The big questions about DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John McWilliams on 23 Apr 2010 00:18 Kyle Abhams wrote: > > 16 to 28 milliseconds is hardly a shutter-lag making eternity. Bzzzzzzt. -- lsmft
From: John McWilliams on 23 Apr 2010 00:20 Mxsmanic wrote: > RichA writes: > >> 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? > > What kind of SLR doesn't have a mirror? Self limiting: 0! Unless they make something besides a mirror that reflexes. -- john mcwilliams
From: SMS on 23 Apr 2010 17:44 On 22/04/10 10:48 AM, C J Campbell wrote: > 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. Highly unlikely that it will disappear on consumer SLRs anytime soon. It's not just the quality of picture that suffers with a P&S, it's the AF delay. Most consumers went the SLR route for two reasons: AF delay/shutter lag on P&S cameras was intolerable, and the low light performance of the P&S was intolerable. Can those two issues ever be addressed on P&S cameras without making them as large as a D-SLR? Perhaps, but no one has figured out how to do it yet, or it's so expensive that they don't bother.
From: RichA on 23 Apr 2010 17:49 On Apr 23, 5:44 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote: > On 22/04/10 10:48 AM, C J Campbell wrote: > > > 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. > > Highly unlikely that it will disappear on consumer SLRs anytime soon. > It's not just the quality of picture that suffers with a P&S, it's the > AF delay. Most consumers went the SLR route for two reasons: AF > delay/shutter lag on P&S cameras was intolerable, and the low light > performance of the P&S was intolerable. > > Can those two issues ever be addressed on P&S cameras without making > them as large as a D-SLR? Perhaps, but no one has figured out how to do > it yet, or it's so expensive that they don't bother. You could build a EVF-based FF camera with a relatively small body, you could put a FF sensor in a Nikon D60 if you wanted to. But those crappy plastic bodies would not be able to support the heavy f2.8 FX lenses at all.
From: John McWilliams on 23 Apr 2010 18:15
Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: > 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. Yeah, right; whatever. It's 'very valuable' for those who don't know photography. |