The big questions about DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Tim Conway on 23 Apr 2010 13:03 "Phil B." <pblackwell(a)spamlessyahoo.com> wrote in message news:jnj3t5hhnp5k6857uml4gga8h3ki5j72s0(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:36:19 +0100, "11:11" <1112(a)1113.com> wrote: > >>"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1fd97cd6-3a04-4e15-ad54-670b393393aa(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>> Canon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored, interchangeable lens >>> camera? >>> Nikon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored camera and/or an , >>> high megapixel FF camera that doesn't cost $8000? >>> Olympus. Will they dump DSLRs? >>> Pentax. Will they release a FF camera, will they survive? >>> Sony. Will they release a non-boring entry level camera? >>> Fuji. Will they release a new pro DSLR or any interchangeable lens >>> camera? >>> Sigma. Does anyone care? >>> Samsung. Will they make a dent in 4/3rds sales? >> >> >> >>I'm wondering when someone will bring out a large sensor p&s that takes >>photos when you actually press the button and maybe even a decent burst >>rate. >> > > Do catch up with reality some day. Cameras like that have been out for > many > years now. Most P&S cameras today have shutter-lags far less than any DSLR > made today. Shutter-lags on the order of 30-45ms. They don't have to waste > time lifting that loud slapping mirror out of the way. All DSLR > shutter-lag > averages 60-130ms or more. Some P&S cameras even take continuous frames > held in the buffer and will let you keep several shots that were taken > before you even press the shutter. In order for you to get those images > where in the past you saw something happening, lifted the camera, and said > to yourself, "Damn, I just missed that shot". The camera has already been > taking them for you, then lets you select which one it was that you > thought > you had missed and wanted. > > Are you DSLR fools really this ignorant? No, don't bother answering that. > You prove it with every post that you make. Keep on living in last > century's technology. Ignorance is bliss after-all, isn't it. Yet a new name. It morphed again.
From: Bruce on 22 Apr 2010 07:41 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:39:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Canon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored, interchangeable lens >camera? Yes, because they risk getting left behind if they don't. >Nikon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored camera Yes, because they risk getting left behind if they don't. >and/or an , >high megapixel FF camera that doesn't cost $8000? Yes, but it may not have 24 MP. >Olympus. Will they dump DSLRs? No, but they won't spend $ squillions on their development. >Pentax. Will they release a FF camera, will they survive? Kodak and Pentax are talking right now. Watch this space. >Sony. Will they release a non-boring entry level camera? Only if the Alpha range stops losing vast amounts of money. >Fuji. Will they release a new pro DSLR or any interchangeable lens >camera? No. >Sigma. Does anyone care? No. >Samsung. Will they make a dent in 4/3rds sales? Not with that terrible sensor! The NX10 is a noisebox.
From: Kyle Abhams on 23 Apr 2010 13:11 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:56:05 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Kyle Abhams wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:18:33 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Kyle Abhams wrote: >>>> 16 to 28 milliseconds is hardly a shutter-lag making eternity. >>> Bzzzzzzt. >> >> Then I suggest you measure the 60-90 milliseconds that it takes your >> archaic DSLR design to move its loudly slapping, image-jarring, humidity >> condensing, and sight-obstructing (when lifted), mirror out of the way. > >My mirrors are completely different from what you describe. > >*How* did you measure said time on *your* dslr?? http://www.lightningtrigger.com/CameraCompatibility6/CameraCompatibility6.htm Read it and weep you ignorant and lying fool. This is why CHDK P&S cameras with their built-in motion detection shutter response times of 30-45ms (total shutter lag, with or without motion detection being used) surpass most any DSLR for lightning photography. All thanks to not having that DSLR's crippling mirror problem from last century.
From: C J Campbell on 23 Apr 2010 15:06 On 2010-04-22 14:18:24 -0700, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> said: > On 2010-04-22 18:48:08 +0100, C J Campbell said: > >> On 2010-04-22 01:00:32 -0700, "Ray Shafranski" <me(a)privacy.net> said: >> >>> <> >>> The lifting mirror and the pentaprism/pentamirror are relics of film days >>> and should be replaced on all DSLR designs. >> >> Not so much a relic of film but of the need for clear, bright, optical >> viewfinders. You are not going to get as good a picture holding the >> camera out in front of you (as you must do with the Olympus E-PL1, for >> example) as you will with the camera braced by your face. Mirrorless is >> great for the photography masses who really don't care about picture >> quality, but it has a ways to go before it is usable by pros. So, I >> would say the lifting mirror and pentaprism will disappear on consumer >> DSLRs soon, but it is going to be on pro cameras for awhile yet. > > Yes, and until sensors plus software can exceed the night-adaptive > vision of the human eye, framing of very low light shots will remain a > difficulty without an optical finder. I don't think that is really the problem with electronic viewfinders. I don't like their poor resolution and the delay that processing an electronic image imposes on photography. Wave your hand in front of any camera equipped with an EVF or LCD and you will see a noticeable delay between the movement of your hand and when it is displayed on the screen. Electronic viewfinders are fine for static shots and slow moving subjects. I love LiveView on my Nikons when I want precise focusing. But they are impossible for shooting any action scenes. And most pros shoot some action, whether it is weddings, sports, portraiture, or wildlife. Maybe the landscape and fine art photographers don't need optical viewfinders, but everyone else does. Of course, I often can shoot pretty well without a viewfinder at all. Precise framing is rarely the problem in photography since 90% of pictures are going to be cropped in some way anyway. Some of my best pictures have literally been shot from the hip. There are moments where if you take the time to frame and shoot you will lose the shot entirely. I remember shooting a bride and groom, doing some formals in a local garden. We were having a blast, as usual. I had the bride set up by the wreck of an old wooden boat -- cherry blossoms overhanging it; you know. Anyway, the groom was walking towards us with his hands in his pockets. The sky behind him was moody -- all dark clouds rimmed with light; very dramatic. Carved stones and flowering trees surrounded him and the grass was a brilliant emerald. He started removing his hands from his pockets, pulling his jacket open at the base, the lining of his pockets coming out with his hands. I saw all this in the corner of my eye. Without even turning, I quickly pointed the camera at him and shot from my waist, vertical format. The result was angled, a groom, looking broke but happy, with sunshine breaking out from the storms he is leaving behind. The bride and groom loved it. Bought it. It is one of their favorite pictures, right next to the flirty bride from the carefully composed frame before it. Two lessons there: 1) Pay attention to what is going on around you. Sometimes the real story is not in front of your camera. 2) Get the shot, even if it means that it will not be perfect. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 23 Apr 2010 15:29
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:06:02 -0700, C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Wave your hand in front of any >camera equipped with an EVF or LCD ... .... in low light and you'll see how the EVF or LCD is perfectly matching your selected shutter speed. Giving you REAL-TIME SHUTTER-SPEED PREVIEW. An very valuable feature to those that know how to use cameras. |