How can they say so much, and convey so little?

No specifics at all in this Samsung interview. The Hasselblad thing
looks odd and cheap. You can't emulate something at lower cost and
expect it to fly if looks and construction quality are a big part of
what appeals to people. Hasselblads are NOT plastic.
I think Samsung are just "firing at will," hoping something hits.

http://www.samsungimaging.net/2011/...-into-the-world-part-ii-the-nx-lens-planners/

 

On 19/05/2011 5:27 PM, RichA wrote:

You manage all the time, how do you do it?

 

into-the-world-part-ii-the-nx-lens-planners/

I wonder if a MF style camera body with no mirror, but the screen on top as
a waist level finder might be interesting? Just for you they could bring
out a limited edition version furnished from wrought iron... ;-)

Pete

 

Hasselblad bodies used to feature something like 9 layers of plating
of various sorts. I look at things like that today and realize that
type of workmanship simply will not exist in 10 years.

 

Skills change over time. However, suspect it is mainly economics. There
are likely cheaper ways or producing something that is sufficiently robust.
You'd have to pay a large premium ot get things built now the way they were
in the past.

9 layers of plating, of what? I would have thought one or two would have
done the trick.

Pete

 

The old Hassleblad seems designed to be a compact mirrored system so I
guess that's what it represents. My idea is to make a mini-hass 35mm FX
with a flip up viewfinder. It would be kind of like that 10-year-old
Sony DX fixed lens EVF model, just a little 2-inch cube when folded up.
Similar to a Polaroid SX-70. Maybe a 45 degree viewfinder. If it's got a
heavier lens, the lens is the same basic proportions as the body so your
left hand slides out to balance it. Very rough concept:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5749427962/

 

True. Check out any surplus place that sells old military gear,
scientific equipment, etc. Look at the build quality of a 1940s-1960s
microscope from Zeiss or Leitz, nothing like them today.

Nickel, chrome, etc.

 

Harrrummmmpppphhhhhhhh!

I have a late 1990's vintage Zeiss Axiovert 100.
This is a $10,000 body. It is solid as a rock. The
focus mechanism is amazingly precise and smooth.
The best apo optics are amazingly good, and even
the best non-apo, non-fluorite is exceedingly good.
(I don't own apo or fluorite because I use a special purpose
N. A. 1.3 "Fluar" lens with extra-low internal fluorescence,
but can borrow them if desired.) The best
N.A. 1.4 objective is very nearly perfect in three
dimensions at the focus. This microscope made
the first measurements of protein folding kinetics
in living cells.


A friend has an Olympus "metallographic" (i.e.
reflected light) microscope. The build quality is identical.
For comparable objectives the optical quality seems the same,
but Olympus has more super-exotic optics like higher than
N. A. 1.5 objectives that use rather nasty immersion fluids.

Doug McDonald

 

Certainly not for the price you're willing to pay.

 

You really didn't think that Rich has more than the most rudimentary
knowledge of microscopes.

I've seen some microscopy photos that make fascinating abstracts.