• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

The decline and fall of Reflex.

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
1,451
Likes
2,284
...I can't remember if the old Kodak sensor was full-frame? That would give it an advantage w.r.t. color moire. I remember they used to use a bit different Bayer pattern as well.

I have not tried the Velvia plug-ins that are available, but I think several are available: https://www.fredmiranda.com/VelviaVision/
The Kodak sensor was the same 44x33mm as the Sony sensor used in the 645Z. But it was a CCD sensor, while the Sony is a CMOS sensor. Each has advantages, but when it comes to low-light, low-noise performance, the CMOS wins the day.

It is never my objective to make digital look like film. That's like making a CD sound like an LP as an objective. I want both to sound good, and I want the colors and tonality that represents my intentions when using film or digital. Both may arrive at the same spot, or I might have to change directions because of a limitation I did not anticipate.

Rick "who tried those film filters once last year with the new version of DxO Photolab and quickly hit the Undo button" Denney
 
Last edited:

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
1,335
Likes
1,859
When color fidelity is a priority, I rely on Xrite's i1studio including ColorChecker Classic to calibrate monitor and printer, and to generate custom camera profiles. Adobe's own profiles are pretty good, but custom profiles eliminate much apparent difference between different cameras.

But having said that, let's not get carried away with drawing parallels to the pursuit of high-fidelity sound reproduction! Clarity and accuracy are just one possible means of expression available to the photographer. But IMO, audiophiles are not creators so much as consumers of someone else's creative efforts, and aside from tone controls allowing the listener to "season to taste", I don't place too much importance in establishing one's personalized sound.
 

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,702
Likes
1,642
The Kodak sensor was the same 44x33mm as the Sony sensor used in the 645Z. But it was a CCD sensor, while the Sony is a CMOS sensor. Each has advantages, but when it comes to low-light, low-noise performance, the CMOS wins the day.

The advantages of CMOS over CCD are more practical than theoretical. CMOS imagers have huge parallelism in the analog domain allowing low speed, i.e. low noise analog amplifiers. This greatly reduces read noise (and localized heat). Add in on-board A/D normally too.

CCD and CMOS both experience Shot-noise the same, so the theoretical SNR with a given amount of light is the same.

Modern CCD still has better dark-current than CMOS especially cooled, so better for very long exposure (astrophotography) coupled with slow readout to keep read noise low.

BSI removed the advantage CMOS had with near 100% fill factor possible.


... Back to sound, I would say the continued attachment to turntables for a portion of the population ...that and the bass always being cranked in rental cars, says that personalized sound is alive and well.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
2,920
Likes
2,167
This thread was started after the reflex (mirror) was pronounced dead.

Next on the chopping block: the shutter.

The new Nikon Z 9 is all-electronic - no mechanical shutter. They went from being the last, to being the first.

I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet.
 

LTig

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
3,897
Likes
6,259
Location
Europe
[..] The new Nikon Z 9 is all-electronic - no mechanical shutter. They went from being the last, to being the first.

I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet.
It's out of my financial reach. And too big.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
1,110
Likes
1,264
The new Nikon Z 9 is all-electronic - no mechanical shutter. They went from being the last, to being the first.
Without global shutter it's no biggie. Other cameras for several years already offer the e-shutter, including fast-scanning ones, but they have the additional flexibility of mech shutter ie a choice.
 

SKBubba

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
257
Likes
455
I bought a Nikon 200-400 afs vr for $5000. I checked recently, and it's worth about $800.

I also have a 70-200 afs vr that I bought for $1500. The afs is failing. Sent it to Nikon for repair. They sent it back, saying parts are no longer available. It's now pretty much worthless.

Oh, well. Time marches on.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
2,920
Likes
2,167
Without global shutter it's no biggie. Other cameras for several years already offer the e-shutter, including fast-scanning ones, but they have the additional flexibility of mech shutter ie a choice.
Yes, as did Nikon. But they finally did away with it completely and seemed to have solved the usual issues associated with electronic shutters around artificial lighting, flash use, and motion. Others will probably follow on their next flagships.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
1,110
Likes
1,264
Yes, as did Nikon.
No, I think this is their first e-shutter that wasn't a dog. Others were way better.

Just another step along the path, absolutely nothing to crow about IMO. It's a game of leapfrog. This particular leap was very incremental - and partly backwards. The first with global shutter will be a true first - at least they will be adding something new. My money's not on Nikon for that one.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom