 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006why do we need digital SLR?
Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on the film. So it is "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get). However, with the digital cameras, you constantly see the image on the LCD. So why do you need SLR digital camera? In fact... with the digital SLR, you need to stay close to the viewfinder to view the picture, while the non-SLR digital camera can let you view from a couple feet away. Nice Try. > Nice Try. You woulda thunk, huh? I agree with you, but some 20 other posters just hadda start arguin'.  Signaturelsmft > > Nice Try. > > > You woulda thunk, huh? I agree with you, but some 20 other posters just > hadda start arguin'. *Sigh* "You can lead a photographer to water, but get him to resist a troll and you've really got something!" Must just about be time for another PC -v- Apple or Canon -v- Nikon troll too :( According to C J Southern <spamreport@xtra.co.nz>: > > > Nice Try. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Must just about be time for another PC -v- Apple or Canon -v- Nikon troll > too :( How about digital Hasselblad vs unix? :-) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.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 --- >> > Nice Try. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Must just about be time for another PC -v- Apple or Canon -v- Nikon troll > too :( Apple is definitely better than Canon. >>> > Nice Try. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Apple is definitely better than Canon. How about a new one? Which is the best, Aperture 1.0, Photoshop CS3, or Capture NX? > Apple is definitely better than Canon. Nice try, but you'll need tastier bait than that - that lot is pretty stale :( >>> > Nice Try. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Apple is definitely better than Canon. I do actually have an Apple camera and I would rather use a rock to scratch on the pavement than use the camera to capture images. Pete D skrev: >> Apple is definitely better than Canon. > > I do actually have an Apple camera and I would rather use a rock to scratch > on the pavement than use the camera to capture images. This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake > Pete D skrev: >>> Apple is definitely better than Canon. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake Quicktake 150. http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/qt.htm OMG, you are right, off to Cash Converters we go!! Have you noticed that the D-SLR's take slightly better quality photos than your crappy P&S? > Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to > reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > viewfinder to view the picture, while the non-SLR digital camera can > let you view from a couple feet away. > OMG, you are right, off to Cash Converters we go!! > > Have you noticed that the D-SLR's take slightly better quality photos than > your crappy P&S? Well, he just might have a Sony DSC-R1... There isn't anything inherent in the SLR construction that makes it take superior pictures in and by itself. With a first-class optics, and a sensor the size of a dSLR, there is no reason that a "P&S" would have lower image quality than a dSLR. The same, of course, applies for Epson's digital rangefinder - if anyone has seen a trace of it. Sony might, for instance, now that they have swallowed K&M, make a body based on the DCR-R1 with an alpha mount, such that you can use the standard MInolta lens lineup with it. I feel that this is a much more clever way to get live preview in the What _is_ an inherent drawback in a large-sensor live preview construction is that consumes a lot more electricity than a corresponding dSLR. And the shutters used aren't as fast as dSLR shutters are, particularly not for wide apertures, which means that shallow DOF in strong light is more difficult to achieve without ND filters and such. What can live preview be good for? One obvious thing is to increase the possible shooting angles. However, this may also be arranged with a device of the Zigview type - preeferably one better than the currently existing one.. Another thing is that it in theory actually can be used to ascertain focus _more_ accurately. I know that it is right now much more difficult to ascertain focus on a standard LCD or EVF than on a DSLR screen, but the possibility to select an enlargement of a section of the image actually opens up the possibility for a more accurate focussing than is possible just by eyeballing a non-enlargable image on a viewing screen, if you can enlarge enough. A third thing that is good with a mirrorless camera is that it is a good deal more discreet soundwise. (This is, of course, an advantage that a "P&S" shares with a traditional rangefinder.) Good at theater or recital performances, and good for some kind of candid photos - be it of people or of wildlife. So there are pros and cons with both DSLR:s and live preview cameras. But there is nothing that in and by itself says that a camera using live preview would take pictures with worse image quality than a DSLR. Jan Böhme >> OMG, you are right, off to Cash Converters we go!! >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > shallow DOF in strong light is more difficult to achieve without ND > filters and such. ???? The type of shutter used in any DSLR should work fine in a "point and shoot"--all it has to do is completely expose the sensor and any focal plane shutter can do that. > What can live preview be good for? One obvious thing is to increase the > possible shooting angles. However, this may also be arranged with a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > focussing than is possible just by eyeballing a non-enlargable image on > a viewing screen, if you can enlarge enough. That has its disadvantages as well--getting the magnified area where you want it. You might want to spend some time playing with a Panasonic FZ, which has such a feature (at least the 7 and 30 do, the 5 and 20 I'm too lazy to look up). It doesn't work all that well to begin with and getting it onto the spot where you want sharpest focus sometimes means moving the camera after focusing. > A third thing that is good with a mirrorless camera is that it is a > good deal more discreet soundwise. (This is, of course, an advantage [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But there is nothing that in and by itself says that a camera using > live preview would take pictures with worse image quality than a DSLR. Personally I'd like to see a DSLR with an LCD that moves into the finder when the mirror flips up and a mirror lockup mode--that would give you both worlds. > Jan Böhme Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) J. Clarke skrev: > > What _is_ an inherent drawback in a large-sensor live preview > > construction is that consumes a lot more electricity than a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shoot"--all it has to do is completely expose the sensor and any focal > plane shutter can do that. But it would have to perform the rather complex cycle close-open-close-open in very rapid succession, and clse completely before it can start the exposure. Curtain shutters don't really seem to be designed to do this fast. The "B" mode in the Olympus E-330, the closest existing thing to what you want, has a whopping shutter lag of one second, and it seems to be there for a reason. > > the possibility to select an enlargement of a section > > of the image actually opens up the possibility for a more accurate > > focussing than is possible just by eyeballing a non-enlargable image on > > a viewing screen, if you can enlarge enough. > That has its disadvantages as well--getting the magnified area where you > want it. You might want to spend some time playing with a Panasonic FZ, > which has such a feature (at least the 7 and 30 do, the 5 and 20 I'm too > lazy to look up). It doesn't work all that well to begin with and getting > it onto the spot where you want sharpest focus sometimes means moving the > camera after focusing. I know, I have an FZ20. This is exactly why I have toyed with the idea of making something actually useful out of the feature. That manual focus assist by magnification is very close to useless for macro photography: The detail resolution is way too small, and the magnification always comes up dead center. But there is nothing inherent that requires it to be set up this way. My idea was to be able to move the centre of magnification with the up-down-left-right arrows, and then have a couple of different magnification levels. > > So there are pros and cons with both DSLR:s and live preview cameras. > > But there is nothing that in and by itself says that a camera using [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when the mirror flips up and a mirror lockup mode--that would give you both > worlds. Olympus E-330, "B" mode, only perfect, and with a decent size sensor, yeah. If you can do this with a Canonite or Nikonian shutter lag of 50 ms - yes, by all means. Perhaps also with a Minoltan or Panasonicesque lag of 100 ms. The only question is still: Is that really technically possible? I't still think that it is easier to make a dedicated mirrorless body DSC-R1 style, to go with one's ordinary lens lineup, do do what we want.. Sure it would be a costly niche item. But quite a few lenses are costly niche items in the same price range - and people still buy them. Jan Böhme > J. Clarke skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > closest existing thing to what you want, has a whopping shutter lag of > one second, and it seems to be there for a reason. Several DSLRs manage 5 frames/second in burst mode, that means that it's down to 1/5 of a second. >> > the possibility to select an enlargement of a section >> > of the image actually opens up the possibility for a more accurate [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > lag of 100 ms. The only question is still: Is that really technically > possible? Many things are technologically possible that aren't economically feasible. That's the real issue, can it be done for a reasonable price. > I't still think that it is easier to make a dedicated mirrorless body > DSC-R1 style, to go with one's ordinary lens lineup, do do what we > want.. Sure it would be a costly niche item. But quite a few lenses are > costly niche items in the same price range - and people still buy them. > > Jan Böhme Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Although the R1 is pretty good there is still compromises, the optics are still compact and cannot compete with physically larger lenses. The fact that it is set up for live preview means that noise will always be more than one that does not use live preview. Shutter delay, etc, focusing system, etc, .... Pete D wrote: > OMG, you are right, off to Cash Converters we go!! > > Have you noticed that the D-SLR's take slightly better quality photos than > your crappy P&S? Well, he just might have a Sony DSC-R1... There isn't anything inherent in the SLR construction that makes it take superior pictures in and by itself. With a first-class optics, and a sensor the size of a dSLR, there is no reason that a "P&S" would have lower image quality than a dSLR. The same, of course, applies for Epson's digital rangefinder - if anyone has seen a trace of it. Sony might, for instance, now that they have swallowed K&M, make a body based on the DCR-R1 with an alpha mount, such that you can use the standard MInolta lens lineup with it. I feel that this is a much more clever way to get live preview in the What _is_ an inherent drawback in a large-sensor live preview construction is that consumes a lot more electricity than a corresponding dSLR. And the shutters used aren't as fast as dSLR shutters are, particularly not for wide apertures, which means that shallow DOF in strong light is more difficult to achieve without ND filters and such. What can live preview be good for? One obvious thing is to increase the possible shooting angles. However, this may also be arranged with a device of the Zigview type - preeferably one better than the currently existing one.. Another thing is that it in theory actually can be used to ascertain focus _more_ accurately. I know that it is right now much more difficult to ascertain focus on a standard LCD or EVF than on a DSLR screen, but the possibility to select an enlargement of a section of the image actually opens up the possibility for a more accurate focussing than is possible just by eyeballing a non-enlargable image on a viewing screen, if you can enlarge enough. A third thing that is good with a mirrorless camera is that it is a good deal more discreet soundwise. (This is, of course, an advantage that a "P&S" shares with a traditional rangefinder.) Good at theater or recital performances, and good for some kind of candid photos - be it of people or of wildlife. So there are pros and cons with both DSLR:s and live preview cameras. But there is nothing that in and by itself says that a camera using live preview would take pictures with worse image quality than a DSLR. Jan Böhme > Although the R1 is pretty good there is still compromises, the optics are > still compact and cannot compete with physically larger lenses. Huh? That makes no sense at all. The optics are the size that they have to be. > The fact > that it is set up for live preview means that noise will always be more > than one that does not use live preview. And why would that be? > Shutter delay, etc, focusing > system, etc, .... You're just throwing out buzzwords now hoping that one will stick. May work in conversation, but it doesn't work online. Please demonstrate that each of these is significantly different between the R1 and a DSLR. > Pete D wrote: >> OMG, you are right, off to Cash Converters we go!! [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Jan Böhme Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > Although the R1 is pretty good there is still compromises, the optics are > > still compact and cannot compete with physically larger lenses. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in conversation, but it doesn't work online. Please demonstrate that each > of these is significantly different between the R1 and a DSLR. On much of this he is right, the Sbutter delay is very much longer n the R1 then a DSLR. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A8.HTM A DSLR has dedicated sensors for focusing, I would think the R1 using the main imaging sensor. This works but you can only get out the sensor so fast and so you can only focus so fast. The cycle time for the R1 is also way slow. Scott >> > Although the R1 is pretty good there is still compromises, the optics >> > are still compact and cannot compete with physically larger lenses. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the R1 then > a DSLR. Well let's see, they say that the shutter lag for the R1 is .007 seconds. This is about ten times as fast as for the DSLRs they tested. Perhaps the Sbutter delay whatever that is is longer but the Shutter delay seems to be much better on the R1. Perhaps you are confusing autofocus time with shutter lag. The autofocus time does seem to be slower, about 3/4 second vs about 1/4 second. > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A8.HTM > A DSLR has dedicated sensors for focusing, I would think the R1 using > the main imaging sensor. This works but you can only get out the > sensor so fast and so you can only focus so fast. > > The cycle time for the R1 is also way slow. Which may or may not be an issue--if you need a fast cycle time then you can use burst mode. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> > Although the R1 is pretty good there is still compromises, the optics >>> > are still compact and cannot compete with physically larger lenses. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > can > use burst mode. Optics on my F1.4 lens are probably better than your R1, they are also bigger so that this is possible, can you swap to an F1.4 lens? A F1.8? Fine, use your R1 I will use my D-SLR we will both be happy. I use mine at 1600and 3200 ISO, how do your photos come out at these settings on your R1, shutter lag includes focusing time in my book 3/4 of a second is abysmal, you can keep it thanks. >>>> > Although the R1 is pretty good there is still compromises, the optics >>>> > are still compact and cannot compete with physically larger lenses. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Optics on my F1.4 lens are probably better than your R1, they are also > bigger so that this is possible, can you swap to an F1.4 lens? A F1.8? My R1? You must have me confused with someone else. > Fine, use your R1 I will use my D-SLR we will both be happy. I use mine at > 1600and 3200 ISO, how do your photos come out at these settings on your > R1, shutter lag includes focusing time in my book 3/4 of a second is > abysmal, you can keep it thanks. Why are you trying to personalize this? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> > Although the R1 is pretty good there is still compromises, the >>>>> > optics [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > My R1? You must have me confused with someone else. As you seem to be so knowledgeable what else could I possible think?? >>>>>> > Although the R1 is pretty good there is still compromises, the >>>>>> > optics [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > As you seem to be so knowledgeable what else could I possible think?? Now I'm expected to be a mind-reader? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > OMG, you are right, off to Cash Converters we go!! > > Have you noticed that the D-SLR's take slightly better quality photos than > your crappy P&S? That depends in part at least on the operator... >> OMG, you are right, off to Cash Converters we go!! >> >> Have you noticed that the D-SLR's take slightly better quality photos >> than your crappy P&S? >> > That depends in part at least on the operator... Yeah sure, whatever. > Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to > reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > viewfinder to view the picture, while the non-SLR digital camera can > let you view from a couple feet away. Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr digital? > Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr > digital? Aren't teleconverters and WA converters multiple lenses? ;-) Jan Böhme Rudy Benner wrote: > Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr > digital? >Aren't teleconverters and WA converters multiple lenses? ;-) >Jan Böhme Hardly comparable. > > Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to > > reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr > digital? All sorts of non-slr cameras allow for multiple lenses. Video cameras have a standard lens mount and take a wide range of lenses, but are not SLRs. In fact I don't see any reason why a non slr could not have a lens mount with muliple lenses. Scott The point and Shoot market , generally , consists of comsumers with a certain amount of free cash to blow. All major commodity producers know this and build products accordingly. In the photographic markets 20 years ago it was all 35 mm split between 2 groups P&S and SLR's typically then as today the SLR crowd spent more bucks on "their Hobby". Also the higher up the quality ladder you go the more consumers are likely to spend But the smaller the number of interested consumers there are and thus the smaller the market for your product. [IE Medium and Large frame ] The Big photographic companies know who is likely to spend money and what they are likely to spend it on and build accordingly. They are not likely to build 2 systems to compete with each other. and if they did not enough people will buy 1 of them to continue to produce it. The lower end DSLR's are being released to entice the P&S shooters who aren't quite satisfied with their toys to try something different and it seems to be working. The enthusiasm of recently converted P&S shooters , the new found excitement with photography, should be obvious to anybody who reads what is being said on Groups for the D50 and Canon Rebel. Judging by the difficulty of getting certain Nikon Products worldwide in the past several months the enthusiasm caught the marketing guys by surprise. If you are happy with a point and shoot that's fine for shots inside 25 feet or so Great! enjoy it! It is less than satisfactory to me when i want to get a shot at a deer 400 yards across a field ; a Duck going airborne at 25 feet; then a bee in a flower 15 inches away; and finally a landscape of the sun dipping behind a mountain. all with 1 camera within minutes of each other. Point and shoots are built for people who want photography kept simple DSLR's are built for people who want more [ more options,more control, more artistic expression] and then there are those who want both with the best of Quality for under $100. look at what is available and make a decision Quit whining about what isn't there and not likely to be. > > > Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to > > > reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Scott >> Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to >> reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr > digital? who needs multiple lenses with 500x digital zoom built into the camera electronics? >>> Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to >>> reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > who needs multiple lenses with 500x digital zoom built into the camera > electronics? And what camera is this? 500X???? Yeah right. >>>> Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to >>>> reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And what camera is this? 500X???? Yeah right. Quite a few actually. Personally I don't see much point to electronic zoom--if it could be done independently of optical zoom and the center point could be moved it might be a useful focusing aid but in its current form it is mainly useful in using the camera as a spotting scope rather than for photography. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to >>>>> reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > form it is mainly useful in using the camera as a spotting scope rather > than for photography. Quite a few?? I would love to see these mythical digital cameras with 500x zoom, please give more info and model numbers. Thanks. Pete D skrev: >>> And what camera is this? 500X???? Yeah right. >> Quite a few actually. Personally I don't see much point to electronic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Quite a few?? I would love to see these mythical digital cameras with 500x > zoom, please give more info and model numbers. Here you got 700x, hope that helps ;) (it's a camcorder thought) http://axia.securewebstore.co.uk/INU_products/INU_ProdDetailsL2.ASP?ref=08606550 wonder if anyone buys it for that > Pete D skrev: >>>> And what camera is this? 500X???? Yeah right. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > wonder if anyone buys it for that Camcorder???? You said camera, no good changing your mind now. ;-) >>>>>> Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to >>>>>> reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Quite a few?? I would love to see these mythical digital cameras with 500x > zoom, please give more info and model numbers. I was actually thinking of camcorders--Sharp VLZ3U, Panasonic VDR-M50, and Canon ZR700 would be three but there are many others. On still cameras it generally doesn't go beyond 48x or so. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>> Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror >>>>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Canon ZR700 would be three but there are many others. On still cameras it > generally doesn't go beyond 48x or so. If you had actually used them with digital zoom ever you would know how silly it would be to say that they are an option. >> Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr >> digital? >> > who needs multiple lenses with 500x digital zoom built into the camera > electronics? Anyone who wants real detail. Digital zoom just does some kind of interpolation between the captured pixels. It has no way to recreate the detail that the sensor never captured in the first place. >>> Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr >>> digital? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > interpolation between the captured pixels. It has no way to recreate the > detail that the sensor never captured in the first place. Not true at all, one of the guys in this news group has developed software that can do just that!! >>>> Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr >>>> digital? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not true at all, one of the guys in this news group has developed software > that can do just that!! No way! Smart interpolation algorithms can do a pretty good job of producing crisp looking images but there is no way to generate information that was never captured by the sensor. >>> On 2006/6/18 12:26 AM, "Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon >>> dot [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > crisp looking images but there is no way to generate information that was > never captured by the sensor. Ohhhh, really, who'ed have thought it. ;-) > Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to > reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > viewfinder to view the picture, while the non-SLR digital camera can > let you view from a couple feet away. DAGS. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) In contrast to what others say it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR camera with exchangeable lenses and it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR camera with a high quality sensor. In fact there is a DLSR camera that _additionally_ allows previewing the shot on the LCD screen. If you close the view finder by a tape you get what you suggest :). But IMHO it's a _great_ plus to have an optical view finder: no delay, resolution not limited by the LCD, much better look and feel. With my glasses I'm absolutely unable to use the "electronic view finder" of my father in law's Panasonic. -Michael > In contrast to what others say it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR > camera with exchangeable lenses Without an engineering background, I would have to agree with you. Make a bigger battery pack for the increased power drain of the LCD! I prefer using both my eyes to compose a picture. In fact, before I got my D200, I asked the salesman if you could lock the mirror and use the thing like a point and shoot! Wouldn`t that be a great option? Use the traditional viewfinder or the LCD as you like! IMHO, having to use one eye to visualize your subject was always a compromise solution in the early days of 35mm photography. My old Nikon F had a removable prism and you could place a waist-level viewfinder with magnifier à la medium format if you wanted. Granted, I rarely used it because the image was so dark. With digital, this is not nearly as big a problem even in bright sunlight. I think the point and shoot has an advantage of SLR`s in this respect, but it is a question of habit and preference, IMHO. Tien > > In contrast to what others say it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR > > camera with exchangeable lenses [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of SLR`s in this respect, but it is a question of habit and preference, > IMHO. The problem is holding a camera at arms length is the absolute worst way to hold a camera. You are inviting camera shake. I can't imaging doing this with my D200 and a 70-210 lens, you'd have to be Hercules. I wouldn't mind the removeable prisms of the Nikon F and CanonF1 series cameras. I just don't see the need for the electronic viewfinder and preview when you have a better view through the finder. Too noisy, get a digital rangefinder (should be more of those made). BTW holding a camera to your eye gives a three point brace to steady the camera, if you are good you can hold a 50mm f2 at 1/15 of a second. Thus eliminating the awful flash on P&S cameras. Tom > Tien > The problem is holding a camera at arms length is the absolute worst > way to hold a camera. You are inviting camera shake. Agreed. I usually shoot at 1/focal length (seconds) so that is not a big problem. Even at those speeds, you are right, my old Nikkor AF 80-200 f2.8 is a handful without a tripod. Of course, when I want to use the D200 to its full advantage, I reluctantly lug around the tripod. > BTW holding a camera to your eye gives a three point brace to steady > the camera, Agreed. >if you are good you can hold a 50mm f2 at 1/15 of a second. You are better than me. I can manage 1/30 and still be more or less satisfied but at 1/15, even braced against a wall, I still shake. I think Nikon could have made the option of locking the mirror and using the LCD for those amateurs like me who like using it to compose. Then we would have a choice. Tien > I think Nikon could have made the option of locking the mirror and > using the LCD for those amateurs like me who like using it to compose. > Then we would have a choice. It would have to have a sensor capable of live video feed, inherently compromising image quality whether the feature is used or not. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > I think Nikon could have made the option of locking the mirror and > > using the LCD for those amateurs like me who like using it to compose. > > Then we would have a choice. > > It would have to have a sensor capable of live video feed, inherently > compromising image quality whether the feature is used or not. You must be right, otherwise someone would have done this trick already. Tien >>> I think Nikon could have made the option of locking the mirror and >>> using the LCD for those amateurs like me who like using it to compose. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You must be right, otherwise someone would have done this trick > already. Someone has. If you want it, it's there. Let's just hope the idea doesn't spread. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com tomm42 skrev: > The problem is holding a camera at arms length is the absolute worst > way to hold a camera. You are inviting camera shake. I can't imaging [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the camera, if you are good you can hold a 50mm f2 at 1/15 of a second. > Thus eliminating the awful flash on P&S cameras. However, there are technical tricks to lower shutter times also on light LCD point and shoots. If you have move the camera away from your face until the neck strap is just tight, you get a lot steadier. I actually did this in low light with my Nikon Coolpix 995, althought it had an optical viewfinder (though not TTL, of course). If I could lean against a firm support (wall, tree trunk, column, etc), I had a 50% hit rate with 1/8 of a second, and a 25% hit rate with a 1/4. The resolution of a CP 995 is only 3 M, but I don't think that this means that one could come away with much more motion blur than in a DSLR without noticing it. Jan Böhme > In contrast to what others say it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR > camera with exchangeable lenses and it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > glasses I'm absolutely unable to use the "electronic view finder" of my > father in law's Panasonic. Mostly I agree with all that you have said. But there is a case when an electronic view finder it a big help. On the Sony F828 I can adjust on the setting when wearing contact lenses, by looking into the electronic view finder. On the 20D and 350D it is a lot harder to do so, and at my forget trying to look at the photo afterwards on the small screen, if I have contacts and no reading glasses with me. Scott > > In contrast to what others say it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR > > camera with exchangeable lenses and it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott Didn't have any problem with my Nikon D200 setting the finder, I wear glasses too. Canon design flaw, really no camera is perfect. Looked at a Fuji 9000 and a K/Minolta A series and just didn't lie the finders, the D200 comes close to full frame 35mm or DSLR finders. Tom > Didn't have any problem with my Nikon D200 setting the finder, I wear > glasses too. Canon design flaw, really no camera is perfect. Looked at > a Fuji 9000 and a K/Minolta A series and just didn't lie the finders, > the D200 comes close to full frame 35mm or DSLR finders. It is not the finder with a DSLR that is the problem for me. It is the screen on the back that I have a hard time with. On the F828 all the info that is displayed on the back screen can also be displayed on the EVF and because that is set for at infinity I can see it just fine. Most of the time this is not a big problem but if I am changing a setting with menus, like mirror lockup, then it is a bit of a challenge to see what I am doing if I have my contacts in. If I am wearing my bifocals it is not a problem at all of course. Scott > In contrast to what others say it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR > camera with exchangeable lenses and it _is_ possible to build a > non-SLR camera with a high quality sensor. Of course. But currently, this isn't how the major manufaturers are segmenting their markets. > But IMHO it's a _great_ plus to have an optical view finder: no delay, > resolution not limited by the LCD, much better look and feel. Absolutely. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > But IMHO it's a _great_ plus to have an optical view finder: no delay, > resolution not limited by the LCD, much better look and feel. With my > glasses I'm absolutely unable to use the "electronic view finder" of my > father in law's Panasonic. > > -Michael Have you considered removing your glasses and adjusting the viewfinder's diopter control? +/-4 with the Panasonic. Works for me. Granted, I have to replace my glasses to read/ adjust the menu items, but I also have to do that with a Pentax/Nikon dSLR. -- Jeff R. > Have you considered removing your glasses and adjusting the viewfinder's > diopter control? +/-4 with the Panasonic. Works for me. Doesn't help too much with -6 :( -Michael >> Have you considered removing your glasses and adjusting the viewfinder's >> diopter control? +/-4 with the Panasonic. Works for me. > > Doesn't help too much with -6 :( > > -Michael :-( indeed. Ouch! JR > Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to > reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > viewfinder to view the picture, while the non-SLR digital camera can > let you view from a couple feet away. Faster performance. Less battery drain. Less compromise in the sensor. Dear sir, > Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to > reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > viewfinder to view the picture, while the non-SLR digital camera can > let you view from a couple feet away. The "problem" with traditional SLR is not really in optics because both digital and non-digital are of equivalent quality. The "problem" is that there is the development process in the non-digital process that entails a chemical reaction that simply does not exist in the digital process. In the digital process what are the really important things apart from optics are the camera resolution (should be at least 5.1mp for good quality) and a good printer with photographic paper. Sincerely, André Luiz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.