| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2015 03:26:37 AM · #1 |
Still in development, due early 2016. Looks interesting.
Konost - video
Konost website
|
|
|
|
02/24/2015 04:05:38 AM · #2 |
| Thanks for that post! It's a beautiful thing, with all those absent modes, buttons, switches, dials and wheels. Takes M-Mount lenses. Just about a perfect digital camera body. Now just get rid of the LCD as well and I'd surely buy it (if I could afford it). I'd probably buy it even with the LCD. |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 06:06:11 AM · #3 |
| That sure does look lovely. I'd certainly get one if it was significantly cheaper than a Leica. |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 08:26:02 AM · #4 |
It does have a clean, retro beauty to it, and I'm sure that with the right glass the output would be beautiful. Not the tool for me, though.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2015 11:32:34 AM · #5 |
I would expect that this will be a rather expensive piece of kit :)
|
|
|
|
02/24/2015 11:33:15 AM · #6 |
Would be interesting but I get the feeling it's vaporware, or that it will be flawed and cripplingly expensive.
I'd like to be wrong, but when in the digital era has a start-up been able to deliver a camera to the market without the backing and branding of a massive corporation? |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 11:37:05 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I'd like to be wrong, but when in the digital era has a start-up been able to deliver a camera to the market without the backing and branding of a massive corporation? |
I can't think of a camera but it has wokrd quite well before with interesting lenses. And they haven't ended up costing the earth.
Message edited by author 2015-02-24 11:37:21. |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 01:22:20 PM · #8 |
| I don't see why it would have to be staggeringly expensive since it's missing a whole LOT of what makes digital cameras complicated... That's a beautiful concept and a beautiful piece of gear. |
|
|
|
02/25/2015 05:11:29 AM · #9 |
| Wrong on so many levels... No No No! interesting idea, just No. |
|
|
|
02/25/2015 06:29:03 AM · #10 |
why will this be better than existing, and proven, digital focusing systems that offer an enlarged view and focus peaking?
A new technology coming from two start-up companies (Konost and CMOSIS) that have to recoup R&D costs will have to be expensive. And they're doing this without electronic connections between camera and lens.
There will also be an AP and 1" sensor cameras too. |
|
|
|
02/25/2015 09:37:01 AM · #11 |
Don't worry its just MikeO he invested a little of his fortune in them (about 50k if my info is correct )
Its just an advertisment really. |
|
|
|
02/25/2015 01:18:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
why will this be better than existing, and proven, digital focusing systems that offer an enlarged view and focus peaking? |
"Better"? That's such a relative term :-) There are a lot of people out there that bridle at the constant electronic interference between their minds and the image. Seriously. Sometimes I'm among them. Sometimes I long for my Nikon F1 and my Tri-X film. No autofocus, no auto exposure, nothing BETWEEN me and the results obtained. It's a pure state of being, photographically.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2015 01:34:42 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Tiny:
Don't worry its just MikeO he invested a little of his fortune in them (about 50k if my info is correct )
Its just an advertisment really. |
I've been found out! I only put a small amount in Neil, your info is correct. Anyway I have to save some pennies
as I am heading down to Weymouth in August. It's been a few years since my last visit. I hear it's gone downhill over the last year or two.....
|
|
|
|
02/25/2015 04:26:44 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
why will this be better than existing, and proven, digital focusing systems that offer an enlarged view and focus peaking? |
"Better"? That's such a relative term :-) There are a lot of people out there that bridle at the constant electronic interference between their minds and the image. Seriously. Sometimes I'm among them. Sometimes I long for my Nikon F1 and my Tri-X film. No autofocus, no auto exposure, nothing BETWEEN me and the results obtained. It's a pure state of being, photographically. |
But you can make modern cameras as simple to use as you want and don't have to use all the features offered. Customization is a strong point and once set up you don't have to worry about it anymore. Plus, I think the modern EVF is getting really good and offers a lot of benefits, especially in manual focusing, that won't be offered with the OVF of the Konost. |
|
|
|
02/25/2015 04:49:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
why will this be better than existing, and proven, digital focusing systems that offer an enlarged view and focus peaking? |
"Better"? That's such a relative term :-) There are a lot of people out there that bridle at the constant electronic interference between their minds and the image. Seriously. Sometimes I'm among them. Sometimes I long for my Nikon F1 and my Tri-X film. No autofocus, no auto exposure, nothing BETWEEN me and the results obtained. It's a pure state of being, photographically. |
But you can make modern cameras as simple to use as you want and don't have to use all the features offered. Customization is a strong point and once set up you don't have to worry about it anymore. Plus, I think the modern EVF is getting really good and offers a lot of benefits, especially in manual focusing, that won't be offered with the OVF of the Konost. |
To me it looked like it had an OVF with just the alignment patch being an EVF generated image... |
|
|
|
02/25/2015 05:20:02 PM · #16 |
I think these sorts of small start up ventures are great and it's really nothing about competing with the big boys. There is an, admittedly quite small, section of photographers who really yearn for something that is back to basics yet still digital and it's these people who it will appeal to. Just as there are small sections of people who are keeping vinyl alive and such. People still using film etc. I think that's exciting in this day and age and it's things like the internet and Kickstarter that can make it happen. Just look at the Petzval Kickstarter campaign i linked to above. Their initial goal was to raise $100,000. They ended up with $1,396,149 through Kickstarter to get things moving. That's pretty impressive- particularly for a lens which has very limited appeal. I can order a Petzval lens, now in brass or black, today and get it delivered in the next few days so their marketing, distribution and idea has worked very well. Not entirely sure i'd want to though, as it looks a bit mental even for me but the choice is there. I'm sure this could work in a similar demand and supply way, albeit on a bigger level it being a far more complicated bit of kit.
So, this camera really does look good for me in a 'does just as much as i want it too and looks great' kind of way. But more than that it's just great to see small engineers and camera designers, not connected to big corporations, who are obviously doing something they love doing, getting a chance to do it. So it's the sort of thing i'd like to support. Depending on if i can afford it of course. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 11:02:52 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
why will this be better than existing, and proven, digital focusing systems that offer an enlarged view and focus peaking? |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Better"? That's such a relative term :-) There are a lot of people out there that bridle at the constant electronic interference between their minds and the image. Seriously. Sometimes I'm among them. Sometimes I long for my Nikon F1 and my Tri-X film. No autofocus, no auto exposure, nothing BETWEEN me and the results obtained. It's a pure state of being, photographically. |
But as has been pointed out, you can cripple as much of the wondrous electronics as you like, and still not have to foul the planet with the toxic developing chemicals. Personally, I have about a case of the sh*ts with the comments like "Pure" photography. The best camera in the world is nothing more than a tool, and if you don't have the "Eye" and some skills related to composition & post processing, you don't have squat. I spent the bucks for my expensive processor in my brick becxause I like just rweaching out, grabbing my camera, pointing, and shooting. I have a semi-automatic setting that I use on my rig for 90% of what I shoot. Yeah, I'm not a great photog, but I enjoy myself and get decent shots, not to mention don't miss many fiddling with buttons & dials. I can't even conceive of what a PITA a full manual camera would be for me. Why does a camera have to be hard work to be pure? Rubbish!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 11:42:20 AM · #18 |
I like this camera for the same reason I like my old film cameras; because I always loved the act of taking a photograph. I loved the feeling of it being a considered act, and where every press of the shutter had both value and cost. I've never felt that way with a digital camera, in fact I've felt the reverse: every press of the shutter has no value at all. I'm not investing anything in the act of taking a photograph.
At the risk of channeling Caddyshack, I like to be the camera. So the less technology that gets between me and the lens, the better. I'd like this camera even more without the LCD screen on the back. It doesn't show me anything that I want to see.
I know I can turn all that superfluous stuff off, but why does a hot rodder get rid of all the superfluous crap on his rod? It's because if he doesn't need it, then it's got no place cluttering up the ride. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 12:17:51 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I like this camera for the same reason I like my old film cameras; because I always loved the act of taking a photograph. I loved the feeling of it being a considered act, and where every press of the shutter had both value and cost. I've never felt that way with a digital camera, in fact I've felt the reverse: every press of the shutter has no value at all. I'm not investing anything in the act of taking a photograph. |
I very much understand where you are coming from here, as I've lived it. My view is that once I've learned this "considered" approach, I need not have it forced on me. I've not shot a frame of film in 15 years, but I still use a very considered approach to digital, because it is just how I shoot. I still have internalized the "value" of the shutter press, even though it really costs me next to nothing.
Originally posted by ubique:
I like this camera for the same reason I like my old film cameras; because I always loved the act of taking a I know I can turn all that superfluous stuff off, but why does a hot rodder get rid of all the superfluous crap on his rod? It's because if he doesn't need it, then it's got no place cluttering up the ride. |
There's a key difference. The hot rodder gets rid of anything that does not enhance performance. I would argue that the technology does dramatically enhance performance, and therefore "belongs." We can choose to use it, or not. I do love to shoot with old manual-focus glass, but I will never give up lightning-fast AF that focuses better than I ever could, and IS, and ability to instantly verify exposure...
Message edited by author 2015-02-26 12:18:10.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 12:58:08 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I still have internalized the "value" of the shutter press, even though it really costs me next to nothing. |
I think this is a myth -- by the time you amortize the cost of your computer, camera, hard drive(s), backup media and/or backup service, batteries, etc., not even counting your time for copying and maintaining the files, I'm pretty sure that digital images cost between 5-25 cents/frame.
And I wonder about the relative toxicity of photographic chemicals vs. those used in the manufacture of chips, circuit boards, and other electronics ... I'm not sure digital photos are all that much more environmentally-friendly than film. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 01:04:47 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I like this camera for the same reason I like my old film cameras; because I always loved the act of taking a photograph. I loved the feeling of it being a considered act, and where every press of the shutter had both value and cost. I've never felt that way with a digital camera, in fact I've felt the reverse: every press of the shutter has no value at all. I'm not investing anything in the act of taking a photograph. |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I very much understand where you are coming from here, as I've lived it. My view is that once I've learned this "considered" approach, I need not have it forced on me. I've not shot a frame of film in 15 years, but I still use a very considered approach to digital, because it is just how I shoot. I still have internalized the "value" of the shutter press, even though it really costs me next to nothing. |
What does turning a few dials have to do with light, setting, action, or composition? That's what I'm looking to capture. The way that my camera does that is only a small part of the equation, and by having a semi-automatic mode I use most of the time, I get what I want. This setting has been arrived at based on personal preferences, the way that I see things, and the characteristics of the camera and lens.
Originally posted by ubique:
I like this camera for the same reason I like my old film cameras; because I always loved the act of taking a I know I can turn all that superfluous stuff off, but why does a hot rodder get rid of all the superfluous crap on his rod? It's because if he doesn't need it, then it's got no place cluttering up the ride. |
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's a key difference. The hot rodder gets rid of anything that does not enhance performance. I would argue that the technology does dramatically enhance performance, and therefore "belongs." We can choose to use it, or not. I do love to shoot with old manual-focus glass, but I will never give up lightning-fast AF that focuses better than I ever could, and IS, and ability to instantly verify exposure... |
Ah, yes......the old "Strip all that bad stuff off" school of "Hot rodding". Just like the people who used to bolt big carburetors on engines that couldn't handle them. Truth is, that truly never was how it was done. A true hot rodder understands what he/she is doing when modifying a machine for maximum performance. True hot rodders are the pioneers of automotive advancements & technology. So I'll remain happy with my DSLR with all it's technology and take advantage of it.
It's like farming with horses......yeah, it can be done, if that's the way you want to go about it, but don't tell me that's the way "Real" farmers do it 'cause it's farming in its purest state.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 01:05:55 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by ubique:
At the risk of channeling Caddyshack, I like to be the camera. So the less technology that gets between me and the lens, the better. I'd like this camera even more without the LCD screen on the back. It doesn't show me anything that I want to see. |
You mean you don't care about the end result? I'm confused....
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 01:51:13 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ubique:
At the risk of channeling Caddyshack, I like to be the camera. So the less technology that gets between me and the lens, the better. I'd like this camera even more without the LCD screen on the back. It doesn't show me anything that I want to see. |
You mean you don't care about the end result? I'm confused.... |
I mean I don't care to know what the end result is at the time. Or more accurately I don't care to check it at the time. I already know if I got what I wanted, without the screen: every film photographer does.
I don't mind missing some shots, nor missing focus sometimes, nor getting the exposure wrong sometimes. Those failures make the successes mean much more. I absolutely do not want the best possible result every time. That's predictable, boring and ultimately meaningless.
It's important to understand that I revel in mistakes and imprecision. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 08:47:03 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ubique:
At the risk of channeling Caddyshack, I like to be the camera. So the less technology that gets between me and the lens, the better. I'd like this camera even more without the LCD screen on the back. It doesn't show me anything that I want to see. |
You mean you don't care about the end result? I'm confused.... |
Is the image on the camera LCD your end result? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 12:47:21 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by ubique:
At the risk of channeling Caddyshack, I like to be the camera. So the less technology that gets between me and the lens, the better. I'd like this camera even more without the LCD screen on the back. It doesn't show me anything that I want to see. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You mean you don't care about the end result? I'm confused.... |
Originally posted by ubique:
I mean I don't care to know what the end result is at the time. Or more accurately I don't care to check it at the time. I already know if I got what I wanted, without the screen: every film photographer does. |
Okay.....I get that. To each his own. I chimp......if I've got an opportunity to change a shot for the better, I might. I like to have that choice.
Originally posted by ubique:
I don't mind missing some shots, nor missing focus sometimes, nor getting the exposure wrong sometimes. Those failures make the successes mean much more. I absolutely do not want the best possible result every time. That's predictable, boring and ultimately meaningless. |
Okay. I do like getting the best result for what I want as I saw the scene. Of course, it never looks quite like I'd visualized it, but again, I want to know what I'll have to work with, which may have me shoot again from a slightly different perspective, both literally & figuratively.
Originally posted by ubique:
It's important to understand that I revel in mistakes and imprecision. |
Yah, I know that.......and I'm not necessarily even sure I'd call how you go about it as making mistakes. You have a differtent style. I get that.
The way I understood what you said just threw me off. Thanks for the clarification.
Message edited by author 2015-02-27 12:49:17.
|
|
