[mecrox]

The Internet is not a single "product", but an entire "ecosystem" of software, hardware and stored data.

Just like photography really. Photography is not a single product like a camera but an entire ecosystem of software, hardware and stored data - from the battery which powers the camera to the print on the gallery wall, website or inbox, though "print" could just as easily be "movie" or a combination of the two. I'd guess that manufacturers who think that photography is a single product, the camera, are in for a rude surprise over the next few years as the rest of the ecosystem starts to call the shots. It's already happening with the big software/IT houses moving into imaging and imaging patents, kicked off by the smartphone industry. I'd guess that Canon likely get this but how many of the other manufacturers do, and anyway how many of them have the funds and the expertise to meet the challenge.

Can't say these cunning plans for world domination from our fave brand are all that convincing without signs of more investment and smart new folks to spend it wisely

---

Last edited by mecrox; 05-12-2013 at 02:56 AM.

[RonHendriks1966]

Keeping the aperture the same will make both pictures exposed the same, but it will create two vastly different pictures.



IMO the appropriate way to compare two systems (APS-C/FF) is to:

1) See the advantages and disadvantages of taking the same picture
2) See how many 'other' pictures one system can take (FF) that the other can't.

By keeping the aperture the same you're forcing both of those two things to be combined... I think that just muddies the waters.

That why we all should stop complaining about that FF K-1 and buy the 645D:

[Aristophanes]

The Internet is not a single "product", but an entire "ecosystem" of software, hardware and stored data.

Invented by Al Gore.

Not Google.

Sheeesh! The misinformation out there...

[tclausen]

The Internet is not a single "product", but an entire "ecosystem" of software, hardware and stored data.

Just ignore the "ecosystem" bit (not even sure what that even means), but consider the /network/ independent from the data/services - and you have already a system more complex than the human brain, according to the previously given metrics.

[jogiba]

That why we all should stop complaining about that FF K-1 and buy the 645D:

The 645D price dropped by $3,000 after the D800E came out and Pentax Forum gave the D800E a higher 8.7 (Very Good) rating vs a 7.6 (Good) rating for the 645D.

[kenafein]

Keeping the aperture the same will make both pictures exposed the same, but it will create two vastly different pictures.




IMO the appropriate way to compare two systems (APS-C/FF) is to:

1) See the advantages and disadvantages of taking the same picture
2) See how many 'other' pictures one system can take (FF) that the other can't.

By keeping the aperture the same you're forcing both of those two things to be combined... I think that just muddies the waters.

This is simply because of the area of the sensor. Of course it receives more light, but the density (light over a given area) is the same. That's why the exposure is the same. Smaller sensors are a compromise, but they do allow for bright lenses to compensate. Your argument seems to be to shoot wide open, with a bright lens, on the largest sensor you can get. The sensor size advantage of the RX100, per your reasoning, would also beat the Q, w/ 01, at the equivalent normal length.

[ElJamoquio]

That why we all should stop complaining about that FF K-1 and buy the 645D:

I've considered purchasing the 645D... unfortunately the (new) lenses cost more for the same amount of light/equivalent focal length as, say, the D800.

The 645D is still a great camera but I suspect not everyone needs the extra resolution it can provide.

[ElJamoquio]

This is simply because of the area of the sensor. Of course it receives more light, but the density (light over a given area) is the same. That's why the exposure is the same. Smaller sensors are a compromise, but they do allow for bright lenses to compensate. Your argument seems to be to shoot wide open, with a bright lens, on the largest sensor you can get.

When DOF doesn't matter (focus at infinity) that will certainly get you the best SNR, but there are other factors to consider.

My argument: a larger sensor (say, in the FF range) can do everything an APS-C sensor can do. It can also do many other things.

Summary... FF:
1) more expensive camera
2) cheaper lenses, or
3) more expensive lenses that are far more capable

The sensor size advantage of the RX100, per your reasoning, would also beat the Q, w/ 01, at the equivalent normal length.

I don't really know anything about the RX100, but if it has a larger sensor it'll likely produce better photos.

[IchabodCrane]

Who actually defined market dominance by this 60% market non sense?
You don't need 60% to dominate. Canon and Nikon or both dominant companies in DSLR part of the market and so is Micro4:3 and NEX in mirrorless.

There are various definitions that each can apply a little differently in different markets. Depending on the methods and details, it can range from 45 to 60% share:

Dominance (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/competition/Presentations/Market%20Definition%20-CDoyle.pdf

[Kunzite]

Invented by Al Gore.

Not Google.

Sheeesh! The misinformation out there...

Sorry?
The Internet is (more or less) ARPANET evolved; Google appeared decades later.

Just ignore the "ecosystem" bit (not even sure what that even means), but consider the /network/ independent from the data/services - and you have already a system more complex than the human brain, according to the previously given metrics.

But we were talking products, right?
It is not correct to refute my affirmation, that software is the most complex product mankind has ever made, by saying that the Internet - a global conglomeration of multiple software, hardware products and stored data - is more complex. Is like saying that a human can't be the most intelligent creature on Earth, because the biosphere is much more complex.

If the Internet is indeed more complex than the human brain or not, that would make a very interesting discussion - but still irrelevant for our topic, so I'll stop here.

There are various definitions that each can apply a little differently in different markets. Depending on the methods and details, it can range from 45 to 60% share:

Dominance (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/competition/Presentations/Market%20Definition%20-CDoyle.pdf

That article is actually suggesting market dominance could be achieved with lower market shares, even as low as 20%.

I'm not entirely convinced, though, that Ricoh is planning to become the dominant player; more likely a dominant player. Which would still be fine.

[thibs]

That article is actually suggesting market dominance could be achieved with lower market shares, even as low as 20%.

I'm not entirely convinced, though, that Ricoh is planning to become the dominant player; more likely a dominant player. Which would still be fine.

Exactly. But it seems some people here want to understand Ricoh said they would rule the camera world with 85% market share.

[Kunzite]

Only to say that it's impossible, Pentax is doomed, the sky is falling...

[monochrome]

Invented by Al Gore.

Not Google.

Sheeesh! The misinformation out there...

U. S. Department of Defense. Conceived 1963, first deployed 1969 (ARPANET). .

[monochrome]

I'm not entirely convinced, though, that Ricoh is planning to become the dominant player; more likely a dominant player. Which would still be fine.

I'm not sure where market dominance came into the discussion. As I heard it, Pentax Ricoh Imaging "believes there is room in the market for a third major camera company" (major meaning full line of cameras, not massive quantities of compacts) "and that it will be Pentax, in the intermediate term," roughly conveyed to mean 5 years, but from 3 to 7. The long term Vision remains to be #1. Long Term is defined as 20 years.

Perhaps market dominance was incorrectly extended from the statement that Ricoh is the largest copier manufacturer, achieving a position of market dominance in a mere 40 years from zero in the market segment, meant to illustrate that Ricoh has the corporate culture to play a long game and to achieve this (stunningly lofty, it would seem, from their current position) goal.

[IchabodCrane]

I'm not sure where market dominance came into the discussion.

I believe you brought it up in post #64 (page 5).