Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: David J Taylor on 10 Jul 2010 12:23 "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:AsadnSzxdfyIGKXRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... [] > I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only > problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But > it is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera > like the 8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout, > function and capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which > provides some justification for the usage. Thanks for your thoughts. One problem I have with the term is "bridge to where?". Doubtless some would say that it's an end in itself, and not a bridge to anywhere. In terms of being a bridge to a DSLR, I think a punter's money would be better spent on a real DSLR, now they are much cheaper than a few years back. [At least the 8800 had a half-decent-sized sensor.] Cheers, David
From: Neil Harrington on 10 Jul 2010 13:45 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i1a6pj$949$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:AsadnSzxdfyIGKXRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > [] >> I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only >> problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But >> it is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera like >> the 8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout, function >> and capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which provides some >> justification for the usage. > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > One problem I have with the term is "bridge to where?". Doubtless some > would say that it's an end in itself, and not a bridge to anywhere. In > terms of being a bridge to a DSLR, That's what I've always taken the term to mean. > I think a punter's money would be better spent on a real DSLR, now they > are much cheaper than a few years back. [At least the 8800 had a > half-decent-sized sensor.] I fully agree. The 8800 when I bought mine was more expensive than a D3000 with kit lens is today, and much as I still admire the older camera there is no question that the newer and cheaper one is superior in every way. (Except perhaps in that it doesn't have a magnesium body like the 8800, but I doubt that is likely to be of much concern to the buyer, apart from RichA of course.) And even the 8800's 2/3" sensor, relatively large for that type of camera nowadays, is only 6.6 x 8.8 mm -- less than one-sixth the area of the D3000's sensor.
From: Peter on 10 Jul 2010 14:38 "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:hbmdnf1KIZgLCKrRnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > If I said things fall DOWN and not UP, you would disagree. Your > disagreement in this carries no weight, it is just silly. > Obviously you are not from Australia. I've heard that in Australia the women go up on their men. Can anyone verify this? -- Peter
From: Phil B. on 10 Jul 2010 16:36 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:34:54 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message >news:i195of$t70$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >> news:XMydncJ8Ko38A6rRnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> [] >>> All that illustrates is that the term has become popular for any digital >>> camera that isn't an SLR. I don't dispute that it's become the most >>> *popular* term, only that it isn't an appropriate one for many if not >>> most of the cameras called that. I've seen little cheap digital cameras >>> sold in blister packs at Walmart. For *those* the term P&S would probably >>> be appropriate (I say this not really knowing anything about the >>> cameras), because they are very likely analogous to the original and >>> appropriately characterized 35mm point-and-shoot cameras. >>> >>> But really, do you believe a camera like the Nikon 8800, for example, or >>> Canon G11, should be given the same type name as something that sells for >>> $25 or whatever in a blister pack? Why should anything and everything >>> that isn't an interchangeable-lens SLR be called a "P&S," when that term >>> originally meant, and still implies, a simple-to-use little camera with >>> practically no user controls and no indication about what the camera >>> itself was doing in terms of exposure? >> [] >> >> That was one of the reasons I accepted the use of the term "ZLR" or >> perhaps "bridge" camera - neither "compact", "P&S" or "SLR-like" was >> appropriate or correct for one reason or another. Anyone who is really >> interested in a camera such as the Nikon 8800 or Panasonic FZ38 isn't >> going to worry too much about how it's categorised, more about how well it >> works and what it might do for them. > >I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only >problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But it >is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera like the >8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout, function and >capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which provides some >justification for the usage. > "Bridge camera" does not work. Those who use high-end superzoom cameras see DSLRs as clearly the archaic "bridge camera". They're painfully, and unsuccessfully, still trying to bridge the crippling mechanical rube-goldberg mirror and shutter contraptions; and dust-inducing, shot-missing need to change lenses of last century; to a fully digital device. Non-DSLRs are not thus encumbered by last century's huge mechanical drawbacks and its inherent crippling limitations. Non-DSLRs are a full leap into this century. No bridge used.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 10 Jul 2010 16:41
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:23:15 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >news:AsadnSzxdfyIGKXRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >[] >> I think "bridge camera" is probably the better choice there. The only >> problem I have with "ZLR" is that such cameras aren't really reflex. But >> it is far, far preferable to "P&S" anyway when referring to a camera >> like the 8800. At least such a camera is comparable in design layout, >> function and capabilities to the original Olympus 35mm ZLR, which >> provides some justification for the usage. > >Thanks for your thoughts. > >One problem I have with the term is "bridge to where?". Doubtless some >would say that it's an end in itself, and not a bridge to anywhere. In >terms of being a bridge to a DSLR, I think a punter's money would be >better spent on a real DSLR, now they are much cheaper than a few years >back. [At least the 8800 had a half-decent-sized sensor.] > >Cheers, >David Yet those who are far more talented and intelligent than you find that spending their money on a superzoom camera to be the far wiser choice. You can't see that because, well, you're not more talented nor more intelligent. You'll never be able to value something that is far beyond your limited comprehension, limited capabilities, and limited experiences. It's just the way it is. |