to focus on,they are useless ".

 

Well, while I think they have no patience and the problem is obviously themselves not the camera, honestly, even if I were not a mirrorless shooter, I would still likely think very similarly about the D-SLRs and the dated tunnel view OVF since I have been quite used to using LCD and EVF devices since about I was 18y/o. So I definitely have no hard feeling on the EVF and the LCD LV shooting like many of my aged people have on the Sony or Fuji EVF cameras. I actually much prefer the current generation EVF and LCD to any of the current best tunnel view OVF from Canon or Nikon. I think even the 1DXMk2 OVF is not as good as the best EVF on the XT1 or the A7R2 for precise manual focus.

I think camera makers are too narrow-minded and conservative or stupid to ignore those kind of younger after digital era or iPhone gen people, but they should focus on them and they even need to educate them how to use cameras properly.

Many many those who claim themselves pro reviewers think the OVF cameras are faster in AF than the EVF cameras and they still always recommend the DSLRs for action shooters.

But I know many of our customers who are younger than me never use the VF when they try any camera out at our shops, and therefore, they think the DSLRs are actually much slower in AF even in C(action tracking mode), and they are right, the D-SLRs are super slow and unreliable in LV mode. The D-SLRs(especially Nikons) are slow, I mean super slow to the point I consider it is useless in LV mode. In fact, the only 2 D-SLRs I know of to have fast LV AF are the EOS80D and the EOS7DMK2, which I've panned a few times for the poor quality sensor with the terrible conversion noise issue. All the Nikon FX D-SLRs that have a superb sensor with clean base ISO performance have terribly slow, almost useless LV AF, which has never got better since the D7000 era.

Now, we have realized many of our customers telling us something like below after using any of our displayed DSLRs at our shops.

"Well, I still have and enjoy a DSLR, but I think that as a category, "DSLR Auto-focus" is overrated. Can you really put the Canon SL1 in the same boat as the Nikon D4s and generalize that the category is always the best? Why do you guys always compare the best D-SLR AF in the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the average class AF system of the mirrorless type cameras? It is simply wrong". I agree, many many reviewers and camera sales persons compare the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the cheap mirrorless AF performance to pan or even bash the cheap mirrorless as slow or not capable of tracking action. It is not fair.

There are all kinds of problems with the general-comparison-discussion I see on the net.

First: very few people have deep experience with many different systems, so their comparison is actually "camera I have two years, with 50,000 frames of field experience shooting" (DSLR) vs. "camera I tried once in a local camera shop and didn't really understand in the two minutes I held it" (Mirrorless X).

Second: people obnoxiously mix categories to serve their argument. So we see comparisons of the very latest or flagship DLSR bodies (D5, 1Dx2,D810, D750,etc) vs. the very cheapest mirrorless cameras (Fuji X-T10, Sony A6000, Panasonic GX85,etc). When the $500 mirrorless camera can't topple the $6000 pro FX DSLR, mirrorless technology is proclaimed generally insufficient as a category. Scott Kelby and his Canon-schilling cabal favor this approach. Someone asks him if he sees mirrorless as a viable alternative and he starts explaining all the ways an Olympus OM-D E-M10M2 won't get him the decisive shot on an NFL sideline. Um . . . yeah. How honest, sincere ? Why not compare your Canon to the best mirrorless the Sony A6300 or the Panasonic GH4 or the Fuji X-Pro2(in terms of AF)?

Third: people skip camera generations to serve their point. They compare the newest DSLRs ($1700 D750 from 2015) with much older mirrorless technology ($450 Olympus E-M5 from 2012) and, again, when the five-year-old mirrorless camera (that costs 1/4 as much) can't best the year-old DSLR in every possible test, mirrorless as a wholesale category fails. Some of so-called reviewers intentionally compare the D750 to the ORIGINAL A7R with the lamest AF tech to bash the entire Sony system as slow or useless fail in AF department. Why not compare the D750 to the A7M2 or even better to A6300 if you want to be taken seriously?

But we all real A7X shooters know that only the original A7R had slow(but accurate) AF and even that worst AF in the A7X camera history was decent enough for many of us. At least for me it was good enough, and actually I even say the worst AF in the A7X system- the A7R AF system was more accurate than any of the best D-SLRs I have used in my life, therefore, the A7R is better than any DSLRs even in AF department(at least for me). They-DSLR guys should realize not all of us shoot BIF or boring sports, in fact many of us have no interest in sports at all.

Honestly, It'd be easy to reverse these goofy arguments to "justify" an opposing conclusion. Compare an A6300 with a Nikon D3300, and conclude that DSLR autofocus categorically sucks. Voila, right? I guess now you get my point,right?

 

But the D-SLR guys always do this anyway to keep stereotyping all different AF systems and EVF systems of all different brand mirroless systems as though they were all made to be the same lousy.

What we really need to see is tier-to-tier, generation-to-generation comparisons, conducted by photographers who're just curious--folks who aren't interested in jamming a point down the industry's throat. And they must be neutral persons not old farts who have crazy long history of shooting film and SLR type gear with the super analogue tunnel view finder.

My sense, there is that you'd see pretty much even give-and-take in those comparisons. Pit a Sony A6300 against a Nikon D500, and I imagine you'd see that the Sony would win a few of the contests (accuracy / consistency, for sure, given that it uses the focal plane) and the Nikon would win a few (predictive, continuous acquisition speed). Neither victory would be decisive--it'd be give-and-take of a few points, either way,don't you think? And even if the A6300 is a lot worse than the Nikon D500, it is still 1k cheaper than the unreasonably oversized Nikon.

Pit a Fuji X-Pro2 against a Nikon D7200 and the X-P2 is going to come away with some AF victories. So will the D7200. Stack an A7R II up next to a D810 and you'd see the same thing. Neither camera will win all the tests for every subject. They'll be competitive, and some shooters(me included) will favor the mirrorless strengths. There's nothing strange about that. I personally cannot accept the size(not the weight) of the D810 and the inaccurate focus system of it. The AF fine tune thing was really annoying and almost never worked well in real use.

And as we start comparing the LV AF of the 2 different camera types, then the latest mirrorless system(even the cheapest one) is vastly better. In fact, even the current best D-SLRs such as the Nikon D810, the D750 and the Canon 5DS cannot touch the slowest LV AF of the OM-D E-M5 from 2012, let alone the cheapest m43 or Sony A7X of today.

 

As I said a couple of months ago, I really really wanted to buy a new camera system because my 5 A7X cameras died in rain in the last December, and I have been testing many many camera systems that I might buy into. Like many of my young customers, I quickly lost interest in any of the best D-SLR options from Nikon and Pentax as I tested their terribly slow LV AF compared to my ancient Sony NEX5n(not even A6000 that I also owned at the time and now replaced by the A6300).

Honestly, none of current the best DSLRs can keep up with even an ancient primitive mirrorless camera like my 6 year-old NEX5n in LV AF mode shooting down slowly moving people from over my head height. It is just simply embarrassing, how bad the current DSLRs are in terms of LV/video AF. And it is really deplorable to see how conservative Canon Nikon really are, maybe not just conservative but arrogant, not to listen to the young gen photogs?

The D7000,which I shot in 2010-2011 had the same LV AF speed and accuracy as the D750, the D7200 and the D810(which I had in 2014-2015). It is seriously embarrassing that Nikon has not made any progress in LV AF speed in the last 6 years. The D750, the D7200 are the same slow as the ancient D7000 that I owned in 2010-11.

I think as Canon has dual pixel AF tech and already using that in their latest APS-C D-SLRs, they may be able to make the LV AF of their next gen cameras as fast as that of the last gen mirrorless from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. Hopefully, they will improve their fullframe DSLR LV AF dramatically in the next gen 5D4 and 6D2. But I think Nikon really needs to take this issue seriously to rectify their Dxxx line of D-SLR into more modern hybrid camera system( if they do not want to go serious FX mirrorless route to compete against Sony and Leica/Panasonic).

As I said many times, the iPhone gen people simply ignore cameras having slow AF in LV mode. I emphasize this again " they always shoot it with the LCD monitor, not with the EVF or the OVF when they try any of our displayed cameras at our shops".

Most of boys and girls coming from their smartphones or tablets or even from point and shoot cameras rarely use the OVF and thus, they think the D-SLRs are slower in AF and video mode than anything else including their cheap $99 US Casio. I know it is not the best way to shoot moving things, but like or not they do it anyway, they do use the monitor not the OVF, period. This means Nikon has to up their game in this specific area or they will be ignored to be an irrelevant player. Personally,I shoot most of stills images with the EVF, but there are times I need to shoot or prefer to shoot with the LCD monitor of my A7X camera. When I shoot video, I do not use the EVF because I always use a tripod or stabilizer for video but I sometimes wish if I could shoot handheld snap like easy video with AF. So even some middle aged person like me find the real fast LV AF very important these days. And I am actually thinking I am and our generation might be the last people who actually use any type of VF on any camera.

 

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

  

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

     

.

   

SANUS SYSTEMS BFV145-B1 Foundations Basic Series TV Stand

  

Holds TVs up to 150 lbs

Constructed of tempered glass shelves & black lacquer

Open architecture keeps A/V components cool

Generous cable management

 

SANUS SYSTEMS BFV145-B1 Foundations™ Basic Series TV Stand

 

List Price: $ 2...

 

zoval.com/best-savings-for-sanus-systems-bfv145-b1-founda...

The United States Congress designated the Table Rock Wilderness in 1984 and it now has a total of 5,781 acres. All of this wilderness is located in Oregon and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

A remnant of a lava flow that once covered this region along the western foothills of the Cascades, the "fortress" of Table Rock stands at 4,881 feet above the northeastern portion of this small Wilderness. On this steep and rugged terrain you'll find a quiet forest of Douglas fir and western hemlock, with noble fir at higher elevations and crowds of rhododendron on many of the upper slopes, an island of old growth in an ocean of forest development. At least two endangered plants bloom here: Oregon sullivantia and Gorman's aster. Deer and elk wander about in winter, and the northern spotted owl has been spotted among the old trees.

From four trailheads, about 17 miles of trails give access to the Wilderness. A relatively easy hike from Table Rock Road will take you up the Table Rock Trail to the sweeping vista from the summit of Table Rock, where the land falls suddenly away in basalt cliffs on the north face. From this high point, Mount Rainier looms far to the north, Bull of the Woods Wilderness beckons from the east, and the Willamette Valley spreads out to the south.

You will not find any reliable sources of potable water on the trails, so pack along your own. Horses may find dangerous footing on some of the talus slopes.

 

Additional information about the Table Rock Wilderness, and all the other BLM Wilderness areas in Oregon/Washington, is available online at:

www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/wilderness2.php

 

www.pnsale.com/item/73001/urbancase-oddjob-wall-mounted-d....

A handcrafted wall mounted desk with optional pullout workstation. Includes cord management system and mounting hardware.

www.pnsale.com/item/73000/urbancase-oddjob-wall-mounted-d....

A handcrafted wall mounted desk with optional pullout workstation. Includes cord management system and mounting hardware.

This specific image was made with Sony NEX5n

  

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So will Nikon/Canon/Sony still be around in 2020?

I think Canon may survive but Nikon will not be around in this business by 2020(I do not mean it will go bankrupt). They are severely criticized for their slow adaptation of new techs. In Hokkaido, I met many many people still shooting D-SLRs and they were rude and blindedly believing in the ancient semi-analogue 1950th tech of their Canon Nikon cameras the absolute best, it was like a bad religion. But even in D-SLR land, there are not many guys still shooting Nikons any more, I think 8 out of 10 people still using DSLRs today shooting Canon, and they seem to ratiocinating their choice to the better lens selection of Canon, the better support and QC of Canon and Nikon's long neglecting of a proper D300s update. Actually, I was kind of able to relate to some of them if I still had some Nikon glass, I was waiting for a D700 successor in addition to my D810 for a long time, but I got tired of it and moved to Sony.

Now, they can get the D500 but many of them told me it was just too late, they've already bought a couple of EOS7DM2 with more than 10k worth of EF glass.

And Nikon is very very slow adapting to new tech and sudden market changes or environmental changes surrounding this unceasingly contracting stills camera market. How many years did they actually need to produce actual 4k capable consumer grade cameras in the D500 and the D5? How many years did they need to actually make their very first FF camera in the D3?

 

So is Nikon sinking or doing just fine?

The camera companies(especially Nikon) do need to listen to our iPhone generation photographers.

By carefully studying our young gen customers' shooting behaviors I find they do almost never use the OVF when they try out one of our displayed D-SLRs.

They cellphone generation boys always just hold cameras we display at our shops in front of their face with arms stretched out to see the LCD, never looking into the EVF or OVF when they try out any camera we display at our shops.

This means to them DSLR AF feels extremely slow, they always pan the DSLRs as slower than their smartphones in AF. We older people around 30 or older know if they shoot through the VF, the D-SLRs are actually still faster than most of mirrorless cameras out there(at least in C AF mode), maybe the Panasonic GH4, the GX8, maybe also the new GX85 and some latest gen Olympus being rare exceptions. But the young boys/girls almost never shoot through the VF unless they are already pretty well experienced or educated in this very odd hobby or art.

So after trying out a Canon or a Nikon FF D-SLR for about 10 minutes, many of our lovely young customers tell us,"we just gave up on DSLR AF already, it is too slow, just so annoying and we do not have time waiting for it to AF on what we want it to focus on,they are useless ".

 

Well, while I think they have no patience and the problem is obviously themselves not the camera, honestly, even if I were not a mirrorless shooter, I would still likely think very similarly about the D-SLRs and the dated tunnel view OVF since I have been quite used to using LCD and EVF devices since about I was 18y/o. So I definitely have no hard feeling on the EVF and the LCD LV shooting like many of my aged people have on the Sony or Fuji EVF cameras. I actually much prefer the current generation EVF and LCD to any of the current best tunnel view OVF from Canon or Nikon. I think even the 1DXMk2 OVF is not as good as the best EVF on the XT1 or the A7R2 for precise manual focus.

I think camera makers are too narrow-minded and conservative or stupid to ignore those kind of younger after digital era or iPhone gen people, but they should focus on them and they even need to educate them how to use cameras properly.

Many many those who claim themselves pro reviewers think the OVF cameras are faster in AF than the EVF cameras and they still always recommend the DSLRs for action shooters.

But I know many of our customers who are younger than me never use the VF when they try any camera out at our shops, and therefore, they think the DSLRs are actually much slower in AF even in C(action tracking mode), and they are right, the D-SLRs are super slow and unreliable in LV mode. The D-SLRs(especially Nikons) are slow, I mean super slow to the point I consider it is useless in LV mode. In fact, the only 2 D-SLRs I know of to have fast LV AF are the EOS80D and the EOS7DMK2, which I've panned a few times for the poor quality sensor with the terrible conversion noise issue. All the Nikon FX D-SLRs that have a superb sensor with clean base ISO performance have terribly slow, almost useless LV AF, which has never got better since the D7000 era.

Now, we have realized many of our customers telling us something like below after using any of our displayed DSLRs at our shops.

"Well, I still have and enjoy a DSLR, but I think that as a category, "DSLR Auto-focus" is overrated. Can you really put the Canon SL1 in the same boat as the Nikon D4s and generalize that the category is always the best? Why do you guys always compare the best D-SLR AF in the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the average class AF system of the mirrorless type cameras? It is simply wrong". I agree, many many reviewers and camera sales persons compare the D5 or the 1DX2 vs the cheap mirrorless AF performance to pan or even bash the cheap mirrorless as slow or not capable of tracking action. It is not fair.

There are all kinds of problems with the general-comparison-discussion I see on the net.

First: very few people have deep experience with many different systems, so their comparison is actually "camera I have two years, with 50,000 frames of field experience shooting" (DSLR) vs. "camera I tried once in a local camera shop and didn't really understand in the two minutes I held it" (Mirrorless X).

Second: people obnoxiously mix categories to serve their argument. So we see comparisons of the very latest or flagship DLSR bodies (D5, 1Dx2,D810, D750,etc) vs. the very cheapest mirrorless cameras (Fuji X-T10, Sony A6000, Panasonic GX85,etc). When the $500 mirrorless camera can't topple the $6000 pro FX DSLR, mirrorless technology is proclaimed generally insufficient as a category. Scott Kelby and his Canon-schilling cabal favor this approach. Someone asks him if he sees mirrorless as a viable alternative and he starts explaining all the ways an Olympus OM-D E-M10M2 won't get him the decisive shot on an NFL sideline. Um . . . yeah. How honest, sincere ? Why not compare your Canon to the best mirrorless the Sony A6300 or the Panasonic GH4 or the Fuji X-Pro2(in terms of AF)?

Third: people skip camera generations to serve their point. They compare the newest DSLRs ($1700 D750 from 2015) with much older mirrorless technology ($450 Olympus E-M5 from 2012) and, again, when the five-year-old mirrorless camera (that costs 1/4 as much) can't best the year-old DSLR in every possible test, mirrorless as a wholesale category fails. Some of so-called reviewers intentionally compare the D750 to the ORIGINAL A7R with the lamest AF tech to bash the entire Sony system as slow or useless fail in AF department. Why not compare the D750 to the A7M2 or even better to A6300 if you want to be taken seriously?

But we all real A7X shooters know that only the original A7R had slow(but accurate) AF and even that worst AF in the A7X camera history was decent enough for many of us. At least for me it was good enough, and actually I even say the worst AF in the A7X system- the A7R AF system was more accurate than any of the best D-SLRs I have used in my life, therefore, the A7R is better than any DSLRs even in AF department(at least for me). They-DSLR guys should realize not all of us shoot BIF or boring sports, in fact many of us have no interest in sports at all.

Honestly, It'd be easy to reverse these goofy arguments to "justify" an opposing conclusion. Compare an A6300 with a Nikon D3300, and conclude that DSLR autofocus categorically sucks. Voila, right? I guess now you get my point,right?

 

But the D-SLR guys always do this anyway to keep stereotyping all different AF systems and EVF systems of all different brand mirroless systems as though they were all made to be the same lousy.

What we really need to see is tier-to-tier, generation-to-generation comparisons, conducted by photographers who're just curious--folks who aren't interested in jamming a point down the industry's throat. And they must be neutral persons not old farts who have crazy long history of shooting film and SLR type gear with the super analogue tunnel view finder.

My sense, there is that you'd see pretty much even give-and-take in those comparisons. Pit a Sony A6300 against a Nikon D500, and I imagine you'd see that the Sony would win a few of the contests (accuracy / consistency, for sure, given that it uses the focal plane) and the Nikon would win a few (predictive, continuous acquisition speed). Neither victory would be decisive--it'd be give-and-take of a few points, either way,don't you think? And even if the A6300 is a lot worse than the Nikon D500, it is still 1k cheaper than the unreasonably oversized Nikon.

Pit a Fuji X-Pro2 against a Nikon D7200 and the X-P2 is going to come away with some AF victories. So will the D7200. Stack an A7R II up next to a D810 and you'd see the same thing. Neither camera will win all the tests for every subject. They'll be competitive, and some shooters(me included) will favor the mirrorless strengths. There's nothing strange about that. I personally cannot accept the size(not the weight) of the D810 and the inaccurate focus system of it. The AF fine tune thing was really annoying and almost never worked well in real use.

And as we start comparing the LV AF of the 2 different camera types, then the latest mirrorless system(even the cheapest one) is vastly better. In fact, even the current best D-SLRs such as the Nikon D810, the D750 and the Canon 5DS cannot touch the slowest LV AF of the OM-D E-M5 from 2012, let alone the cheapest m43 or Sony A7X of today.

 

As I said a couple of months ago, I really really wanted to buy a new camera system because my 5 A7X cameras died in rain in the last December, and I have been testing many many camera systems that I might buy into. Like many of my young customers, I quickly lost interest in any of the best D-SLR options from Nikon and Pentax as I tested their terribly slow LV AF compared to my ancient Sony NEX5n(not even A6000 that I also owned at the time and now replaced by the A6300).

Honestly, none of current the best DSLRs can keep up with even an ancient primitive mirrorless camera like my 6 year-old NEX5n in LV AF mode shooting down slowly moving people from over my head height. It is just simply embarrassing, how bad the current DSLRs are in terms of LV/video AF. And it is really deplorable to see how conservative Canon Nikon really are, maybe not just conservative but arrogant, not to listen to the young gen photogs?

The D7000,which I shot in 2010-2011 had the same LV AF speed and accuracy as the D750, the D7200 and the D810(which I had in 2014-2015). It is seriously embarrassing that Nikon has not made any progress in LV AF speed in the last 6 years. The D750, the D7200 are the same slow as the ancient D7000 that I owned in 2010-11.

I think as Canon has dual pixel AF tech and already using that in their latest APS-C D-SLRs, they may be able to make the LV AF of their next gen cameras as fast as that of the last gen mirrorless from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic. Hopefully, they will improve their fullframe DSLR LV AF dramatically in the next gen 5D4 and 6D2. But I think Nikon really needs to take this issue seriously to rectify their Dxxx line of D-SLR into more modern hybrid camera system( if they do not want to go serious FX mirrorless route to compete against Sony and Leica/Panasonic).

As I said many times, the iPhone gen people simply ignore cameras having slow AF in LV mode. I emphasize this again " they always shoot it with the LCD monitor, not with the EVF or the OVF when they try any of our displayed cameras at our shops".

Most of boys and girls coming from their smartphones or tablets or even from point and shoot cameras rarely use the OVF and thus, they think the D-SLRs are slower in AF and video mode than anything else including their cheap $99 US Casio. I know it is not the best way to shoot moving things, but like or not they do it anyway, they do use the monitor not the OVF, period. This means Nikon has to up their game in this specific area or they will be ignored to be an irrelevant player. Personally,I shoot most of stills images with the EVF, but there are times I need to shoot or prefer to shoot with the LCD monitor of my A7X camera. When I shoot video, I do not use the EVF because I always use a tripod or stabilizer for video but I sometimes wish if I could shoot handheld snap like easy video with AF. So even some middle aged person like me find the real fast LV AF very important these days. And I am actually thinking I am and our generation might be the last people who actually use any type of VF on any camera.

 

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

  

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

     

.

   

January's #nationalconservationlands Top 15: National Conservation Lands Milestones

 

Each #conservationlands15 month will feature a Top 15 list. Today’s Top 15 puts the National Conservation Lands in perspective - from our history to our future.

 

#1 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is enacted into law, designates two BLM-managed Wild and Scenic Rivers (Rio Grande and Rogue); now, the BLM manages 69 such rivers — 1968.

 

#2 The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail is one of two trails designated within the newly-minted National Trails System Act; now, the BLM has stewardship responsibilities for segments of 18 National Scenic and Historic Trails — 1968.

 

#3 King Range, on California’s rugged Lost Coast, is designated as the nation’s first National Conservation Area; today, the BLM manages 21 National Conservation Areas and Similar Designations — 1970.

 

#4 Federal Land Policy and Management Act enacted; establishes California Desert Conservation Area and directs the BLM to study lands under its stewardship for wilderness values — 1976.

 

#5 The BLM study process identifies Wilderness Study Areas for consideration by Congress for Wilderness designation; the BLM currently manages 588 Wilderness Study Areas - 1980.

 

#6 Yaquina Head in Oregon, including its stately lighthouse, is designated as the first Outstanding Natural Area to be managed by the BLM; today, there are five lighthouses located on National Conservation Lands - 1980.

 

#7 Montana’s Beartrap Canyon is designated as the first BLM wilderness; the BLM currently administers 221 wilderness areas — 1983.

 

#8 Congress creates the San Pedro River National Conservation Area in southern Arizona; in 1995, the American Bird Conservancy recognized the San Pedro as its first “globally important bird area” in the U.S. — 1988.

 

#9 Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante is designated the BLM’s first national monument by President Bill Clinton; today, the BLM manages 20 national monuments — 1996.

 

#10 Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt establishes the “National Landscape Conservation System,” now commonly referred to as the National Conservation Lands — 2000.

 

#11 First National Conservation Lands Science Grants are issued; to date, the program has funded a total of 182 science projects, nearly all for universities, non-profit research organizations, and other partners — 2000.

 

#12 Congress votes the National Landscape Conservation System into law to “conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations” — 2009.

 

#13 The 10th anniversary of the National Landscape Conservation System is celebrated with more than 90 BLM events from coast to coast; a new 15-year strategy for management of BLM conservation lands is established — 2010.

 

#14 Arizona’s Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument is recognized as the first International Dark Sky Province on BLM-managed lands — 2014.

 

#15 The National Conservation Lands celebrate their 15th anniversary as a system: 878 units totaling 31 million acres in 13 states! — 2015.

 

Photo of Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument, Arizona, by Bob Wick

Airbus A319-133X (CJ)

P4-RLA

MSN:4319.

 

Private Airbus A319 from D'Ukraine.

Black Friday 2011 Bell'O FP-4855 Audio Video Table with Universal Flat Panel TV Mounting System

 

Product Description

The sweeping curves of the liquid silver legs and table frame, along with the curved deep black glass and black universal TV mounting system form a dramatic foundation to display a Flat Panel TV. This striking design will accommodate most Flat Panel TVs up to 52" or 125 lbs. and up to 4 or more audio video components plus a center channel speaker. It features tempered safety glass and a scratch resistant powder coated metal frame, and includes an integrated CMS Cable Management System to hide wires and interconnect cables.

 

Buy Now - Add To Cart - Similar Products - Accessories

  

In order to see if your business is indeed bringing in your wanted profits, you need to monitor your business. However, it is quite daunting for you to constantly check everything yourself. Thus, you need to set up your own business management system.

 

Read full article here: Creating Your Own Business Management System

www.smartenupinstitute.com

back office accounting

banking education

brokerage compliance

brokerage it

business analysis

education for back office

financial courses

financial education

relationship management system

customer relationship manager

client relationship manager

trading systems education

trading training courses

canadian securities course

canadian securities insitute

continuing education credits iiroc

customer relationship management

client relationship management

customer relationship management system

customer relationship management systems

online customer relationship management

customer relationship management solutions

customer relationship management software

financial literacy

customer relationship management database

crm software

business analyst certification

web based crm

client relationship management software

contact relationship management

business analysis tools

investment banking training

canadian securities institute

financial certifications

finance education

certified financial planner

online stock trading

personal finance education

financial advisor training

investment banking

trading technologies

accounting courses

finance certifications

finance courses

 

Optische Eindrücke aus dem Oberharz: Oberer Grumbacher Teich.

 

UNESCO Weltkulturerbe "Oberharzer Wasserwirtschaft"

UNESCO World Heritage "Upper Harz Water Management System"

111 Water Saving Tips

 

#1. There are a number of ways to save water, and they all start with you.

 

#2. When washing dishes by hand, don't let the water run while rinsing. Fill one sink with wash water and the other with rinse water.

 

#3. Evaporative coolers require a seasonal maintenance checkup. For more efficient cooling, check your evaporative cooler annually.

 

#4. Check your sprinkler system frequently and adjust sprinklers so only your lawn is watered and not the house, sidewalk, or street.

 

#5. Run your washing machine and dishwasher only when they are full and you could save 1000 gallons a month.

 

#6. Avoid planting turf in areas that are hard to water such as steep inclines and isolated strips along sidewalks and driveways.

 

#7. Install covers on pools and spas and check for leaks around your pumps.

 

#8. Use the garbage disposal sparingly. Compost instead and save gallons every time.

 

#9. Plant during the spring or fall when the watering requirements are lower.

 

#10. Keep a pitcher of water in the refrigerator instead of running the tap for cold drinks, so that every drop goes down you not the drain.

 

#11. Check your water meter and bill to track your water usage.

 

#12. Minimize evaporation by watering during the early morning hours, when temperatures are cooler and winds are lighter.

 

#13. Wash your produce in the sink or a pan that is partially filled with water instead of running water from the tap.

 

#14. Use a layer of organic mulch around plants to reduce evaporation and save hundreds of gallons of water a year.

 

#15. Use a broom instead of a hose to clean your driveway or sidewalk and save 80 gallons of water every time.

 

#16. If your shower can fill a one-gallon bucket in less than 20 seconds, then replace it with a water-efficient showerhead.

 

#17. Collect the water you use for rinsing produce and reuse it to water houseplants.

 

#18. Divide your watering cycle into shorter periods to reduce runoff and allow for better absorption every time you water.

 

#19. We're more likely to notice leaky faucets indoors, but don't forget to check outdoor faucets, pipes, and hoses for leaks.

 

#20. Periodically check your pool for leaks if you have an automatic refilling device.

 

#21. Only water your lawn when needed. You can tell this by simply walking across your lawn. If you leave footprints, it's time to water.

 

#22. When you shop for a new appliance, consider one offering cycle and load size adjustments. They are more water and energy-efficient than older appliances.

 

#23. Time your shower to keep it under 5 minutes. You'll save up to 1000 gallons a month.

 

#24. Install low-volume toilets.

 

#25. Adjust your lawn mower to a higher setting. Longer grass shades root systems and holds soil moisture better than a closely clipped lawn.

 

#26. When you clean your fish tank, use the water you've drained on your plants. The water is rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, providing you with a free and effective fertilizer.

 

#27. Use the sprinkler for larger areas of grass. Water small patches by hand to avoid waste.

 

#28. Put food coloring in your toilet tank. If it seeps into the toilet bowl, you have a leak. It's easy to fix, and you can save more than 600 gallons a month.

 

#29. Plug the bathtub before turning the water on, then adjust the temperature as the tub fills up.

 

#30. Use porous materials for walkways and patios to keep water in your yard and prevent wasteful runoff.

 

#31. Direct downspouts and other runoff towards shrubs and trees, or collect and use for your garden.

 

#32. Designate one glass for your drinking water each day. This will cut down on the number of times you run your dishwasher.

 

#33. Water your summer lawns once every three days and your winter lawn once every five days.

 

#34. Install a rain shut-off device on your automatic sprinklers to eliminate unnecessary watering.

 

#35. Don't use running water to thaw food.

 

#36. Choose a water-efficient drip irrigation system for trees, shrubs and flowers. Watering at the roots is very effective, be careful not to over water.

 

#37. Grab a wrench and fix that leaky faucet. It's simple, inexpensive, and can save 140 gallons a week.

 

#38. Reduce the amount of grass in your yard by planting shrubs, and ground cover with rock and granite mulching.

 

#39. When doing laundry, match the water level to the size of the load.

 

#40. Teach your children to turn the faucets off tightly after each use.

 

#41. Remember to check your sprinkler system valves periodically for leaks and keep the heads in good shape.

 

#42. Before you lather up, install a low-flow showerhead. They're inexpensive, easy to install, and can save your family more than 500 gallons a week.

 

#43. Soak your pots and pans instead of letting the water run while you scrape them clean.

 

#44. Don't water your lawn on windy days. After all, sidewalks and driveways don't need water.

 

#45. Water your plants deeply but less frequently to create healthier and stronger landscapes.

 

#46. Make sure you know where your master water shut-off valve is located. This could save gallons of water and damage to your home if a pipe were to burst.

 

#47. When watering grass on steep slopes, use a soaker hose to prevent wasteful runoff.

 

#48. Group plants with the same watering needs together to get the most out of your watering time.

 

#49. Remember to weed your lawn and garden regularly. Weeds compete with other plants for nutrients, light, and water.

 

#50. While fertilizers promote plant growth, they also increase water consumption. Apply the minimum amount of fertilizer needed.

 

#51. Avoid installing ornamental water features and fountains that spray water into the air. Trickling or cascading fountains lose less water to evaporation.

 

#52. Use a commercial car wash that recycles water.

 

#53. Don't buy recreational water toys that require a constant flow of water.

 

#54. Turn off the water while you brush your teeth and save 4 gallons a minute. That's 200 gallons a week for a family of four.

 

#55. Buy a rain gauge to track how much rain or irrigation your yard receives. Check with your local water agency to see how much rain is needed to skip an irrigation cycle.

 

#56. Encourage your school system and local government to help develop and promote a water conservation ethic among children and adults.

 

#57. Teach your family how to shut off your automatic watering systems. Turn sprinklers off if the system is malfunctioning or when a storm is approaching.

 

#58. Set a kitchen timer when watering your lawn or garden with a hose.

 

#59. Make sure your toilet flapper doesn't stick open after flushing.

 

#60. Make sure there are aerators on all of your faucets.

 

#61. Next time you add or replace a flower or shrub, choose a low water use plant for year-round landscape color and save up to 550 gallons each year.

 

#62. Install an instant water heater on your kitchen sink so you don't have to let the water run while it heats up. This will also reduce heating costs for your household.

 

#63. Use a grease pencil to mark the water level of your pool at the skimmer. Check the mark 24 hours later. Your pool should lose no more than 1/4 inch each day.

 

#64. Cut back on rinsing if your dishwasher is new. Newer models clean more thoroughly than older ones.

 

#65. Use a screwdriver as a soil probe to test soil moisture. If it goes in easily, don't water. Proper lawn watering can save thousands of gallons of water annually.

  

#66. Avoid overseeding your lawn with winter grass. Once established, ryegrass needs water every three to five days, whereas dormant Bermuda grass needs water only once a month.

  

#67. Do one thing each day that will save water. Even if savings are small, every drop counts.

  

#68. When the kids want to cool off, use the sprinkler in an area where your lawn needs it the most.

  

#69. Make sure your swimming pools, fountains, and ponds are equipped with recirculating pumps.

  

#70. Bathe your young children together.

  

#71. Landscape with Xeriscape trees, plants and groundcovers. Call your local conservation office for more information about these water thrifty plants.

  

#72. Winterize outdoor spigots when temps dip to 20 degrees F to prevent pipes from bursting or freezing.

  

#73. Insulate hot water pipes so you don't have to run as much water to get hot water to the faucet.

  

#74. Wash your car on the grass. This will water your lawn at the same time.

 

#75. Drop that tissue in the trash instead of flushing it and save gallons every time.

 

#76. If you have an evaporative cooler, direct the water drain to a flowerbed, tree, or your lawn.

 

#77. Make suggestions to your employer to save water (and dollars) at work.

 

#78. Support projects that use reclaimed wastewater for irrigation and other uses.

 

#79. Use a hose nozzle and turn off the water while you wash your car and save more than 100 gallons.

 

#80. Encourage your friends and neighbors to be part of a water-conscious community.

 

#81. If your toilet was installed prior to 1980, place a toilet dam or bottle filled with water in your toilet tank to cut down on the amount of water used for each flush. Be sure these devices do not interfere with operating parts.

 

#82. Install water softening systems only when necessary. Save water and salt by running the minimum number of regenerations necessary to maintain water softness.

  

#83. Wash clothes only when you have a full load and save up to 600 gallons each month.

  

#84. Leave lower branches on trees and shrubs and allow leaf litter to accumulate on top of the soil. This keeps the soil cooler and reduces evaporation.

  

#85. Pick-up the phone and report significant water losses from broken pipes, open hydrants and errant sprinklers to the property owner or your water management district.

  

#86. Bermuda grasses are dormant (brown) in the winter and will only require water once every three to four weeks or less if it rains.

 

#87. Start a compost pile. Using compost when you plant adds water-holding organic matter to the soil.

 

#88. Use sprinklers that throw big drops of water close to the ground. Smaller drops of water and mist often evaporate before they hit the ground.

 

#89. Listen for dripping faucets and toilets that flush themselves. Fixing a leak can save 500 gallons each month.

 

#90. More plants die from over-watering than from under-watering. Be sure only to water plants when necessary.

 

#91. Cook food in as little water as possible. This will also retain more of the nutrients.

 

#92. Adjust your watering schedule to the season. Water your summer lawn every third day and your winter lawn every fifth day.

 

#93. Turn the water off while you shampoo and condition your hair and you can save more than 50 gallons a week.

 

#94. Bathe your pets outdoors in an area in need of water.

 

#95. Choose new water-saving appliances, like washing machines that save up to 20 gallons per load.

 

#96. Water only as rapidly as the soil can absorb the water.

 

#97. Aerate your lawn. Punch holes in your lawn about six inches apart so water will reach the roots rather than run off the surface.

 

#98. Select the proper size pans for cooking. Large pans require more cooking water than may be necessary.

 

#99. Place an empty tuna can on your lawn to catch and measure the water output of your sprinklers. For lawn watering advice, contact your local conservation office.

 

#100. Turn off the water while you shave and you can save more than 100 gallons a week.

 

#101. When you give your pet fresh water, don't throw the old water down the drain. Use it to water your trees or shrubs.

 

#102. If you accidentally drop ice cubes when filling your glass from the freezer, don't throw them in the sink. Drop them in a house plant instead.

 

#103. To save water and time, consider washing your face or brushing your teeth while in the shower.

 

#104. While staying in a hotel or even at home, consider reusing your towels.

 

#105. When backwashing your pool, consider using the water on your

landscaping.

 

#106. For hanging baskets, planters and pots, place ice cubes under the moss or dirt to give your plants a cool drink of water and help eliminate water overflow.

 

#107. Throw trimmings and peelings from fruits and vegetables into your yard compost to prevent from using the garbage disposal.

 

#108. When you have ice left in your cup from a take-out restaurant, don't throw it in the trash, dump it on a plant.

 

#109. Have your plumber re-route your gray water to trees and gardens rather than letting it run into the sewer line. Check with your city codes, and if it isn't allowed in your area, start a movement to get that changed.

 

#110. Keep a bucket in the shower to catch water as it warms up or runs. Use this water to flush toilets or water plants.

 

#111. When you are washing your hands, don't let the water run while you lather.

 

Filocity.com an online document management (SaaS) software as a service firm recently announced a new system of document management and project management with virtual office tools that are destined to revolutionize the area of document management and file sharing.

 

HSC Benchijigua Express

is a fast ferry, operated by shipping company Fred Olsen S.A.

between the Canary Islands, Tenerife, La Gomera, El Hierro and La Palma in the Atlantic.

It was delivered to Olsen in April 2005.

 

At 127 metres ( 417 ft ) long, the Benchijigua Express is the second-longest trimaran in the world, less than a metre shy of the Independence class littoral combat ship, which was based on Benchijigua Express's design. Her body is made of aluminum and with a special offshore coating; and is the second-largest vessel with an aluminum hull. The ship's name was previously used twice since 1999.

 

Design and construction

The Benchijigua Express was built in Henderson, Western Australia by Austal. The vessel is 126.65 metres ( 415.5 ft ) long, 30.4 metres ( 100 ft ) wide, and with a draught of 4 metres ( 13 ft ).

She can reach speeds of 42 knots ( 78 km/h; 48 mph ),

although her normal service speed is 36 knots ( 67 km/h; 41 mph ).

 

The vessel is powered by four diesel engines of MTU Series 8000 ( 20 valves ),

each with 8,200 kW at 1,150 rpm driven, housed in two engine rooms.

 

Each of the two diesels in the rear engine-room

drive one Kamewa 125 SII steerable waterjet propulsion from Rolls-Royce.

 

The overall performance of both machines at the front engine room

is transferred to a Kamewa 180 BII booster waterjet.

 

The electrical energy is generated by four MTU 12V 2000 M40 generator units.

 

Up to 1,291 passengers are distributed on two decks. Due to the short crossing time, there are no passenger cabins. For vehicle transport there are 123 car spaces and 450 metres ( 1,480 ft ) of truck lane; the latter can be converted into an additional 218 car spaces.

 

The vehicle deck can be loaded and unloaded in 30 minutes over tree lines ! ! !.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Benchijigua_Express

 

www.ship-technology.com/projects/benchijigua/specs.html

 

______________________________________________________________________

  

Independence class littoral combat ship

The Independence class is a class of littoral combat ships built for the United States Navy.

 

Based on the high-speed trimaran Benchijigua Express, the Independence class was proposed by General Dynamics and Austal as a contender for USN plans to build a fleet of small, multipurpose warships to operate in the littoral zone. Two ships were approved, to compete with Lockheed Martin's Freedom class design for a construction contract of up to 55 vessels.

 

As of 2010, the lead ship is active, while a second ship is under construction. Despite initial plans to only accept one our of the Independence and Freedom classes, the USN has requested that Congress order ten ships of each class.

 

Planning and construction

Planning for a class of small, multipurpose warships to operate in the littoral zone began in the early 2000s. In July 2003, a proposal by General Dynamics ( partnering with Austal USA, the American subsidiary of Australian shipbuilder Austal ) was approved by the USN, with a contract for two vessels. These would then be compared to two ships built by Lockheed Martin to determine which design would be taken up by the Navy for a production run of up to 55 ships.

 

The first ship, USS Independence was laid down at the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Alabama, on 19 January 2006. The planned second ship was cancelled in November 2007, but reordered in May 2009, and laid down in December of that year as USS Coronado, shortly before Independence was launched.

 

The development and construction of Independence as of June 2009 was running at 220% over-budget. The total projected cost for the ship is $704 million. The Navy had originally projected the cost at $220 million. Independence began builder's trials in July 2009, three days behind schedule because of maintenance issues. A leak in the port gas turbine saw the order of trials altered, but builder's and acceptance trials were completed by November. and although her first INSURV inspection revealed 2,080 deficiencies, these were rectified in time for the ship to be handed over to the USN in mid-December, and commissioned in mid-January 2010.

 

After much inconsistency on how testing and orders were to proceed, in November 2010, the USN asked that Congress approve ten of both the Independence and Freedom classes

 

Design

The Independence class design is based on Austal's commercial high-speed trimaran Benchijigua Express. The ships are 127.4 m ( 418 ft ) long, with a beam of 31.6 m ( 104 ft ), and a draft of 13 ft ( 3.96 m ). Their displacement is rated at 2,176 tons light, 2,784 tons full, and 608 tons deadweight.

 

The standard ship's company is 40-strong, although this can increase depending on the ship's role with mission-specifc personnel. The habitability area is located under the bridge where bunks for ships personnel are situated. The helm is controlled by joysticks instead of traditional steering wheels.

 

Although the trimaran hull increases the total surface area, it is still able to reach sustainable speeds of about 50 knots ( 93 km/h; 58 mph ), with a range of 10,000 nautical miles ( 19,000 km; 12,000 mi ).

Austal claims that the design will use a third less fuel than the competing Freedom-class, but the Congressional Budget Office found that fuel would account for 18 percent or less of the total lifetime cost of Freedom.

 

Modular mission capability

The Independence class carries a default armament for self-defense, and command and control. However unlike traditional fighting ships with fixed armament such as guns and missiles, tailored mission modules can be configured for one mission package at a time. Modules may consist of manned aircraft, unmanned vehicles, off-board sensors, or mission-manning detachments.

 

The interior volume and payload is greater than some destroyers and is sufficient to serve as a high-speed transport and maneuver platform. The mission bay is 15,200 square feet ( 1,410 m2 ), and takes up most of the deck below the hangar and flight deck. With 11,000 cubic metres ( 390,000 cu ft ) of payload volume, it was designed with enough payload and volume to carry out one mission with a separate mission module in reserve, allowing the ship to do multiple missions without having to be refitted.

 

In addition to cargo or container-sized mission modules, the bay can carry four lanes of multiple Strykers, armored Humvees, and their associated troops. An elevator allows air transport of packages the size of a 20-foot-long ( 6.1 m ) shipping container that can be moved into the mission bay while at sea. A side access ramp allows for vehicle roll-on/roll-off loading to a dock and allows the ship to transport the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

 

Armament and sensors

The Raytheon Evolved SeaRAM missile defense system is installed on the hangar roof. The SeaRAM combines the sensors of the Phalanx 1B close-in weapon system with an 11-missile launcher for the Rolling Airframe Missile ( RAM ), creating an autonomous system.

 

The Independence class ships also has an integrated LOS Mast, Sea Giraffe 3D Radar and SeaStar Safire FLIR. Northrop Grumman has demonstrated sensor fusion of on and off-board systems in the Integrated Combat Management System ( ICMS ) used on the LCS. Side and forward surfaces are angled for reduced radar profile. In addition, H-60 series helicopters provide airlift, rescue, anti-submarine, radar picket and anti-ship capabilities with torpedoes and missiles.

 

The flight deck, 1,030 m2 ( 11,100 sq ft ), can support the operation of two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, multiple unmanned aerial vehicles, or one CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter.

The trimaran hull will allow flight operations up to sea state 5.

 

The vessels have an Interior Communications Center that can be curtained off from the rest of bridge instead of the heavily protected Combat Information Center found on Navy warships.

 

Derivative designs

Austal has proposed a much smaller and slower trimaran, called the 'Multi-Role Vessel' or 'Multi-Role Corvette'. Though it is only half the size of their LCS design, it would still be useful for border protection and counter piracy operations. Navy leaders said that the fixed price competition offered the Austal design an equal shot, in spite of its excess size and cost and limited service.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_class_littoral_combat_...

.

RAF College Hawker-Siddeley Dominie T.1 XS727/D zips away during the 1974 International Air Tattoo held at RAF Greenham Common.

 

Based on the highly successful HS125 Executive jet, the Dominie was introduced into service in the mid-1960's.

 

Having moved to Cranwell when RAF Manby and then RAF Stradishall closed, the Dominie T.1 was intially designed to train fast-jet navigators but the role was expanded to include weapon systems officers and operators, air engineers and air loadmasters in systems management, air leadership, decision making and teamwork.

 

A proposed mid-life upgrade saw some of the fleet revamped with more modern systems and a new black and white 'hi-viz' paint scheme but a combination of modern cockpit systems on the new Airbus Voyager tankers, the demise of the Nimrod MR.2 along with the scrapping of it's replacement - the MRA.4 negated the need for such specific fast-jet based training so in 2011 the fleet was withdrawn and sold with only a couple surviving in museums.

 

Scanned Kodachrome 64 35mm Transparency taken with a Russian Zenith E fitted with a fixed length 200mm pre-set f5.6 Soligor lens

 

018 004

This one was shot with Canon 6D handheld, actually one handed since I had my dog with me when I shot this scene.

Actually unlike the bulky ugly 5D series and D810, my D750 and 6D can easily fit well into my small work bag. They are not much bigger than my A7M2 or A7R2, especially as a system.

  

The 5DMK2 sensor was one of the worst sensors(read noise wise) in digital camera history, and from that crappy banding machine to the Nikon D800E was a huge leap in terms of IQ, but after that?

 

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So are those so-called pro reviewers the worst kind of perpetuators in camera world?

 

1, we have to define what is pro camera for most ? But is there really such a thing as pro camera?

I remember Marissa Mayer of Yahoo,who introduced the current style of Flick two years ago once said: "there is no such thing as professional photographer."

 

I don't actually agree with her, but the opinion out there that shared by many influential, powerful people like her and others can be very influential and strongly affect or even change the courses of thinking or opinion making process of many people. In the photography world, the CEO of the company that owns Flickr is a person whose opinions really have that kind of power, whose opinions can influence many many people, as I said that can or may change opinions of many many people. So we like her opinion or not, it is very very strongly influential.

 

There was the always interesting anecdote from one of those few former CEO's of Phase One, I did not know if it was true or not, though : once we asked Phase people who actually were buying their real high-end cameras? Phase answered was shocking to some,"CEO's of small companies and Dentists." Not so-called "professionals" are usual their customers, but more well heeled guys. I found it extremely interesting, but it may be true. When I asked a few of our main pro customers who mostly shoot architectures about their opinions on the above Phase anecdote, they replied to us,"well, it may be true,we sometimes used Phase One Backs but we never bought them but just rented their amazing products when we actually needed that kind of resolution,we do not consider ourselves professionals, though."

Very interesting, indeed.

 

I'd be willing to bet serious money that an overwhelming majority of A7R2, D810s and 5Ds camera users are just well heeled guys or girls, not shooting anything their "main" income-generating works. I'd put money somewhere around the 80% to 85% of those high end FF users are amatures or part time pros, or just geeks like us.

 

"Professional" (like "prosumer" or "enthusiast") is a marketing word, anyway. When someone from Nikon or Canon or any major camera company tells you that the new D5XS mark 4 is a true "professional" camera, they aren't saying anything meaningful about the camera itself. They're making an advertising pitch to your ego or pride.

Since, right now, most actually "professional" using camera in the Nikon lineup might be the cheap but excellent D5500. Or may even be the refubished D3300? But its AF is primitive! It's plastic! It's not weather sealed! Who cares: the D3300's most "professional" feature is the tiny investment for the amazing IQ it stacks against any profit. Real professionals are stingy people and care about money spent on camera gear much more seriously than well heeled amatures or part time professionals. The D3300 is better than the D300s from 2009 in almost every way,and some even consider it a better camera than the D700 and there are very few clients who wouldn't be thrilled by what comes out of a D700 shot with skill and vision. So in terms of sheer IQ, the D5500 can be considered as a pro camera.

I have many PRO customers shooting a EOS70D or a Nikon D5500 or a D7200 and many of them use a D3300 as a back-up. Not all pros or serious amatures need super fast AF or 4k video, and I think if they need serious 4k, they buy a dedicated 4k pro camera that can record much longer than 29 minutes

a session anyway. It is actually cheaper than buying a half-baked 4k camera like the A7R2 or the GH4 in the long run.

So who needs commercial reviewers brainwashing us what they actually want to sell is the best camera or the actual best selling camera ?

 

2, some die-hard D-SLR loving reviewers always describe the A7X menu system as "inane" or confusing, but which camera has more organized menu system?

I've never understood anyone's criticism of camera menu systems. Because every camera's menu is the same, not exactly the same but identically disorganized. They're categorized lists with nested options. None of them are truly optimized for speed, they all bury (different) critical options, they all require a little practice to build familiarity.

That's why they love Canon or Nikon menu system better, and they do get confused just being more familiar to them with better for all. But I personally prefer the A7X menu better since it is more customizable, and actually I am more used to it than anything else now.

Controlling a camera with a menu is a stupid concept. It was a lazy, terrible idea in 1993 and it remains quite silly and terrible in 2015.

Many many many so-called reviewers are really really confused and forcing us to share the really silly "one menu system is more intuitive than the others" kinda concept.

But again, what they actually saying is they are more used to the one system than the other systems' menu lay-out or just they are too obtuse to understand anything a bit different than what they are used to using.

I guess most of so-called reviewers do not know cameras they think they are testing enough to test it and publish rushed-out reviews, so they never understand how to set up the Sony A7X or even how to shoot it well. If they do understand it, then they should know it is quite customizable and it is less menu-driven than the Canon 5DS or the Nikon D810.

The A7X has 4 dials and you can actually change shutter speed, F number, EV value and ISO without diving into the menu.If they have to dive into the deep menu system all the time, then they do not understand how to set it up or customize the buttons ans the dials of the Sony, and without even understand it properly they rush to pan the menu system hard.

So what do you expect from so-called reviews?

 

3,SONY SONY SONY!!! why are they worshiping for the Sony,especially for the A7R2 and the A7S2 all the time and keep releasing so-called hands-on or reviews every other day ?

 

Well be realistic! Most of die-hard high end Nikon or Canon boys and girls are fanatics and difficult to influence or change; as camera sales swirl down the toilet bowl, so does any review site's readership. Writing about or recommending two-year-old cameras or very old fashioned, 1950th minded big conventional cameras that many of their readers already own doesn't sell anything from their affiliates website. It's that simple.

When did you actually read any review of any camera last time? a decade ago?

Have you ever expected any so-called review pan or even mildly criticize any camera?

Do you actually trust any so-called review? I think all your answer should be no to all the 3 questions above.

They never criticize as I said, even completely lazy, behind-the-curve products like the Fuji X-M1(only 16mp dated sensor), the Canon 7D(remember that terrible banding machine?), the Sony A58 (worst ergonomics in camera world)and the Nikon D3200(truly just announced to be already dated kind of junk) all got decent scores. No so-called reviewers actually pan anything they review, and definitely never say "we hated this product X or Y", or anything like that because their affiliate will stop feeding them if they actually do that.

Meanwhile, actual users of cameras, hate various cameras and lenses all the time. Well, they can't all be unreasonable,obtuse cranks. Then why the views or opinions of real camera users and so-called reviewers are so dramatically different?

Well it is easy all review sites are affiliated with several big online camera sellers, such as Amazon, Adorama, B&H,etc in the USA, Digital Rev, Rakuten, Amazon,etc in Asia. So they cannot do real test such as using cameras in a humid Thailand jungle or testing it in an Icelandic mountain, or anything like that.

They do not even test cameras with Capture One since Adobe is a big sponsor of those junk camera review sites, but most of us who tether cameras or shoot studio portrait prefer Capture One pro to the cranky slow unreliable LR for tethering work.

Well after all, those commercial reviewers never buy any camera with their own money, so they do not get up-set or irritated even if a camera they are reviewing now is a real crap.

We real camera users, on the other hand, actually spend our own money to buy our cameras, so we always complain if they are craps, of course.

  

4, all so-called reviewers usually love the latest and greatest like the Sony A7R2 or theA7S2 or something very gadgetry like the Panasonic GH4 or the Samsung NX1, but none of them actually like Leica or Phase,why?

Well easy, they do not sell well, I mean how many more Leicas will sell if those reviews seriously recommend Leica in their silly so-called reviews? None, since we who like Leica cameras already know why we do love their cameras and we do not need any moron in disguise of a pro(oh well)reviewer to tell us about how good or amazing it is.

As for Phase, it is not their area, they do not understand that kind of real high quality products anyway, what kind of high end commercial photographers whose main cameras are some sort of Phase One or even Mamiya will be interested in moronic reviews' opinion on Phase cameras ? No one. Can those so-called reviewers from commercial sites possibly some how change opinion of the actual Phase users? never.

Well, so-called reviewers are professionals but not photographic pros, they are marketing pros whose main interest is cheating manipulating naive new camera buyers.

All so-called reviews are just poorly designed marketing materials and nothing else, so they just recommend something they can sell with high-margin.

Then, why are almost all so-called pro reviewers recommending Sony, pushing Sony A7R2 so hard to any one reading them now?

Well it is very simple, because it is what their affiliate want to sell and easier to sell because of the user base of that camera is not very narrow-minded like the core user base of the D810 or the 5DS. The potential high-end Sony owners the only kind of high-end camera users that may be willing to listen to so-called reviewers, thus the reviewers think they may be able to manipulate them into buying more of their affiliate pushing products. So they naturally focus on these Sony high-end, high-margin products.

  

And anyway: why shouldn't a high-end camera from 2015 outperform a high-end camera from 2012 ? It should.

But the sad reality is that the latest gear does not outperform the 2012 camera.

The actual(in practical sense )performance is the same or almost identical, no dramatic improvement has made in the sensor design since 2012(the D800E). The D810 is better than the D800E only at the very base ISO albeit the slower exposure time due to the ISO64 vs the SIO100 base sensitivity difference . The A7R2 is only better than the D800E in video department and at very high ISO for a lot more money.

But commercial review sites cannot say it honestly, how can they? if they say it then they cannot sell anything new any more.

 

I just used the Sony A7R2 and the D810 as typical example cases for the kind of products so-called review sites want to hard push to the naive readers, but I know they are actually quite fantastic products, just not as amazing or dramatic game-changers as those silly commercial camera review sites try to make them out to be. But they are good indeed.

 

Do not just listen to the hype too much that just obviously follows the money.

  

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

 

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

  

Airbus A319-133X (CJ)

P4-RLA

MSN:4319.

 

Private Airbus A319 from D'Ukraine.

For transportation planning, sanitary sewer systems and other infrastructure design solutions dial: 303.940.9966 & hire your project management experts

Socisynd is a brand new crowd marketing content distribution and social media management system were users join the system to help one another produce fantastic results. Join SociSynd today and benefit from social signals, social backlinks and social traffic all of which equates to top google rankings www.socisynd.com/

www.outletjar.com/item/3643/kenmore-elite-247-cu-ft-frenc....

Kenmore Elite .This 25 cu. ft. Trio 4door bottomfreezer refrigerator features french doors and dual freezer drawers to enhance usable space and organization. An innovative in the door ice system provides filtered water, cubed and crushed dispensed ice right through the door. The amazing interior features modern LED lighting and a fullwidth temperaturecontrolled pantry drawer. The multisensor advanced temperature management system keeps your foods at the proper temperature.

This one was shot with Canon 6D handheld, actually one handed since I had my dog with me when I shot this scene.

Actually unlike the bulky ugly 5D series and D810, my D750 and 6D can easily fit well into my small work bag. They are not much bigger than my A7M2 or A7R2, especially as a system.

  

The 5DMK2 sensor was one of the worst sensors(read noise wise) in digital camera history, and from that crappy banding machine to the Nikon D800E was a huge leap in terms of IQ, but after that?

 

The sad reality we must face if we are at least a bit honest with ourselves and sensor test data is that basically, image quality of so-called fullframe sensor hasn't improved since about 2012. The tech around it has been in stagnation, not any advancing. But according to the DPR,etc the A7R2 is a real game changer, so great that we should even change our own value and standard for system functionality, ergonomics preferences,etc, to get that specific camera. But in reality, as I said, the image quality of the 42.4 mp sensor is basically the same or identical to the old 36 mp sensor first introduced in the D800 in 2012. In fact, if the base ISO image quality is the most important aspect of a camera to you as DPR forced us to believe, then even the venerable D800 would still beat the A7R2. The A6300 is basically a bit more glorified, refined version of the NEX7 from the 2012, nothing more than that, but those so-called reviewers just intentionally dramatize, grandiose the minor difference in the feature set of these 2 APS-C cameras, to call the A6300 a true game changer......before it they did the same to the A6000, which was actually a dumbed-down version of the NEX7.

The OM-D EM5MK2 is the same exactly the same as the ancient EM5 IQ wise and so on. No format is actually getting better in terms of sheer image quality and basic functionality.

  

So are those so-called pro reviewers the worst kind of perpetuators in camera world?

 

1, we have to define what is pro camera for most ? But is there really such a thing as pro camera?

I remember Marissa Mayer of Yahoo,who introduced the current style of Flick two years ago once said: "there is no such thing as professional photographer."

 

I don't actually agree with her, but the opinion out there that shared by many influential, powerful people like her and others can be very influential and strongly affect or even change the courses of thinking or opinion making process of many people. In the photography world, the CEO of the company that owns Flickr is a person whose opinions really have that kind of power, whose opinions can influence many many people, as I said that can or may change opinions of many many people. So we like her opinion or not, it is very very strongly influential.

 

There was the always interesting anecdote from one of those few former CEO's of Phase One, I did not know if it was true or not, though : once we asked Phase people who actually were buying their real high-end cameras? Phase answered was shocking to some,"CEO's of small companies and Dentists." Not so-called "professionals" are usual their customers, but more well heeled guys. I found it extremely interesting, but it may be true. When I asked a few of our main pro customers who mostly shoot architectures about their opinions on the above Phase anecdote, they replied to us,"well, it may be true,we sometimes used Phase One Backs but we never bought them but just rented their amazing products when we actually needed that kind of resolution,we do not consider ourselves professionals, though."

Very interesting, indeed.

 

I'd be willing to bet serious money that an overwhelming majority of A7R2, D810s and 5Ds camera users are just well heeled guys or girls, not shooting anything their "main" income-generating works. I'd put money somewhere around the 80% to 85% of those high end FF users are amatures or part time pros, or just geeks like us.

 

"Professional" (like "prosumer" or "enthusiast") is a marketing word, anyway. When someone from Nikon or Canon or any major camera company tells you that the new D5XS mark 4 is a true "professional" camera, they aren't saying anything meaningful about the camera itself. They're making an advertising pitch to your ego or pride.

Since, right now, most actually "professional" using camera in the Nikon lineup might be the cheap but excellent D5500. Or may even be the refubished D3300? But its AF is primitive! It's plastic! It's not weather sealed! Who cares: the D3300's most "professional" feature is the tiny investment for the amazing IQ it stacks against any profit. Real professionals are stingy people and care about money spent on camera gear much more seriously than well heeled amatures or part time professionals. The D3300 is better than the D300s from 2009 in almost every way,and some even consider it a better camera than the D700 and there are very few clients who wouldn't be thrilled by what comes out of a D700 shot with skill and vision. So in terms of sheer IQ, the D5500 can be considered as a pro camera.

I have many PRO customers shooting a EOS70D or a Nikon D5500 or a D7200 and many of them use a D3300 as a back-up. Not all pros or serious amatures need super fast AF or 4k video, and I think if they need serious 4k, they buy a dedicated 4k pro camera that can record much longer than 29 minutes

a session anyway. It is actually cheaper than buying a half-baked 4k camera like the A7R2 or the GH4 in the long run.

So who needs commercial reviewers brainwashing us what they actually want to sell is the best camera or the actual best selling camera ?

 

2, some die-hard D-SLR loving reviewers always describe the A7X menu system as "inane" or confusing, but which camera has more organized menu system?

I've never understood anyone's criticism of camera menu systems. Because every camera's menu is the same, not exactly the same but identically disorganized. They're categorized lists with nested options. None of them are truly optimized for speed, they all bury (different) critical options, they all require a little practice to build familiarity.

That's why they love Canon or Nikon menu system better, and they do get confused just being more familiar to them with better for all. But I personally prefer the A7X menu better since it is more customizable, and actually I am more used to it than anything else now.

Controlling a camera with a menu is a stupid concept. It was a lazy, terrible idea in 1993 and it remains quite silly and terrible in 2015.

Many many many so-called reviewers are really really confused and forcing us to share the really silly "one menu system is more intuitive than the others" kinda concept.

But again, what they actually saying is they are more used to the one system than the other systems' menu lay-out or just they are too obtuse to understand anything a bit different than what they are used to using.

I guess most of so-called reviewers do not know cameras they think they are testing enough to test it and publish rushed-out reviews, so they never understand how to set up the Sony A7X or even how to shoot it well. If they do understand it, then they should know it is quite customizable and it is less menu-driven than the Canon 5DS or the Nikon D810.

The A7X has 4 dials and you can actually change shutter speed, F number, EV value and ISO without diving into the menu.If they have to dive into the deep menu system all the time, then they do not understand how to set it up or customize the buttons ans the dials of the Sony, and without even understand it properly they rush to pan the menu system hard.

So what do you expect from so-called reviews?

 

3,SONY SONY SONY!!! why are they worshiping for the Sony,especially for the A7R2 and the A7S2 all the time and keep releasing so-called hands-on or reviews every other day ?

 

Well be realistic! Most of die-hard high end Nikon or Canon boys and girls are fanatics and difficult to influence or change; as camera sales swirl down the toilet bowl, so does any review site's readership. Writing about or recommending two-year-old cameras or very old fashioned, 1950th minded big conventional cameras that many of their readers already own doesn't sell anything from their affiliates website. It's that simple.

When did you actually read any review of any camera last time? a decade ago?

Have you ever expected any so-called review pan or even mildly criticize any camera?

Do you actually trust any so-called review? I think all your answer should be no to all the 3 questions above.

They never criticize as I said, even completely lazy, behind-the-curve products like the Fuji X-M1(only 16mp dated sensor), the Canon 7D(remember that terrible banding machine?), the Sony A58 (worst ergonomics in camera world)and the Nikon D3200(truly just announced to be already dated kind of junk) all got decent scores. No so-called reviewers actually pan anything they review, and definitely never say "we hated this product X or Y", or anything like that because their affiliate will stop feeding them if they actually do that.

Meanwhile, actual users of cameras, hate various cameras and lenses all the time. Well, they can't all be unreasonable,obtuse cranks. Then why the views or opinions of real camera users and so-called reviewers are so dramatically different?

Well it is easy all review sites are affiliated with several big online camera sellers, such as Amazon, Adorama, B&H,etc in the USA, Digital Rev, Rakuten, Amazon,etc in Asia. So they cannot do real test such as using cameras in a humid Thailand jungle or testing it in an Icelandic mountain, or anything like that.

They do not even test cameras with Capture One since Adobe is a big sponsor of those junk camera review sites, but most of us who tether cameras or shoot studio portrait prefer Capture One pro to the cranky slow unreliable LR for tethering work.

Well after all, those commercial reviewers never buy any camera with their own money, so they do not get up-set or irritated even if a camera they are reviewing now is a real crap.

We real camera users, on the other hand, actually spend our own money to buy our cameras, so we always complain if they are craps, of course.

  

4, all so-called reviewers usually love the latest and greatest like the Sony A7R2 or theA7S2 or something very gadgetry like the Panasonic GH4 or the Samsung NX1, but none of them actually like Leica or Phase,why?

Well easy, they do not sell well, I mean how many more Leicas will sell if those reviews seriously recommend Leica in their silly so-called reviews? None, since we who like Leica cameras already know why we do love their cameras and we do not need any moron in disguise of a pro(oh well)reviewer to tell us about how good or amazing it is.

As for Phase, it is not their area, they do not understand that kind of real high quality products anyway, what kind of high end commercial photographers whose main cameras are some sort of Phase One or even Mamiya will be interested in moronic reviews' opinion on Phase cameras ? No one. Can those so-called reviewers from commercial sites possibly some how change opinion of the actual Phase users? never.

Well, so-called reviewers are professionals but not photographic pros, they are marketing pros whose main interest is cheating manipulating naive new camera buyers.

All so-called reviews are just poorly designed marketing materials and nothing else, so they just recommend something they can sell with high-margin.

Then, why are almost all so-called pro reviewers recommending Sony, pushing Sony A7R2 so hard to any one reading them now?

Well it is very simple, because it is what their affiliate want to sell and easier to sell because of the user base of that camera is not very narrow-minded like the core user base of the D810 or the 5DS. The potential high-end Sony owners the only kind of high-end camera users that may be willing to listen to so-called reviewers, thus the reviewers think they may be able to manipulate them into buying more of their affiliate pushing products. So they naturally focus on these Sony high-end, high-margin products.

  

And anyway: why shouldn't a high-end camera from 2015 outperform a high-end camera from 2012 ? It should.

But the sad reality is that the latest gear does not outperform the 2012 camera.

The actual(in practical sense )performance is the same or almost identical, no dramatic improvement has made in the sensor design since 2012(the D800E). The D810 is better than the D800E only at the very base ISO albeit the slower exposure time due to the ISO64 vs the SIO100 base sensitivity difference . The A7R2 is only better than the D800E in video department and at very high ISO for a lot more money.

But commercial review sites cannot say it honestly, how can they? if they say it then they cannot sell anything new any more.

 

I just used the Sony A7R2 and the D810 as typical example cases for the kind of products so-called review sites want to hard push to the naive readers, but I know they are actually quite fantastic products, just not as amazing or dramatic game-changers as those silly commercial camera review sites try to make them out to be. But they are good indeed.

 

Do not just listen to the hype too much that just obviously follows the money.

  

Update : now, Canon has just announced its new sensor development policy. Canon seems to have built a new sensor plant in Mie prefecture of Japan. It seems like Canon is going on new 65nm process rule and all upcoming Canon sensors will be produced at there.

I think the 1DX2 and the 80D sensors are processed at the new plant.

Sony is still leading the CMOS imaging industry, but giants like Samsung are in close pursuit. Also big players like Panasonic are forming joint ventures with the likes of TowerJazz to offer 12-inch wafer fabrication with state-of-the-art quantum efficiency and dark current performance at 65 nano meters, and additional 45nm digital technology, and added available capacity of approximately 800,000 8-inch wafers per year in three manufacturing plants in Japan, according to TowerJazz.

 

The stakes are huge. The CMOS image sensor market will reached the historic $10 billion milestone in 2015, according to Yale, and with new applications popping up in automotive, medical and surveillance, while smartphones begin adopting high-definition front facing cameras, the industry is likely to hit the $16 billion mark by 2020. So nobody is just sleeping and Sony has to consolidate its position ASAP, or probably Sony will lose it again just like its short-lived TV business.

 

Maybe Sony will be the final loser, not Nikon or Canon?

 

UPDATE 2: today Nikon announced some serious VR related issue with the D5 and the D500. I am not very sure what the real issue is here, their manual is really inanely written and hard for most of people to understand it. Me? I will wait what Thom says on this issue, it is much easier to read his article than annoyingly tedious Nikon manual.

But some Nikon technicians at Nikon Fukuoka warn me not use the VR in all lenses at super high ISO settings due to possible horizontal banding caused by the combination of high ISO plus the VR, I read this issue and many many people actually wondering what this issue really is and how serious it is.

I think Nikon really has some serious problem(probably internal power games in management) and all the current board members of Nikon corp should be replaced. The current president Kimura is terrible and running down the company to the worst possible, he has wasted about 40 percent of its total revenue money for nothing but silly one inch sensor compact business.

 

UPDATE3: Looks like Sony has actually done something right this year.

Sony was the only one of those 3 camera companies to break even this time, and was actually profitable for the year in Imaging, though it’s difficult to say how much of that is contributed by pro video gear. The Imaging Products group at Sony posted slightly lower sales (-1.7%) but a very healthy profit (up 30.4b yen and hitting about 10% of sales).

In terms of unit volume, digital cameras at Sony dropped from 8.5m units to 6.1m units year-to-year. That’s mostly compact camera sales that dried up. Sony won’t say exactly how that shift is working other than to say “improvement in the product mix of digital cameras.” In other words, they suggest that by getting rid of compact camera volume and focusing all its effort on high priced ILC units they are getting a better profit margin.

The other two camera companies still making some money out of their camera business are Fuji and Canon. We do not know Canon's result in detail yet.

I think it is fair to say Fujifilm has a hobby camera business as their Digital cameras are about 2.5% of the company’s overall revenue stream. That they give us any insight into how that business is working is actually a bit surprising. Sales for digital cameras were down 8.2% year-to-year, yet it is still quite profitable.Fujifilm Japan says the imaging business earned 9 percent more profit to them and it was the best of the last 9 years.

To me, the most surprising finding is that Casio's camera division is still profitable and they sell only compact cameras.

But how do they make any serious money out of that compact camera sells is a big mystery to me.

  

WeightTel ist ein telemedizinisches Monitoring- und Management-System für das Körpergewicht. Es dient der lückenlosen, einfachen Dokumentation des Körpergewichts sowie zusätzlicher Informationen. Anwender sind Menschen mit Übergewicht oder Adipositas sowie solche, die vom metabolischen Syndrom betroffen sind.

www.bodytel.com

1 3 4 5 6 7 ••• 79 80