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

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, May 19, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, May 19, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Mike Guest

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

    You manage all the time, how do you do it?
     
    Mike, May 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Peter Chant Guest

    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
     
    Peter Chant, May 19, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
     
    RichA, May 20, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Peter Chant Guest

    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
     
    Peter Chant, May 21, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    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/
     
    Paul Furman, May 23, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Rich Guest

    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.
     
    Rich, May 27, 2011
    #7

  8. 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
     
    Doug McDonald, May 27, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Certainly not for the price you're willing to pay.
     
    Ray Fischer, May 27, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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.
     
    PeterN, May 27, 2011
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.