Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: Savageduck on 5 Jul 2010 16:20 On 2010-07-05 11:55:27 -0700, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> said: > Bruce wrote: >> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:57:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> >> wrote: >> >>> You wouldn't buy the camera anyway, because it's a compact dSLR. I >>> bought my wife an Olympus SP590-UZ, and it has only one slot. >> >> >> >> The Olympus SP590-UZ is **NOT** a DSLR. >> >> > Olympus characterizes the camera as simply a digital camera. That is correct. > Since it has virtually all the features of an SLR, adding that > designation, as per the quote below hardly seems out of place. Virtually, means there is an illusion that it has "all the features of an SLR." > I won't split hairs with you. If you want to simply call it a compact SLR, No I don't. > or simply an Advanced Compact, as the literature appears to indicate. It seems they know what it is. > that's fine with me. However, you should be aware that these cameras > have a good number of the features that full size DSLR's have. So. > I won't get involved in a discussion designed to split hairs regarding > the nomenclature designation, because that's a pointless discussion > which centers on semantics. However, you should be aware that DP, in > its buyer's guide, and in articles where they have been evaluated by > specific camera, classifies them as Advanced Compacts, with this > description: "Full featured compacts have the controls of a DSLR, > including choice of exposure modes, both auto and manual, auto and > manual focus, full control of ISO and complete choice of white > balance...The only thing they don't have from a functional point of > view is interchangeable lenses." Note, they are not the ones calling it a "Compact DSLR" you made that leap. ....and having the controls of a DSLR (which your Olympus doesn't have) doesn't mean an "Advanced Compact" can make the leap to be called a "compact DSLR" by the purchaser of such a camera, to justify their purchase, especially given that for $80 more you could have bought a real DSLR, and appreciated the difference. > > Given that, one can say that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a > duck, looks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Well, almost, given > the fact that there are differences. Sorry Alan, not even close. Probably the best way to describe it would be a "Super Zoom" or perhaps a "Bridge" camera. The differences are far too many. > Since the manufacturer characterizes it as a digital camera, with all > the features of a DSLR, and the literature asserts they have virtually > all the features of an SLR as well, ....and you believe all sales hype? > it does appear that the characterization compact DSLR could be quite > aptly applied to these cameras. No, again not even close. What you have is the mechanics/electronics of a compact, a single lens with a big zoom range, and an EVF, contained in a body shaped to give the buyer the illusion they are carrying a DSLR. > However, if you want to stand on the fact that they are different in a > small technical manner from a true DSLR, despite the fact that they > have all the equivalent functions, ....er no again. Unless you mean it is a machine which allows light to pass through a lens system to land on a smallish CCD sensor to enable the data collected to be processed into an image? > you're right and I won't argue with you, and I'll close with letting > you be right, if that's important. Not to me it isn't that important. You should just not kid yourself into believing something which isn't so. You might as well say, since two cans and a piece of string have a similar function as a communication device as a phone, they could be called a phone. Perhaps by some kids playing in the backyard. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Bruce on 5 Jul 2010 16:39 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:55:27 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: >Bruce wrote: >> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:57:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> >> wrote: >> >>>You wouldn't buy the camera anyway, because it's a compact dSLR. I >>>bought my wife an Olympus SP590-UZ, and it has only one slot. >> >> >> >> The Olympus SP590-UZ is **NOT** a DSLR. >> >> >Olympus characterizes the camera as simply a digital camera. Since it >has virtually all the features of an SLR, adding that designation, as >per the quote below hardly seems out of place. I won't split hairs >with you. If you want to simply call it a compact SLR, or simply an >Advanced Compact, as the literature appears to indicate. that's fine >with me. However, you should be aware that these cameras have a good >number of the features that full size DSLR's have. I won't get involved >in a discussion designed to split hairs regarding the nomenclature >designation, because that's a pointless discussion which centers on >semantics. It isn't a reflex camera. It has no reflex mirror, and no reflex viewfinder. It is therefore not - by any stretch of anyone's imagination - an SLR. This isn't just semantics. It is about the fundamental principle of what type of camera it is. No matter how many times you claim that it is an SLR (single lens reflex) camera, it is *not* and never will be. You're showing your ignorance, and you know it. Don't!
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Jul 2010 17:04 "Alan Lichtenstein" <arl(a)erols.com> wrote in message news:4c322ac9$0$22510$607ed4bc(a)cv.net... > Bruce wrote: >> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:57:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> >> wrote: >> >>>You wouldn't buy the camera anyway, because it's a compact dSLR. I >>>bought my wife an Olympus SP590-UZ, and it has only one slot. >> >> >> >> The Olympus SP590-UZ is **NOT** a DSLR. >> >> > Olympus characterizes the camera as simply a digital camera. Since it has > virtually all the features of an SLR, adding that designation, as per the > quote below hardly seems out of place. I won't split hairs with you. If > you want to simply call it a compact SLR, or simply an It is not an SLR at all, D or otherwise. An SLR has a mirror behind the lens that reflects the image (usually up) into the optical viewfinder system. That is *by definition* what an SLR is and does. Having "virtually all the features of an SLR" does not make the camera into any kind of an SLR if it does not have that reflex arrangement. > Advanced Compact, as the literature appears to indicate. that's fine with > me. However, you should be aware that these cameras have a good number of > the features that full size DSLR's have. I won't get involved in a > discussion designed to split hairs regarding the nomenclature designation, > because that's a pointless discussion which centers on semantics. [ . . > . ] It's not just "semantics" -- you are calling something a DSLR or SLR which simply is not an SLR of any kind.
From: Ghetta Klew on 5 Jul 2010 17:23 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:20:14 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >Sorry Alan, not even close. Probably the best way to describe it would >be a "Super Zoom" or perhaps a "Bridge" camera. The differences are far >too many. The only problem with calling it a "bridge camera" is that it's not. The ONLY "bridge cameras" in existence today are DSLRs. Trying to mate the rube-goldberg mechanical contraptions used for the mirror and shutter to digital technology. Superzoom cameras are fully functional without all of those trappings from last-century needing to be bridged to this century's digital advantages.
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Jul 2010 17:37
"Gary Edstrom" <GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> wrote in message news:4qc136hpdtfolfdg2t8scu5tikl3ubq8bk(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, "james" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >>SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why >>high >>end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off, not a >>feature. > > Well, SD cards do have two advantages over CF cards: > 1. Size and > 2. Much less chance of bending pins inside the camera. I've read of that happening (bending pins) but I'm damned if I can see how it's possible. In every camera I own that takes CF cards, the card is guided so well into the camera, and the pin ends I presume are beveled, . . . how can any pins get bent? I am reasonably clumsy but have never bent any CF pins. |