Meili Cameras

[PaulSchneider]

Hi guys,

I'm just wondering, what this is all about:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...#ht_5688wt_1139

It's incredible how they can revers-engineer everything ...

Regards

Paul

[Graham Mitchell]

These knock-offs are generally designed to look good on a shelf, but not to perform or last. There's no warranty and the price is high. I can't imagine why anyone would bother.

[schaubild]

This looks like the ideal camera for a troll.

[PaulSchneider]

This looks like the ideal camera for a troll.

Julius, they even ship to the Neptune, I'm sure you as a self-proclaimed Bentley dealer in these bearish times can afford it!




Seriously though, I stumbled upon this listing whilst searching for used Schneider lenses and was surprised ans strangely amazed to find that nothing seems secure from these counterfeiters ...

[Mr. Rib]

According to Q&A from ebay auction Meili Cameras doesn't have a website. Despite ripping off Alpa, maybe they also reverse-engineered Arca Swiss business model?

[rejcd]

Before accusing others of ripping off Alpa I think we could agree that Alpa's ripping off all of us. there is not such a thing as an Alpa camera anyway, what makes up the camera in that particular case is the lens, the lens has the diaph, the shutter and helicoid focus system, end of the story, the Alpa bit is just a glorified piece of aluminium alloy, it's so out of whack and poorly machined that you have to use a shim packer in order not to screw the pics on your digital back. I dont need shims on my Contax 645 and P25+, and guess what ? I have autofocus, you bring me to tears with you Alpa rubbish!!!!!

[JonathanBenoit]

Before accusing others of ripping off Alpa I think we could agree that Alpa's ripping off all of us. there is not such a thing as an Alpa camera anyway, what makes up the camera in that particular case is the lens, the lens has the diaph, the shutter and helicoid focus system, end of the story, the Alpa bit is just a glorified piece of aluminium alloy, it's so out of whack and poorly machined that you have to use a shim packer in order not to screw the pics on your digital back. I dont need shims on my Contax 645 and P25+, and guess what ? I have autofocus, you bring me to tears with you Alpa rubbish!!!!!

Very odd statement. You are comparing apples to oranges. The Alpa is used for its movements and therefore different applications. You aren't going to see a wedding photographer using an Alpa and you wont find an architectural photographer using a Contax 645.

[Christopher Sanderson]

Moderator's note: topic title has been edited....

[JonathanBenoit]

I have used a Mamiya 645AFD/Aptus22, 1Ds, 5D, 5DII, Rollei 6001 w/ film all individually more than using my 4x5 for architectural work over 11-12 years. So yes, arch shooters can use a Contax 645. Architectural, interiors, exteriors work isn't always about using a wide lens on a shift camera.

It's always about using movements, whether its a shift lens or a tech camera. If you aren't adjusting the verticals in camera then you aren't a serious architectural photographer.

[jbaxendell]

I asked Alpa about them a few weeks ago and got this reply:

Yes - we already know the MEILI cameras since some time. The MEILI is one of about a dozen ALPA copies from China we know about and we must say: at least from the outside it is not the worst (by the way: we do not know how much have been made of them)! We think we must see these copies more as a cultural than a commercial phenomenon = copying a "masterpiece" has a bit another sense in China than in Europe/USA (China: "Copying is the highest form of flattery"). Anyway: we think most of these copies are made only in very small numbers and those we have had in our hands were all of really lousy quality. One of the backgrounds may be: the small backyard companies making such copies do not have neither the knowhow nor the machines or the material needed for good quality products - and the big companies owning everything needed (see what they do in the military field: excellent products!) are not interested in civilian niche products like the ALPA. Furthermore they are lacking the special touch of nearly handmade objects, the feeling which can only be reached when a product is made with engagement and even love as the original ALPAs are made - this is not so easy if not totally impossible to copy. We think of our ALPAs more as e.g. musical instruments than of soulless objects and we believe most of our customers do the same.

There are, there always were and there will always be many people not believing in the old saying which is certainly as true concerning cameras as it is concerning many other products: "you get what you pay for" and who do not know the difference between price and value. For all those such copies or many other cameras may be the right stuff. But not for those in the know. Arrogant? We don't think so - just as discerning as we hope our customers are, too.

Thanks again and very best regards from Switzerland,

Thomas Weber-Capaul

[ondebanks]

It's always about using movements, whether its a shift lens or a tech camera. If you aren't adjusting the verticals in camera then you aren't a serious architectural photographer.

I don't do architecture but it occured to me - can the average customer really tell whether it was shot with a Contax 645 and the verticals corrected in software, or shot with a shifting setup like the aforementioned Alpa?
Are there non-serious architectural photographers out there, getting away with it?!

[JonathanBenoit]

I don't do architecture but it occured to me - can the average customer really tell whether it was shot with a Contax 645 and the verticals corrected in software, or shot with a shifting setup like the aforementioned Alpa?
Are there non-serious architectural photographers out there, getting away with it?!

Basically it's trial and error/hit or miss if you plan on correcting verticals in software. It's impossible to set up an interior and frame it the way you normally would with camera that corrects verticals. You have to try to take into consideration how the image will distort in post. Beyond degrading the image by stretching pixels, the shape of the objects in the photograph are disproportionate when using software to correct. If you value architecture you wouldn't want to capture it incorrectly. If you take pride in your work as an architectural photographer then there is no substitute for shift movements.  If you correct with software, you are a digital tech first and a photographer second.

I have not seen/heard of any respectable architectural photographers not using either a view/tech camera or shift lenses.

This topic comes up all the time because most photographers aren't intensely obsessed with image quality and superior technique. I love being an architectural photographer because there are no shortcuts. If you don't do it 100% then the image will fail.

[JonathanBenoit]

If you can't visualize the shot with all corrections before you look at the ground glass, you'll have problems as an architectural photographer.  After that, whether you use camera movements or digital corrections is moot.  

You might benefit from opening your eyes to other techniques and possibilities.  

BTW, I'm an architect.

This is obvious. With any art, if you cant visualize it before you start you wont be able to succeed.

You can have an idea of what the best shot will be for a given interior, but if you cant see it on a flat plane before capturing it, there is slim chance of creating anything worthwhile.

I'm not going to go into any detail. If you don't photograph interiors and exteriors you wont understand.

[JoeKitchen]

I'd say this depends a great deal on the experience/expertise of the photographer.

I do understand, but your statements are misleading.  Specifically, given the same shooting position, the exact same geometric transforms can be accomplished via camera movements and post-processing transforms.  

Any degradation or loss of resolution that lies below the quality threshold of the final use is invisible/irrelevant.  It's worth noting that camera movements introduce "degradation" as well.  These are just as irrelevant so long as they lie outside the threshold of perception.

First, even if you are using a tripod with nodal control, of you correct the perspective in camera, then shoot with no movements but tilting the camera and correct in PS, you will see that the images look slightly different.  The one corrected on site will look more like the real scene.  Also, good lenses are sharp enough throughout the circle to make little difference, whereas correcting too much in PS with too much interpolation will cause the edges to blur greatly.  

Technical side aside, I believe using the best equipment is not so much about the high image quality, but the idea that you will get that much better quality.  It's about never accepting anything but your best, no matter what.  Would the best photographers produce the best images with a Canon or Nikon, absolutely, but they know the images would not be as good as they would with MFD, even if only slightly less good, and that's why they use MFD (with movements).  Its about the mentality that makes you loose sleep because you should have changed the 60 watt bulbs to 40 watt bulbs, even if the client will not notice.

[JonathanBenoit]

I do understand, but your statements are misleading.  Specifically, given the same shooting position, the exact same geometric transforms can be accomplished via camera movements and post-processing transforms.  

Any degradation or loss of resolution that lies below the quality threshold of the final use is invisible/irrelevant.  It's worth noting that camera movements introduce "degradation" as well.  These are just as irrelevant so long as they lie outside the threshold of perception.

Both your statements are untrue. You would have to be a mathematical genius. Plus you would need to either setup at a different location or use a wider lens to account for cropping.
Like I said earlier and Joe stated as well, the proportions of the objects in the image are accurate with in camera movements. With software they are distorted and are inaccurate. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.
Joe's statements about stretching of pixels is enough explanation for the image quality.

[bryanyc]

I'm an architectural photographer (among other things).   I have done a ton of perspective transforms and I'm rather good at it - but I would never claim it was as good as the real shifted shot with my shift lenses..  Why?  Because it is hardly ever done with mathematical precision which would require an exact knowledge of angle degree relative to focal length. Plus I think there would need to be a gradual forshortening compensation in the transform that some have attempted.