Professional Web Applications Themes

No more Contax... - Photography

Chris Brown wrote:   > > > Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one I > saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and that > one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the > nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or > something?[/ref] Even before 92 it was certainly possible to shoot with a video camera and a frame grabber. Although it was not strictly "shooting digital", in the eighties it was common to ...

  1. #61

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Chris Brown wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one I
    > saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and that
    > one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the
    > nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or
    > something?[/ref]

    Even before 92 it was certainly possible to shoot with a video camera
    and a frame grabber.

    Although it was not strictly "shooting digital", in the eighties it was
    common to digitize transparency film or prints on a drum scanner.
    Don Guest

  2. #62

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    RichA <com> wrote:
     

    Grossly overstated. I was one of the "early adopters" of the OM system
    back in '72 and I distinctly remember reading a lot of criticism about
    the small size (flimsy, unstable, too tiny to hold properly etc.) at the
    time.

    Ton
    Ton Guest

  3. #63

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    jfitz wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Leica spun off their camera business into a separate company some years ago.
    > The camera company is a division of Hermes and has no connection to the
    > company making the optical devices to which you refer. Panasonic has
    > publicly stated that they have no interest in acquiring Leica Camera. If
    > true, there is little hope for Leica.[/ref]

    You could say Zeiss did the same with Contax: bodies made by first Yashica,
    then Kyocera, some lenses too, and the less common lenses still by themselves.
    This worked well for 25+ years, so it was quite a good plan. Now it turns out
    Kyocera bungled the jump to digital, causing the end of the Contax N-series
    which was clearly intended to evolve towards a full frame CCD system.
    Hopefully someone is able to take over the N-mount patents (if any) to
    restart the Contax line, but not likely. OTOH, why should Sony not be capable
    to fix the electronics and software of the Contax-digital and sell it as an F939.

    -- hans
    HvdV Guest

  4. #64

    Default Re: No more Contax...


    "Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    >>
    >>
    >> Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one
    >> I
    >> saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and
    >> that
    >> one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the
    >> nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or
    >> something?[/ref]
    >
    > Even before 92 it was certainly possible to shoot with a video camera and
    > a frame grabber.
    >
    > Although it was not strictly "shooting digital", in the eighties it was
    > common to digitize transparency film or prints on a drum scanner.[/ref]

    Maybe he means he used his fingers to press the buttons......


    William Guest

  5. #65

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <net>,
    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <net> wrote: 
    >>
    >>
    >> Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one I
    >> saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and that
    >> one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the
    >> nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or
    >> something?[/ref]
    >
    >Even before 92 it was certainly possible to shoot with a video camera
    >and a frame grabber.[/ref]

    Indeed - I used to lust after such a system for my little Amiga setup, but
    could never afford one. I wasn't suggesting there weren't digital image
    capture solutions out there in '92 and earlier, but I can't see their appeal
    to professional photographers as having been especially broad. The early
    Kodak 1.5MP DSLRs that others have mentioned would have produced pretty
    ropey images compared to 35mm in most cirstances.

    I guess if one was doing the sort of photojournalist work where getting
    *any* image fast was of much more concern than any considerations about
    image quality, then these early digital systems would be useful.
    Chris Guest

  6. #66

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <net> wrote: 
    > >
    > >
    > > Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one I
    > > saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and that
    > > one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the
    > > nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or
    > > something?[/ref]
    >
    > Even before 92 it was certainly possible to shoot with a video camera
    > and a frame grabber.
    >[/ref]

    or you could use one of the telescopes/reconasissance satellites that
    all had a telescope + large ccd.

    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
    Sander Guest

  7. #67

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <dyndns.org>,
    Chris Brown <no_uce_please.com> wrote:

    [ ... ]
     

    One of the additional features on the converted Nikon N90s
    cameras which became the NC2000e/c for the AP was the ability to connect
    it to a cell phone, and to upload the images back to the office.

    Another was the ability to push a button and mumble into what
    looks like the thread holes on a button, and leave voice annotation for
    the images which you just took.

    The combination allowed you to get the images to where they were
    needed rather quickly.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.

    --
    Email: <com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
    DoN. Guest

  8. #68

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    On 6 Mar 2005 23:01:27 -0500, com (DoN. Nichols)
    wrote:
     


    I don't think the NC2000 had the ability to upload images through a
    cell phone. It had no internal modem that I'm aware of. Through a
    laptop and cellphone, yes.
    Most of the Nikon and Kodak digital cameras have voice annotation.
    McLeod Guest

  9. #69

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Greetings Brian,

    They were expensive considering the technologies used. They were used in
    the Gulf War and later as professional versions. Pretty good for their day.
    Of course the optics were superb. Just thought I would offer that two cent
    piece.

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company




    "Brian C. Baird" <no> wrote in message
    news:verizon.net... 
    >
    > Weren't those things about 25 grand a piece at the time?
    > --
    > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/[/ref]


    Ron Guest

  10. #70

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    "Chris Brown" <no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:dyndns.org... [/ref][/ref]
    [SNIP] 
    appeal 

    Press photography it made sense very early (not photojournalism per se: that
    implies the sort of photo essay that goes in a magazine, and requires
    quality, not newspaper pic.s, that don't but do need fast turnaround).

    But it also made sense quite early in other high volume / fast turnaround
    fields where the final reproduction size was already known and therefore
    could be matched to the resolution - ie. product packaging shots and
    (particularly) catalogue shots, not of clothes so much but of 'stuff'. A
    lot of that was done digitally quite early.


    Peter


    Bandicoot Guest

  11. #71

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In article <d0hrm8$r5r$kodak.com>, com says... 

    I read an article those first digital SLRs produced by Kodak. Pretty
    interesting stuff. Amazing how technology has progressed so much in
    such a short period of time.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian Guest

  12. #72

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Greetings Brian,

    Kodak is proud to be identified as the creator of digital imaging. A guy
    named Steve Sasson, working in Kodak's research labs built the first known
    digital camera. It sits in the lobby of a Kodak building along with a number
    of other Kodak firsts. It's about the size of two shoe boxes with a number
    of wire-wrapped boards and a lens poking out the side. The device was
    portable, and required 16 AA batteries. It captured a whopping 10K pixels
    and saved the images on a cassette tape. A prototype was completed and
    worked in 1976. If you're interested in more and how Steve contributed to
    what is todays modern digital camera you can browse through the patents
    issued in his name. It's pretty impressive. As of August 2004, Steve still
    works at Kodak

    The old saying that we stand on the shoulders of giants is true. Work on
    the camera was built upon work done by others, including Bryce Bayer, known
    for his invention of the well known Bayer CFA and the math behind the
    turning of Bayer data into real images. The patent in his name for Bayer
    CFA's expired about 10 years ago. He has since retired from Kodak. As an
    aside, please note that the Apple QuickTake 100 was designed by Kodak and
    built at Chinon industries (now a Kodak subsidiary) along with the Kodak
    DC40 and DC50 which were all from the same design heritage.

    Talk to you soon, Brian,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company



    "Brian C. Baird" <no> wrote in message
    news:verizon.net... [/ref]
    in [/ref]
    day. [/ref]
    cent 
    >
    > I read an article those first digital SLRs produced by Kodak. Pretty
    > interesting stuff. Amazing how technology has progressed so much in
    > such a short period of time.
    > --
    > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/[/ref]


    Ron Guest

  13. #73

    Default Re: No more Contax...


    "Ron Baird" <com> wrote in message
    news:d0nbr9$dn0$kodak.com... 


    Well, cavemen invented the wheel, but I don't think I'll be contacting any
    hairy-chested Neaderthals the next time I need new tires.

    :-)




    Paul Guest

  14. #74

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Paul H wrote:

    <snip>

    Kodak did not create digital imaging, not by a long shot.

    Texas Instruments patented the first digital camera in 1972. Philips
    patented the first solid state imager.

    In 1975, Kodak buit a prototype CCD B&W camera, believed to be the
    first CCD based digital camera, but it was not a commercial product
    (this is what Ron was referring to). The first commercial CCD camera
    was the Fairchild MV-101, released in 1976.

    Scharf-DCA Guest

  15. #75

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Paul H. wrote: 
    >
    >
    >
    > Well, cavemen invented the wheel, but I don't think I'll be contacting any
    > hairy-chested Neaderthals the next time I need new tires.
    >
    > :-)
    >
    >
    >
    >[/ref]
    No, you will deal with the guys who invented the TIRE, right?

    It amazes me to find baseless bashing of this, or that, camera company
    by people with little knowledge of the particular company.


    --
    Ron Hunter net
    Ron Guest

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Contax Bodies
    By Miro in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 28th, 03:38 PM
  2. Contax question
    By Peter in forum Photography
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 8th, 11:13 AM
  3. Contax RX II
    By Peter in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 7th, 09:59 PM
  4. Contax SLR AE and MM lenses
    By Chris Wakeen in forum Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 11th, 06:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139