|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Sun, 12th Sep 2010 03:39 Post subject: Nikon working on a carbon fibre SLR body? |
|
 |
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/09/10/nikon-working-on-a-carbon-fibre-slr-body.aspx
| Quote: |
“For the last few months Nikon has been working on a carbon fibre body for a Nikon pro-level DSLR. They are specifically looking at the manufacture of a resin-infused 3D woven CFRP body as well as fatigue testing of some CFRP components. The body appears would be a full size (D1, D2, D3 sized SLR). The benefit of using carbon fibre is increased stiffness and a slight reduction in mass.” |
oh man, if it's true it'll be bad ass. It'll cost quite the money though but still!! The reduction of the weight = easier to hold maybe less camera shake?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W123
Posts: 2495
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 14th Sep 2010 12:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Cool i guess? Sounds like a marketing gimmick. I would bet more camera shake. I know when shooting pistols, the lighter the gun, the harder it is to hold it steady. Though the grip on a camera is different than a gun.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 15th Sep 2010 03:26 Post subject: |
|
|
no but your on the right track. I also highly doubt it'll make THAT much of a difference in weight, im sure the internals are most of the weight.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Sep 2010 18:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Less weight = bad, not good.
The more weight you have, the more stable the camera is (less small movement).
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Sep 2010 23:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| deelix wrote: | | fisk wrote: | Less weight = bad, not good.
The more weight you have, the more stable the camera is (less small movement). |
Don't think it would matter that much... if you are obsessed with such, you should only take pictures with a tripod  |
your not always going to have a tripod around or time to set one up, what he's talking about is camrea shake in general |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 18th Sep 2010 17:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| deelix wrote: | | of course not, but even tho it might be a little lighter I doubt it overall would make a big differense. Camera shake in general? If I bought a uberexpensive camera like Nikon D90 or similar I would expect it to take perfect pictures even tho my hands where shaking like a mofo, lol. If thats not the case, fuck expensive cameras. And yeah yeah,... I know the lenses make em expensive. |
Naturally it depends on what conditions you are shooting at, you can take sharp images with a hand-held camera that is light. But in general it is always better with heavier equipment. The battery packages that professional photographers add on to their cameras is not just for battery life, it is because it provides stability for the shot.
At 1/400 the difference will barely be noticable under good lighting conditions, but when you start shooting at lower ISO and shutter speed the stability during the shoot have effects on sharpness of image, regardless of what your camera costs.
Of course having a good (sic!) tripod is recommended, but then again the material of the camera itself is irrelevant. Strictly speaking the most important stuff is sensor and lens quality, but the weight of the camera is pretty important as well. This is especially true in lower light conditions with "longer" exposure times 1/100 and higher.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
