Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Add-ons for digicams?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
June 27, 2004 2:25:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Hi

I have recently got a Conon A75 and was attracted as it had the lens
ring for additional adapter/lenses. Was wondering though if there is a
Digiscoping attachment offered by any third party? And with the 52mm
adapter, can any other standard camera lenses be used in conjunction??

Thanks for any advice

Mark
**REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!

More about : add ons digicams

Anonymous
June 28, 2004 6:05:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:24:11 GMT, "Chris" <RRUFIANGE@cfl.rr.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

>By the way, Professor, I expect a University instructor to be able to
>formulate sentences a tad better than you do. Of course, you're probably
>indeed a Professor, as to pretend to be one is criminal fraud.

My ex-wife married one of the professors (a doctor) who taught a class
she was attending. I've had some discussions with him; he's *far* from
the brightest bulb in the box. Just goes to prove that the possession
of a PhD is not an indication of the possession of intelligence.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Conflict-Disturbed-The Sickness
This is track 861 of 1023 in the current playlist.
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 2:51:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG) wrote in message
> I have recently got a Conon A75 and was attracted as it had the lens
> ring for additional adapter/lenses. Was wondering though if there is a
> Digiscoping attachment offered by any third party? And with the 52mm
> adapter, can any other standard camera lenses be used in conjunction??

You can't use any "standard" camera lenses. When I say "standard", I
mean SLR camera lenses. However, you can use "any" accessory lenses
with 52mm threads with your camera, such as wide-angle or telephoto
lens.

I emphasized "any" earlier, because you can use any lens that can
screw onto your camera, but you may not get the results that you want
with "any" particular lens. For example, an accessory telephoto lens
with a small rear lens element may cause vignette in your picture. Or
an accessory wide angle lens with a small rear lens element by cause
fish eye in your picture. In both cases, you may or may not want these
effects, depending on the "art" that you are trying to produce.

Chieh
--
Camera Hacker - http://www.CameraHacker.com/
Related resources
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:42:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
> last minute when taking pictures?
>
> Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't people
> take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
> days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
>
> WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?

People interested in optimizing their imaging?
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 6:05:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

I agree, if he meant it. But I took his post as leg pulling.

Phil

Skip M wrote:

> Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
> (really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
> Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but the
> point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not a
> prism.
> The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
> technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point and
> shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons between the
> Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
> And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious about it
> care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not WTF,
> didn't you?)
>
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 8:12:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Maybe I'm becoming troll sensitized, but that, to me, didn't have the ring
of irony to it. If it were, indeed, meant ironically, then I apologize for
my rant.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BMzEc.9360$ju5.7173@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I agree, if he meant it. But I took his post as leg pulling.
>
> Phil
>
> Skip M wrote:
>
> > Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
> > (really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
> > Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but the
> > point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not a
> > prism.
> > The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
> > technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point
and
> > shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons between
the
> > Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
> > And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious
about it
> > care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not
WTF,
> > didn't you?)
> >
>
June 30, 2004 9:18:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net...
> Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
> last minute when taking pictures?
>
> Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
> take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
> days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
>
> WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?

If nobody cares, why are Digital SLRs being made? Who would buy them?

You're so dense.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 9:56:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Chris wrote:
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net...
>> Why would any intelligent person ...

<snip>

>
> You're so dense.

Me, too: I can't figure out what this little bit of language adds to the
conversation.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 10:44:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> was.......?

The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.

Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to deal
with the issue.

These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 12:24:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:D 76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net...
> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> was.......?
>

The only time you MAY run into that problem is with a very long lens, and/or
very slow exposure times, issues that don't come up with often digital p&s
cameras, because, hey, they don't have very long lenses, and many of them
don't support very long exposure times. And with many DSLRs, you have the
option of locking the mirror up, alleviating the problem.
So, it wasn't meant ironically, was it? So, too, my original
comment/assessment stands, your overall ignorance is breathtaking!
I think you should care a little more about SLR technology, and a little
less about spouting off. Do you have any images you could show us, so that
the dinosaurs among us will run out and sell our SLRs and DSLRs so we can
buy small sensored point and shoots?
Which leads me to a question of my own, why do you put up with those tiny,
little sensors that do little to keep noise to a minimum?
BTW, I'm a little surprised at you, you are, more often than not, a
reasonable contributor around here.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 1:16:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

....and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
was.......?

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:p NHEc.2691$876.928@fed1read07...
> Maybe I'm becoming troll sensitized, but that, to me, didn't have the ring
> of irony to it. If it were, indeed, meant ironically, then I apologize
for
> my rant.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:BMzEc.9360$ju5.7173@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > I agree, if he meant it. But I took his post as leg pulling.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >
> > > Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
> > > (really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
> > > Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but
the
> > > point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not
a
> > > prism.
> > > The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
> > > technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point
> and
> > > shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons
between
> the
> > > Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
> > > And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious
> about it
> > > care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not
> WTF,
> > > didn't you?)
> > >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 1:17:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

....and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
was.......?

Should I shake my "thru the lens non-SLR" to optimize my resolution?

"Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-D9FF79.09422130062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at
the
> > last minute when taking pictures?
> >
> > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
> > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
watch
> > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> >
> > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
>
> People interested in optimizing their imaging?
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 1:17:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <3sednQSb-aIh-H7dRVn-uA@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

[fixed your top-posting problem. You're welcome.]

> "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> news:sehix-D9FF79.09422130062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >
> > > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
> > > last minute when taking pictures?
> > >
> > > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't people
> > > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
> > > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> > >
> > > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
> >
> > People interested in optimizing their imaging?
>
> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> was.......?

The advantages outweigh the slight disadvantages. (See previous post in
this thread.) Unless low cost and the smallest possible size are your
only figures of merit, an SLR has a lot of advantages. Which is why they
have such a presence in the marketplace.

If shutter vibration is actually an issue (and most of the time it is
not), you can deal with in several ways.

- Get a decent tripod. (Cheap ones tend to not be very steady.)

- Lock up the mirror before triggering the shutter. Unless you have a
cheap camera mount, the vibration should die down before you get around
to firing the shutter.

> Should I shake my "thru the lens non-SLR" to optimize my resolution?

That would be silly (as you probably know quite well). But, assuming
that you're not actually a troll:

SLRs permit a much wider range of lenses than do any likely P&S. Some
people like to shoot subjects that require very long lenses. Hard to
find non-SLR cameras with 800mm glass.

Macro- and micro-photography is much easier with SLRs. Astrophotography
is easier with SLRs, and usually cheaper than doing it with dedicated,
actively-cooled detectors like an SBIG ST-10XE.

You can do quite a lot with a fixed-lens camera. You can do more with an
SLR.

Whether the extra cost/weight/complexity is worth it to you is one thing.

Whether you have any say in what anyone else does is something else
entirely.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 1:17:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

....and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
was.......?


"Chris" <RRUFIANGE@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:LBCEc.2018$Bv.288014@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net...
> > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at
the
> > last minute when taking pictures?
> >
> > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
> people
> > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
watch
> > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> >
> > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
>
> If nobody cares, why are Digital SLRs being made? Who would buy them?
>
> You're so dense.
>
>
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 6:31:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

>Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
>last minute when taking pictures?
>
>Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't people
>take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
>days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
>
>WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?

I don't need slapping mirrors and shutters either, but for the time
being, low-noise sensors only come in specimens that don't have live
video feed, and EVFs are still too low in resolution. The day there is
a digital camera with a 3MP EVF and a sensor as sensitive as the better
DSLRs will be a great day, but it hasn't come yet.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 6:50:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

>In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

>> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
>> was.......?

>The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
>disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.

They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.

>Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to deal
>with the issue.

The effect of the slapping mirror on my DSLR is about 2 to 3 stops of
shutter speed wasted to freeze the vibrations, compared to my Sony F707
which has a full-time video feed.

The sound of the mirror makes candids less practical, and distracts
wildlife.

>These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.

.... which is only practical with still subjects and a tripod.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 6:50:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com...
> In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>
> >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> >> was.......?
>
> >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
> >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
>
> They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.
>
> >Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to deal
> >with the issue.
>
> The effect of the slapping mirror on my DSLR is about 2 to 3 stops of
> shutter speed wasted to freeze the vibrations, compared to my Sony F707
> which has a full-time video feed.
>
> The sound of the mirror makes candids less practical, and distracts
> wildlife.
>
> >These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.
>
> ... which is only practical with still subjects and a tripod.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

You could always revert to a film camera, the Canon RTS...a pellicle mirror
design with a fixed, semi-transparent mirror.
If you are shooting at a shutter speed slow enough to be bothered by mirror
slap, you should be using a tripod, anyway, and if the subject is moving,
you've missed it. My D30 is, for all intents and purposes, quiet enough for
candids, and my old A2 is even quieter.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 6:50:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
wrote:

> In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>
> >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> >> was.......?
>
> >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
> >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
>
> They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.

True, there have been any number of fixed-lens SLRs; their only
advantage over typical rangefinder type cameras being no parallax
problem.

> >Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to deal
> >with the issue.
>
> The effect of the slapping mirror on my DSLR is about 2 to 3 stops of
> shutter speed wasted to freeze the vibrations, compared to my Sony F707
> which has a full-time video feed.

Again, the mirror is the price you pay for being able to use lenses far
out of the range found on fixed-lens cameras.

In my experience, btw, the effect of mirrorslap is nowhere near 3 stops,
and seldom two.

But then, I was used to locking up the mirror when it might be
troublesome.

> The sound of the mirror makes candids less practical, and distracts
> wildlife.

That's where the Leica shown. (I used to use a Canon IV RF, or a Zorki.)

I seldom noticed any reaction from wildlife, no matter what was taking
the pictures.

> >These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.
>
> ... which is only practical with still subjects and a tripod.

Which is usually the only time that locking the mirror up was necessary.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 8:05:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <qxLEc.2733$876.1697@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>You could always revert to a film camera, the Canon RTS...a pellicle mirror
>design with a fixed, semi-transparent mirror.

I am not interested in film, except maybe for hires B&W, or IR. I'll
use digital for color, thank you.

>If you are shooting at a shutter speed slow enough to be bothered by mirror
>slap, you should be using a tripod, anyway, and if the subject is moving,
>you've missed it.

No; I can shoot my F707 at 1/60s with a FOV equivalent to a 190mm (35mm
frame) lens. With the 10D, I almost need the full 1/fl from the
formula.

>My D30 is, for all intents and purposes, quiet enough for
>candids, and my old A2 is even quieter.

Well, the 10D is not a quiet camera. Animals 100 feet away stop what
they're doing to stare at me.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 8:05:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:jf17e0phb08usgdv7qb2k1tes8o9j0d421@4ax.com...
> In message <qxLEc.2733$876.1697@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >You could always revert to a film camera, the Canon RTS...a pellicle
mirror
> >design with a fixed, semi-transparent mirror.
>
> I am not interested in film, except maybe for hires B&W, or IR. I'll
> use digital for color, thank you.
>
> >If you are shooting at a shutter speed slow enough to be bothered by
mirror
> >slap, you should be using a tripod, anyway, and if the subject is moving,
> >you've missed it.
>
> No; I can shoot my F707 at 1/60s with a FOV equivalent to a 190mm (35mm
> frame) lens. With the 10D, I almost need the full 1/fl from the
> formula.
>
> >My D30 is, for all intents and purposes, quiet enough for
> >candids, and my old A2 is even quieter.
>
> Well, the 10D is not a quiet camera. Animals 100 feet away stop what
> they're doing to stare at me.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

BTW, if you are handholding at 1/60 and equiv 190mm, mirror slap will be the
least of your problems, and I'd think your hand would provide enough damping
to minimize the effect.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 1:57:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <BDMEc.2745$876.1959@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>BTW, if you are handholding at 1/60 and equiv 190mm, mirror slap will be the
>least of your problems, and I'd think your hand would provide enough damping
>to minimize the effect.

Pay attention! I just told you in the previous post that I *CAN*
hand-hold at 1/60 with a 190mm equivalent FOV on my Sony F707. *CAN*.

I *CAN't* on my 10D.

Get it?

The "problems" don't exist with the F707.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:22:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:gv19e09m8s3cj140e551002r63185qkclk@4ax.com...
> In message <BDMEc.2745$876.1959@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >BTW, if you are handholding at 1/60 and equiv 190mm, mirror slap will be
the
> >least of your problems, and I'd think your hand would provide enough
damping
> >to minimize the effect.
>
> Pay attention! I just told you in the previous post that I *CAN*
> hand-hold at 1/60 with a 190mm equivalent FOV on my Sony F707. *CAN*.
>
> I *CAN't* on my 10D.
>
> Get it?
>
> The "problems" don't exist with the F707.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

John, no need to shout, I was paying attention. One thing, I've never
gotten visual manifestation of mirror slap at 1/60 sec on any camera, even
my old Exacta or AT-1, even on a tripod. (In those days, 200mm was a long a
lens as I had.) Second thing, unless the Sony has some sort of image
stabilization, you are probably bracing yourself against something to hand
hold at 1/60 and 190mm, right? Yes, 190mm equiv isn't really as long as a
190mm on a 35mm, but still...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:29:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

You don't seem to get it, do you? WTF has a moving mechanism mirror have to
do with interchangable lenses? Digital camears are usually rangefinders and
Through the lens units.

Why put a moving mechanism in a digital camera?

"Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-3A6B07.22032730062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> wrote:
>
> > In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >
> > >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > >> was.......?
> >
> > >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
> > >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
> >
> > They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> > interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.
>
> True, there have been any number of fixed-lens SLRs; their only
> advantage over typical rangefinder type cameras being no parallax
> problem.
>
> > >Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to
deal
> > >with the issue.
> >
> > The effect of the slapping mirror on my DSLR is about 2 to 3 stops of
> > shutter speed wasted to freeze the vibrations, compared to my Sony F707
> > which has a full-time video feed.
>
> Again, the mirror is the price you pay for being able to use lenses far
> out of the range found on fixed-lens cameras.
>
> In my experience, btw, the effect of mirrorslap is nowhere near 3 stops,
> and seldom two.
>
> But then, I was used to locking up the mirror when it might be
> troublesome.
>
> > The sound of the mirror makes candids less practical, and distracts
> > wildlife.
>
> That's where the Leica shown. (I used to use a Canon IV RF, or a Zorki.)
>
> I seldom noticed any reaction from wildlife, no matter what was taking
> the pictures.
>
> > >These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.
> >
> > ... which is only practical with still subjects and a tripod.
>
> Which is usually the only time that locking the mirror up was necessary.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:29:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Sorry, bub, but digital cameras are mostly point and shoot viewfinder
cameras, not range finders. And the "through the lens" units are usually
digital, not optical, which are not the best way to actually see what you
are shooting. Resolution is poor, as is contrast, and often the framing is
off, too. The reason to put a moving mechanism in a digital is to get the
image to your eye in the most accurate manner possible. If you truly think
that the LCD panels and the viewfinders on digital cameras are the best way,
you need to do further research.


--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:JMudnQfCO9qbVXndRVn-iQ@golden.net...
> You don't seem to get it, do you? WTF has a moving mechanism mirror have
to
> do with interchangable lenses? Digital camears are usually rangefinders
and
> Through the lens units.
>
> Why put a moving mechanism in a digital camera?
>
> "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> news:sehix-3A6B07.22032730062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> > > Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > > >> was.......?
> > >
> > > >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the
slight
> > > >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
> > >
> > > They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> > > interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.
> >
> > True, there have been any number of fixed-lens SLRs; their only
> > advantage over typical rangefinder type cameras being no parallax
> > problem.
> >
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:30:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

I guess you don't consider a 500mm lens on a 35mm camera long then? This is
what many digital cameras are sporting (equivalent of course) and
more...built in to the camera. What lens would I want to change it to? A red
one with polka dots?


"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:EtLEc.2731$876.282@fed1read07...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:D 76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net...
> > ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > was.......?
> >
>
> The only time you MAY run into that problem is with a very long lens,
and/or
> very slow exposure times, issues that don't come up with often digital p&s
> cameras, because, hey, they don't have very long lenses, and many of them
> don't support very long exposure times. And with many DSLRs, you have the
> option of locking the mirror up, alleviating the problem.
> So, it wasn't meant ironically, was it? So, too, my original
> comment/assessment stands, your overall ignorance is breathtaking!
> I think you should care a little more about SLR technology, and a little
> less about spouting off. Do you have any images you could show us, so
that
> the dinosaurs among us will run out and sell our SLRs and DSLRs so we can
> buy small sensored point and shoots?
> Which leads me to a question of my own, why do you put up with those tiny,
> little sensors that do little to keep noise to a minimum?
> BTW, I'm a little surprised at you, you are, more often than not, a
> reasonable contributor around here.
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:34:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

What does SLR have to do with changeable lenses? Think about it. I have a
rangefinder Pentax Optio 550 that can macro down to 0.7 inches. I look
throught the lens at the actual digital image I am going to capture. Why on
earth would I want to smack a mechanical mirror around now and change the
setup , focus or or stability.

Welcome to the 21st century. Mechanical cameras, smacking mirrors around are
only there because there way no other way back in 1800.



"Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-FDD7E5.18592530062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <3sednQSb-aIh-H7dRVn-uA@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> [fixed your top-posting problem. You're welcome.]
>
> > "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> > news:sehix-D9FF79.09422130062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > > In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera
at the
> > > > last minute when taking pictures?
> > > >
> > > > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
> > > > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
watch
> > > > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> > > >
> > > > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
> > >
> > > People interested in optimizing their imaging?
> >
> > ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > was.......?
>
> The advantages outweigh the slight disadvantages. (See previous post in
> this thread.) Unless low cost and the smallest possible size are your
> only figures of merit, an SLR has a lot of advantages. Which is why they
> have such a presence in the marketplace.
>
> If shutter vibration is actually an issue (and most of the time it is
> not), you can deal with in several ways.
>
> - Get a decent tripod. (Cheap ones tend to not be very steady.)
>
> - Lock up the mirror before triggering the shutter. Unless you have a
> cheap camera mount, the vibration should die down before you get around
> to firing the shutter.
>
> > Should I shake my "thru the lens non-SLR" to optimize my resolution?
>
> That would be silly (as you probably know quite well). But, assuming
> that you're not actually a troll:
>
> SLRs permit a much wider range of lenses than do any likely P&S. Some
> people like to shoot subjects that require very long lenses. Hard to
> find non-SLR cameras with 800mm glass.
>
> Macro- and micro-photography is much easier with SLRs. Astrophotography
> is easier with SLRs, and usually cheaper than doing it with dedicated,
> actively-cooled detectors like an SBIG ST-10XE.
>
> You can do quite a lot with a fixed-lens camera. You can do more with an
> SLR.
>
> Whether the extra cost/weight/complexity is worth it to you is one thing.
>
> Whether you have any say in what anyone else does is something else
> entirely.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:36:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

We actually have a reason here!

OK, fair enough, What is an EVF?

You are telling me that an SLR has different technology used in it's
sensors? Why would that be?

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:kjt6e0trnlpk9a3h9itataq3kj00uqgf6d@4ax.com...
> In message <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> >Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
> >last minute when taking pictures?
> >
> >Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
> >take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
> >days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> >
> >WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
>
> I don't need slapping mirrors and shutters either, but for the time
> being, low-noise sensors only come in specimens that don't have live
> video feed, and EVFs are still too low in resolution. The day there is
> a digital camera with a 3MP EVF and a sensor as sensitive as the better
> DSLRs will be a great day, but it hasn't come yet.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:40:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

The SLR dates back to the 1930s, dork. It was an improvement over the
outdated rangefinder technology that most of the digital cameras you use
continue on with to this day. Your Pentax isn't really a macro, and if you
think so, you are deluding yourself. It's good at close focusing, true, but
not a true macro.
Wake up, and smell reality. All cameras have compromises, p&s cameras have
more than SLRs.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:cMOdnbWfDanLVHndRVn-sA@golden.net...
> What does SLR have to do with changeable lenses? Think about it. I have a
> rangefinder Pentax Optio 550 that can macro down to 0.7 inches. I look
> throught the lens at the actual digital image I am going to capture. Why
on
> earth would I want to smack a mechanical mirror around now and change the
> setup , focus or or stability.
>
> Welcome to the 21st century. Mechanical cameras, smacking mirrors around
are
> only there because there way no other way back in 1800.
>
>
>
> "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> news:sehix-FDD7E5.18592530062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <3sednQSb-aIh-H7dRVn-uA@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >
> > [fixed your top-posting problem. You're welcome.]
> >
> > > "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> > > news:sehix-D9FF79.09422130062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > > > In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera
> at the
> > > > > last minute when taking pictures?
> > > > >
> > > > > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why
don't
> people
> > > > > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound
spring
> watch
> > > > > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera
site?
> > > > >
> > > > > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
> > > >
> > > > People interested in optimizing their imaging?
> > >
> > > ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > > was.......?
> >
> > The advantages outweigh the slight disadvantages. (See previous post in
> > this thread.) Unless low cost and the smallest possible size are your
> > only figures of merit, an SLR has a lot of advantages. Which is why they
> > have such a presence in the marketplace.
> >
> > If shutter vibration is actually an issue (and most of the time it is
> > not), you can deal with in several ways.
> >
> > - Get a decent tripod. (Cheap ones tend to not be very steady.)
> >
> > - Lock up the mirror before triggering the shutter. Unless you have a
> > cheap camera mount, the vibration should die down before you get around
> > to firing the shutter.
> >
> > > Should I shake my "thru the lens non-SLR" to optimize my resolution?
> >
> > That would be silly (as you probably know quite well). But, assuming
> > that you're not actually a troll:
> >
> > SLRs permit a much wider range of lenses than do any likely P&S. Some
> > people like to shoot subjects that require very long lenses. Hard to
> > find non-SLR cameras with 800mm glass.
> >
> > Macro- and micro-photography is much easier with SLRs. Astrophotography
> > is easier with SLRs, and usually cheaper than doing it with dedicated,
> > actively-cooled detectors like an SBIG ST-10XE.
> >
> > You can do quite a lot with a fixed-lens camera. You can do more with an
> > SLR.
> >
> > Whether the extra cost/weight/complexity is worth it to you is one
thing.
> >
> > Whether you have any say in what anyone else does is something else
> > entirely.
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 2:46:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Electronic View Finder. What you've been espousing ad nauseum. He is
saying exactly the same thing Steve Hix and I have been saying. Pay
attention.
DSLR sensors are physically larger, with larger pixels (if the pixel count
is the same) than p&s digitals.
Even if they come out with a small digital like he describes, DSLRs will
still have an advantage in versatility over fixed lens cameras. IF, and I
mean IF, someone comes out with a true interchangeable lens rangefinder (not
viewfinder) camera that will accommodate the range of lenses that SLRs and
film rangefinders can, then we might have something. Currently, I have
lenses covering a range from 15mm to 400mm, which you cannot match, no
matter what, with current compact digital cameras, or fixed lens digitals.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:rMOdnYxZz6JSVHndRVn-iQ@golden.net...
> We actually have a reason here!
>
> OK, fair enough, What is an EVF?
>
> You are telling me that an SLR has different technology used in it's
> sensors? Why would that be?
>
> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
> news:kjt6e0trnlpk9a3h9itataq3kj00uqgf6d@4ax.com...
> > In message <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >
> > >Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at
the
> > >last minute when taking pictures?
> > >
> > >Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
> people
> > >take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
watch
> > >days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> > >
> > >WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
> >
> > I don't need slapping mirrors and shutters either, but for the time
> > being, low-noise sensors only come in specimens that don't have live
> > video feed, and EVFs are still too low in resolution. The day there is
> > a digital camera with a 3MP EVF and a sensor as sensitive as the better
> > DSLRs will be a great day, but it hasn't come yet.
> > --
> >
> > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> > John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 8:49:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <YqednWxX6dbZRXjdRVn-hw@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> Nikon E1, many Sony, Minolta and many, many other digital cameras have
> 10:1 zooms on them.

True enough.

> Cripes my miniture Pentax Optio 550 and my subminiture
> Kyocera S5 have 5:1 zooms on them.

How nice for you.

> If you can do some math there, you will
> discover in 35mm terms that would be 250mm lenses.

Show us one that covers 8mm through 1200mm.

Unreasonable? Of course it would be. But you can get that sort of range
with an SLR, if you really want it and can afford it.

Most people wouldn't, but that's neither here nor there, is it?
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 9:45:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Yeah, I stand corrected on the rangefinder. I was confused with the zoom
viewfinder with rangefinder. Been a long time since I owned one of those.

However if you think that a reflection in a mirror through a viewfinder is
more accurate framing than an LCD screen showing almost exactly, or exactly
what the picture framing is then you are still in the 60s with that one.
As far as contrast, I don't see too many chemical film cameras with contrast
controls or resolution adjustments. Those points are moot.

I will take my digital LCD image over a viewfinder based on the tech's
consideration in my 2.1/4 and 35 mm cameras any day. A little practice and
you will get the hang of it. Photography is not for everybody and it may
come with a few decades of practice for you.


"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bn6Fc.3238$876.1757@fed1read07...
> Sorry, bub, but digital cameras are mostly point and shoot viewfinder
> cameras, not range finders. And the "through the lens" units are usually
> digital, not optical, which are not the best way to actually see what you
> are shooting. Resolution is poor, as is contrast, and often the framing
is
> off, too. The reason to put a moving mechanism in a digital is to get the
> image to your eye in the most accurate manner possible. If you truly
think
> that the LCD panels and the viewfinders on digital cameras are the best
way,
> you need to do further research.
>
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:JMudnQfCO9qbVXndRVn-iQ@golden.net...
> > You don't seem to get it, do you? WTF has a moving mechanism mirror have
> to
> > do with interchangable lenses? Digital camears are usually rangefinders
> and
> > Through the lens units.
> >
> > Why put a moving mechanism in a digital camera?
> >
> > "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> > news:sehix-3A6B07.22032730062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > > In article <qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> > > > Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > > > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking
mirror"
> > > > >> was.......?
> > > >
> > > > >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the
> slight
> > > > >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
> > > >
> > > > They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> > > > interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.
> > >
> > > True, there have been any number of fixed-lens SLRs; their only
> > > advantage over typical rangefinder type cameras being no parallax
> > > problem.
> > >
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 9:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Snerk, let's see some of your images, Gimmy.
My Canon 1n, and the 1D/Ds have 100% viewfinders, which is better than what
the LCDs show, plus they show accurate color and contrast, and they don't
have the problem of being low res, like the LCDs are. Believe me, I've used
both, plus parallax corrected rangefinders in my old SpeedGraphic, waist
level finders in the Yashica TLR and Exacta II. None of them give the
accuracy of a 100% viewfinder, or even the 95-97% finders in consumer SLRs.
I think I have the hang of it, at least the galleries that show my work seem
to think so...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:BtidnR8BbI8ZSnjdRVn-uA@golden.net...
> Yeah, I stand corrected on the rangefinder. I was confused with the zoom
> viewfinder with rangefinder. Been a long time since I owned one of those.
>
> However if you think that a reflection in a mirror through a viewfinder is
> more accurate framing than an LCD screen showing almost exactly, or
exactly
> what the picture framing is then you are still in the 60s with that one.
> As far as contrast, I don't see too many chemical film cameras with
contrast
> controls or resolution adjustments. Those points are moot.
>
> I will take my digital LCD image over a viewfinder based on the tech's
> consideration in my 2.1/4 and 35 mm cameras any day. A little practice and
> you will get the hang of it. Photography is not for everybody and it may
> come with a few decades of practice for you.
>
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:bn6Fc.3238$876.1757@fed1read07...
> > Sorry, bub, but digital cameras are mostly point and shoot viewfinder
> > cameras, not range finders. And the "through the lens" units are
usually
> > digital, not optical, which are not the best way to actually see what
you
> > are shooting. Resolution is poor, as is contrast, and often the framing
> is
> > off, too. The reason to put a moving mechanism in a digital is to get t
he
> > image to your eye in the most accurate manner possible. If you truly
> think
> > that the LCD panels and the viewfinders on digital cameras are the best
> way,
> > you need to do further research.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Skip Middleton
> > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> > news:JMudnQfCO9qbVXndRVn-iQ@golden.net...
> > > You don't seem to get it, do you? WTF has a moving mechanism mirror
have
> > to
> > > do with interchangable lenses? Digital camears are usually
rangefinders
> > and
> > > Through the lens units.
> > >
> > > Why put a moving mechanism in a digital camera?
> > >
> > > "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> > > news:sehix-3A6B07.22032730062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > > > In article <qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In message
<sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> > > > > Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > > > > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking
> mirror"
> > > > > >> was.......?
> > > > >
> > > > > >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the
> > slight
> > > > > >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
> > > > >
> > > > > They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason
why
> > > > > interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.
> > > >
> > > > True, there have been any number of fixed-lens SLRs; their only
> > > > advantage over typical rangefinder type cameras being no parallax
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 9:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <BtidnR8BbI8ZSnjdRVn-uA@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> However if you think that a reflection in a mirror through a viewfinder is
> more accurate framing than an LCD screen showing almost exactly, or exactly
> what the picture framing is then you are still in the 60s with that one.

The SLR view is going to be closer to life in terms of color and detail
than will the LCD screen. And there have been 35mm film SLRs that showed
100% of the picture frame for decades. The LCD viewer is just starting
to get close.

> As far as contrast, I don't see too many chemical film cameras with contrast
> controls or resolution adjustments. Those points are moot.

Hardly, they *all* have such controls.

They just happen to be outside the camera. ;P

> I will take my digital LCD image over a viewfinder based on the tech's
> consideration in my 2.1/4 and 35 mm cameras any day. A little practice and
> you will get the hang of it. Photography is not for everybody and it may
> come with a few decades of practice for you.

Everybody has their own preferences.

And some of them even express themselves without being smarta$$ about it.

You ought to try it some time.
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 9:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Obviously you need more research. You need to make up your mind to not be
considered just an ignorant troll here. Your medication need to be increased
if you cannot remember you own postings 2 minutes apart. I must conclude you
are either very ignorant of cameras or just a troll.

I am glad you think close focusing (0.7 inches) isn't macro, but you didn't
seem to offer your version to the rest of the world what is correct (in you
mind).

Let me quote you.

"Sorry, bub, but digital cameras are mostly point and shoot viewfinder
cameras, not range finders"

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5z6Fc.3241$876.2460@fed1read07...
> The SLR dates back to the 1930s, dork. It was an improvement over the
> outdated rangefinder technology that most of the digital cameras you use
> continue on with to this day. Your Pentax isn't really a macro, and if
you
> think so, you are deluding yourself. It's good at close focusing, true,
but
> not a true macro.
> Wake up, and smell reality. All cameras have compromises, p&s cameras
have
> more than SLRs.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:cMOdnbWfDanLVHndRVn-sA@golden.net...
> > What does SLR have to do with changeable lenses? Think about it. I have
a
> > rangefinder Pentax Optio 550 that can macro down to 0.7 inches. I look
> > throught the lens at the actual digital image I am going to capture. Why
> on
> > earth would I want to smack a mechanical mirror around now and change
the
> > setup , focus or or stability.
> >
> > Welcome to the 21st century. Mechanical cameras, smacking mirrors around
> are
> > only there because there way no other way back in 1800.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> > news:sehix-FDD7E5.18592530062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > > In article <3sednQSb-aIh-H7dRVn-uA@golden.net>,
> > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > [fixed your top-posting problem. You're welcome.]
> > >
> > > > "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> > > > news:sehix-D9FF79.09422130062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > > > > In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> > > > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the
camera
> > at the
> > > > > > last minute when taking pictures?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why
> don't
> > people
> > > > > > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound
> spring
> > watch
> > > > > > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera
> site?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
> > > > >
> > > > > People interested in optimizing their imaging?
> > > >
> > > > ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > > > was.......?
> > >
> > > The advantages outweigh the slight disadvantages. (See previous post
in
> > > this thread.) Unless low cost and the smallest possible size are your
> > > only figures of merit, an SLR has a lot of advantages. Which is why
they
> > > have such a presence in the marketplace.
> > >
> > > If shutter vibration is actually an issue (and most of the time it is
> > > not), you can deal with in several ways.
> > >
> > > - Get a decent tripod. (Cheap ones tend to not be very steady.)
> > >
> > > - Lock up the mirror before triggering the shutter. Unless you have a
> > > cheap camera mount, the vibration should die down before you get
around
> > > to firing the shutter.
> > >
> > > > Should I shake my "thru the lens non-SLR" to optimize my
resolution?
> > >
> > > That would be silly (as you probably know quite well). But, assuming
> > > that you're not actually a troll:
> > >
> > > SLRs permit a much wider range of lenses than do any likely P&S. Some
> > > people like to shoot subjects that require very long lenses. Hard to
> > > find non-SLR cameras with 800mm glass.
> > >
> > > Macro- and micro-photography is much easier with SLRs.
Astrophotography
> > > is easier with SLRs, and usually cheaper than doing it with dedicated,
> > > actively-cooled detectors like an SBIG ST-10XE.
> > >
> > > You can do quite a lot with a fixed-lens camera. You can do more with
an
> > > SLR.
> > >
> > > Whether the extra cost/weight/complexity is worth it to you is one
> thing.
> > >
> > > Whether you have any say in what anyone else does is something else
> > > entirely.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 9:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

What the heck are you talking about? Your post makes no sense, at all.
What does the quote about digital cameras being largely viewfinder cameras
rather than rangefinders have to do with close focusing not being the same
thing as macro???
And as far as calling me a troll, sheesh, that's a good one! And as far as
being ignorant of cameras, who was it who thought that pentaprism
viewfinders were 1800's technology? (Hint: you.)
But back to the subject at hand. Here's a quote from "Macro Photography for
Beginners."
"The term "macro" is used very loosely and tends to mean any photographic
situation where you get close to the subject.
Real macro photography is where you are working around 1:1 ratio and closer
thereby giving an image on film that is equal in size or larger than the
subject being photographed. The range from life size on film (1:1) up to ten
times enlargement on film (10:1) is be the strict definition of macro
photography. The range from 1:10 (1/10 life size on film) to 1:1 on film
should properly be called "closeup" photography." See, macro isn't
necessarily close focusing. You have to be able to focus from a close
distance, true, but that's not all of it.
To enlarge on your apparently limited knowledge of the subject, here's the
website the above quote was taken from:
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/Guy/macro.html
One of the finest true macro lenses is the Tamron 90mm f2.8, which gives a
maximum image magnification of 1:1, has a minimum focus distance of 11.4
inches. The Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 has a minimum focus distance of .78" to
1.02" and gives a magnification of 1:1 to 5:1. Are you beginning to see the
difference between close focus and macro?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:wNidnZvSdfNZRHjdRVn-uw@golden.net...
> Obviously you need more research. You need to make up your mind to not be
> considered just an ignorant troll here. Your medication need to be
increased
> if you cannot remember you own postings 2 minutes apart. I must conclude
you
> are either very ignorant of cameras or just a troll.
>
> I am glad you think close focusing (0.7 inches) isn't macro, but you
didn't
> seem to offer your version to the rest of the world what is correct (in
you
> mind).
>
> Let me quote you.
>
> "Sorry, bub, but digital cameras are mostly point and shoot viewfinder
> cameras, not range finders"
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5z6Fc.3241$876.2460@fed1read07...
> > The SLR dates back to the 1930s, dork. It was an improvement over the
> > outdated rangefinder technology that most of the digital cameras you use
> > continue on with to this day. Your Pentax isn't really a macro, and if
> you
> > think so, you are deluding yourself. It's good at close focusing, true,
> but
> > not a true macro.
> > Wake up, and smell reality. All cameras have compromises, p&s cameras
> have
> > more than SLRs.
> >
> > --
> > Skip Middleton
> > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 9:57:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

I guess you got me there on that one. Do you do pinhead photography with
that lens? Try the mirror.

I believe the wide angle adapter for most Digital P&S cameras goes down to
about 20mm Equiv.

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8F6Fc.3242$876.2265@fed1read07...
> Electronic View Finder. What you've been espousing ad nauseum. He is
> saying exactly the same thing Steve Hix and I have been saying. Pay
> attention.
> DSLR sensors are physically larger, with larger pixels (if the pixel count
> is the same) than p&s digitals.
> Even if they come out with a small digital like he describes, DSLRs will
> still have an advantage in versatility over fixed lens cameras. IF, and I
> mean IF, someone comes out with a true interchangeable lens rangefinder
(not
> viewfinder) camera that will accommodate the range of lenses that SLRs and
> film rangefinders can, then we might have something. Currently, I have
> lenses covering a range from 15mm to 400mm, which you cannot match, no
> matter what, with current compact digital cameras, or fixed lens digitals.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:rMOdnYxZz6JSVHndRVn-iQ@golden.net...
> > We actually have a reason here!
> >
> > OK, fair enough, What is an EVF?
> >
> > You are telling me that an SLR has different technology used in it's
> > sensors? Why would that be?
> >
> > <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
> > news:kjt6e0trnlpk9a3h9itataq3kj00uqgf6d@4ax.com...
> > > In message <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at
> the
> > > >last minute when taking pictures?
> > > >
> > > >Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
> > people
> > > >take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
> watch
> > > >days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> > > >
> > > >WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
> > >
> > > I don't need slapping mirrors and shutters either, but for the time
> > > being, low-noise sensors only come in specimens that don't have live
> > > video feed, and EVFs are still too low in resolution. The day there
is
> > > a digital camera with a 3MP EVF and a sensor as sensitive as the
better
> > > DSLRs will be a great day, but it hasn't come yet.
> > > --
> > >
> > > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> > > John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> > > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 9:57:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

That's nice. It still isn't 15mm, and it still has optical compromises.
Why are you so determined to be wrong?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:afOdnbi72pD_R3jdRVn-sw@golden.net...
> I guess you got me there on that one. Do you do pinhead photography with
> that lens? Try the mirror.
>
> I believe the wide angle adapter for most Digital P&S cameras goes down to
> about 20mm Equiv.
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:8F6Fc.3242$876.2265@fed1read07...
> > Electronic View Finder. What you've been espousing ad nauseum. He is
> > saying exactly the same thing Steve Hix and I have been saying. Pay
> > attention.
> > DSLR sensors are physically larger, with larger pixels (if the pixel
count
> > is the same) than p&s digitals.
> > Even if they come out with a small digital like he describes, DSLRs will
> > still have an advantage in versatility over fixed lens cameras. IF, and
I
> > mean IF, someone comes out with a true interchangeable lens rangefinder
> (not
> > viewfinder) camera that will accommodate the range of lenses that SLRs
and
> > film rangefinders can, then we might have something. Currently, I have
> > lenses covering a range from 15mm to 400mm, which you cannot match, no
> > matter what, with current compact digital cameras, or fixed lens
digitals.
> >
> > --
> > Skip Middleton
> > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> > news:rMOdnYxZz6JSVHndRVn-iQ@golden.net...
> > > We actually have a reason here!
> > >
> > > OK, fair enough, What is an EVF?
> > >
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 2:17:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

I hope your pack mule doesn't eat too much on your photo shoots.

"Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-2D8A0C.16491502072004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <YqednWxX6dbZRXjdRVn-hw@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> > Nikon E1, many Sony, Minolta and many, many other digital cameras have
> > 10:1 zooms on them.
>
> True enough.
>
> > Cripes my miniture Pentax Optio 550 and my subminiture
> > Kyocera S5 have 5:1 zooms on them.
>
> How nice for you.
>
> > If you can do some math there, you will
> > discover in 35mm terms that would be 250mm lenses.
>
> Show us one that covers 8mm through 1200mm.
>
> Unreasonable? Of course it would be. But you can get that sort of range
> with an SLR, if you really want it and can afford it.
>
> Most people wouldn't, but that's neither here nor there, is it?
Anonymous
July 3, 2004 10:43:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Well,

I just switched from an average small Fuji P&S digital to a Nikon D70. What
a difference.

So from this change, the only disadvantage I have is the size and weight.
And if it gets lost, stolen or broken I'm out a lot more money.
No observable or practical problem with shake from the internal camera
movement.

The advantages are:
Better lenses.
Interchangeable lenses.
Far better pictures.
Ability to take pictures in far less light.
Ability to take pictures in far more light.
Ability to manually control lots of various parameters.
Great flash attachments.
Did I say far better pictures?
Ability to get pictures in raw format for better doctoring on the computer.
Much better resolution.
Instant on.
Much better LCD for viewing pictures I just took.
Better viewfinder.
Great, fast autofocus.
Very fast shutter speads if I desire.
Very slow shutter speeds available.
Did I say far better pictures? I use a camera to take pictures. Better
pictures is better.

I'm sure some of these various features are available in P&S, but they are
predominant in DSLRs. I haven't used lots of different cameras. I'm not a
"Pro" nor a "university instructor with a dubious occupation, constipated
mental processes, and a runny mouth", nor an authority. But I do greatly
appreciate these improvements over my old camera.

GC

> >
> > --
> > Skip Middleton
> > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> > news:FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net...
> > > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at
> the
> > > last minute when taking pictures?
> > >
> > > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
> > people
> > > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
> watch
> > > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> > >
> > > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 12:08:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:8YKdnRc5IYAycnvdRVn-ig@golden.net...
> If you still can't come up with a valid reason for having a mirror slap
> around inside today's cameras perhaps you use reuse one of your insults
from
> your previous responses. I have listed a few for your perusal.

Mirror slap typically only effects pictures taken between 1/10 - 2 seconds
exposures when combined with really long lenses like 300-600mm which are
typically tripod shots. When shooting on a heavy tripod with a heavy
professional camera the effects can be minimized. Some photographers will
even sand bag their cameras for shots like this. So the issue is real.
However, for the vast majority of people mirror slap has no impact at all
and a P&S camera with an EVF typically couldn't even take shots where that
would matter.

Here are a few reasons a person would want a D-SLR that has a mirror

EVF, electronic viewfinders, do not work as well in most conditions as the
eye looking through the glass directly. (I am excluding Sony's Infared night
vision when saying this) That is a neat feature, but not one that I have
personally ever needed.
Using an EVF requires that the imaging CCD is on all the time which makes it
warmer and generates more noise.
The fastest autofocusing systems rely on the mirror in order to focus.
D-SLR's have MUCH larger image sensors so the quality of each pixel is much
better.
D-SLR's allow you to capture RAW files for better post processing. There are
a few exceptions to this, but the few P&S's with RAW file capability take
much too long to process a picture and make it hard to use in that mode.

P&S cameras are great for many people. The pictures are frequently better
right out of the camera without post production, but a D-SLR image is
usually a much higher quality image once post production is done.

Depth of field is something that goes hand in hand with sensor size. The
small sensor of a P&S gives you a huge depth of field. That makes it much
easier for P&S cameras to get away with sloppier focusing. For many people
that is a blessing. On the other hand many serious photographers want a
blurred background behind the subject that they care about to make that
subject stand out in the picture. For example in sports photography when an
important play is happening and an athlete is doing something you want to
capture, you don't want to see the audience behind the athlete in focus. It
makes the shot more confusing, and makes it harder to pick the action out.
To focus on a subject with a shallow depth of field requires a much more
accurate autofocusing mechanism.

Once you start talking about wanting out of focus areas around the area of
interest the whole concept of bokh comes up which is the quality of the out
of focus area. That is determined by the fan blades that adjust your
aperture. A better lens will generally have more blades and a smoother out
of focus area. Being limited to a single built in lens is a huge
disadvantage.

Now it would be correct to say that there is nothing preventing us from
eventually having an EVF based large sensor camera with interchangable
lenses and all the benifits of a D-SLR, but the fact of the matter is that
technology isn't here yet. All the best lenses rely on a mirror for their
focusing mechanisms. Maybe 3- 5years from now we will see a push for this to
happen, but right now most serious photographers own thousands of dollars in
glass that would be obsolete if this were to happen. Not only that but
Canon and Nikon would alienate their customer bases. That is not to say it
hasn't happened before and won't happen again.

I have no ax to grind. I own both a P&S and D-SLR and they each have their
purposes. I know of professionals who own cameras like the Canon 1Ds, 1D
mkII and an Sony F828 and use them all professionally. The F828 is a great
camera for taking hand held macro shots because of it's long depth of field.
That makes it very good for taking pictures of museum pieces. The 1Ds is a
great studio camera and has unmatched picture quality in the 11Mp range.
The 1D mkII has unmatched high ISO quality and extremely fast AF speed and
8+ fps speed making it one of the best sports cameras if not the best sports
camera available.

Enjoy what you have. There is no right or wrong equipment, just compromises
for what your priorities are.

No matter what you own, it will all be obsolete in a few years.
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 12:58:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Here is a link that explains why larger pixels from a larger sensor give you
a better image. Basically it shows how the Canon D30 has better image
quality with it's 3MP than a 5MP Sony because of S/N ratio.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

You can't expect the quality of a $800-$1000 P&S camera to compare with a
high quality D-SLR and lens system, but there is a lot of money involved.

Take a 1D mkII $4500 and a 70-200mm IS $1400 and you have nearly spent
$6000.

So you have spent a boat load of money. What did you get for it?

A much wider dynamic range than any P&S has. This means more details in the
highlights and shadows.
Fast frame rate. You can shoot 8 frames per second into a 40 frame buffer
so that you rarely if ever wait for the camera.
Lightning fast AF. Two 32 bit microprocessors adjust the lens with a
predictive auto focus helping to follow irratically moving targets.
Evaluative metering - ETTL-2 which takes the focal length information from
the lens and focuses the flash from a 550EX flash
Clean ISO's from 50 to 1600 with an ISO 3200 option.
8Mp may not seem incredible these days, but these are very high quality
pixels.
A well designed AA filter that helps prevent jaggies and moire' patterns,
but doesn't limit resolution in a meaningful way.

You also have a professional camera that requires a good photographer to
drive it to get the best results.

This is overkill for most people, but it helps highlight the capabilities
that you don't have with P&S cameras.
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 10:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Thanx for the informative answers.

I am not sure I buy into the less depth of field for the smaller sensor and
glass size. I would have to review my theory on that one but I always
thought that f8.0 gave a certain depth of field no matter how the figure is
achieved. I always thought that the f-stop ratio determined depth of field
and wasn't swayed by absolute size. This means any 2.25" cameras I have less
depth of field for the same f-stop? Doesn't smell right to me.

As far as the size of sensor and the dynamic range goes...hmmmmmm... I have
to research that one too. I have also heard that large sensors take longer
to clear and cause some shutter lag.

Anyway, the speed due to sheer size of the CPU, with more processing power
makes some sense but may change with the week. The ISO speed makes sense
also.

I still believe we hang on to old technology because we are comfortable with
the SLR concept even though all you points may be excellent ones are still
not related to having a moving mirror. Why not just look directly through
the actual lens,, through the actual sensor to actually see what we are
going to get when we push the synchronize/freeze button (formerly called a
shutter...LOL..but we won't go there. The culture shock could cause heart
attacks)


"Mark Kovalcson" <mkovalcson@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4pmdnUlBT7MKv2TdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> Here is a link that explains why larger pixels from a larger sensor give
you
> a better image. Basically it shows how the Canon D30 has better image
> quality with it's 3MP than a 5MP Sony because of S/N ratio.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
>
> You can't expect the quality of a $800-$1000 P&S camera to compare with a
> high quality D-SLR and lens system, but there is a lot of money involved.
>
> Take a 1D mkII $4500 and a 70-200mm IS $1400 and you have nearly spent
> $6000.
>
> So you have spent a boat load of money. What did you get for it?
>
> A much wider dynamic range than any P&S has. This means more details in
the
> highlights and shadows.
> Fast frame rate. You can shoot 8 frames per second into a 40 frame buffer
> so that you rarely if ever wait for the camera.
> Lightning fast AF. Two 32 bit microprocessors adjust the lens with a
> predictive auto focus helping to follow irratically moving targets.
> Evaluative metering - ETTL-2 which takes the focal length information from
> the lens and focuses the flash from a 550EX flash
> Clean ISO's from 50 to 1600 with an ISO 3200 option.
> 8Mp may not seem incredible these days, but these are very high quality
> pixels.
> A well designed AA filter that helps prevent jaggies and moire' patterns,
> but doesn't limit resolution in a meaningful way.
>
> You also have a professional camera that requires a good photographer to
> drive it to get the best results.
>
> This is overkill for most people, but it helps highlight the capabilities
> that you don't have with P&S cameras.
>
>
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 11:26:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:_NWdnehZ5bhmN2Td4p2dnA@golden.net...
> Thanx for the informative answers.
>
> I am not sure I buy into the less depth of field for the smaller sensor
and
> glass size. I would have to review my theory on that one but I always
> thought that f8.0 gave a certain depth of field no matter how the figure
is
> achieved. I always thought that the f-stop ratio determined depth of field
> and wasn't swayed by absolute size. This means any 2.25" cameras I have
less
> depth of field for the same f-stop? Doesn't smell right to me.
>
> As far as the size of sensor and the dynamic range goes...hmmmmmm... I
have
> to research that one too. I have also heard that large sensors take longer
> to clear and cause some shutter lag.
>
> Anyway, the speed due to sheer size of the CPU, with more processing power
> makes some sense but may change with the week. The ISO speed makes sense
> also.
>
> I still believe we hang on to old technology because we are comfortable
with
> the SLR concept even though all you points may be excellent ones are still
> not related to having a moving mirror. Why not just look directly through
> the actual lens,, through the actual sensor to actually see what we are
> going to get when we push the synchronize/freeze button (formerly called
a
> shutter...LOL..but we won't go there. The culture shock could cause heart
> attacks)
>
>


Part of the problem is that if the sensor passed enough light for you to use
in the viewfinder, it may not be the best for recording light.
Also, if it is in focus for you, it won't be in focus on the sensor, or vice
versa. At this point, the only way to get the image to be focused on the
sensor and in the viewfinder is with mirrors, or with an electronic
viewfinder. Or deal with a separate viewfinder, with its parallax
correction problems. EVFs have their own set of issues, including a slight
lag from the subject to the eye, resulting in a (to some) disorienting
jerkiness. Also, their resolution is, by necessity, lower than that of an
optical viewfinder.
I don't say that the mirror is the perfect solution, it's just that it is
the best one available, at this time. Pellicle mirrors (transparent, or at
least effectively so) cut the light hitting the sensor/film and don't
transmit enough to the viewfinder to work well. They avoid mirror slap by
not moving. Mirror slap is something that you live with, in order to get
the things that an SLR, D or otherwise, brings to the table. The size and
weight are other drawbacks of the DSLR/SLRs, I have a Canon SureShot 150
that's a lot of fun, small, portable and quiet. And its "sensor" is the
same size as the one in my 1n... ;-)
One of these days, EVFs will probably have overcome their shortcomings and
the issue will be moot. But unless you are shooting at speeds slower than
1/4 sec, mirror slap is moot, anyway.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 18, 2004 11:38:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:_NWdnehZ5bhmN2Td4p2dnA@golden.net...
> Thanx for the informative answers.
>
> I am not sure I buy into the less depth of field for the smaller sensor
and
> glass size. I would have to review my theory on that one but I always
> thought that f8.0 gave a certain depth of field no matter how the figure
is
> achieved. I always thought that the f-stop ratio determined depth of field
> and wasn't swayed by absolute size. This means any 2.25" cameras I have
less
> depth of field for the same f-stop? Doesn't smell right to me.

Let's educate your sniffer a bit with some real world examples.

Medium Format film cameras have the image focused on a MUCH larger area than
35mm film and they have a MUCH shorter DOF for a given aperture. Also their
glass is much larger and even more expensive. The same is true of 35mm
D-SLR's compared to P&S digital cameras.

Now look at the Sony F828. It's Carl Zeiss lens is rated at f 2.0 from 28
to 200mm. If your sniffer were correct that would create a shallow depth of
field when wide open across that whole range, but that is simply not the
case. You have to be zoomed way out to achieve any sort of blurred
background with an F828. That is why some pros consider it a good macro
camera for museums. You can leave it at f2.0 instead of having to stop it
down to f22 or smaller for a macro shot. Macro shots have extreme lack of
DOF and the Sony has DOF to spare even at f2.0.

> As far as the size of sensor and the dynamic range goes...hmmmmmm... I
have
> to research that one too. I have also heard that large sensors take longer
> to clear and cause some shutter lag.

The person you heard that from was obviously missinformed.

The Canon 1D Mk II manages 1/16000 of a second exposures at up to 8.3 frames
per second with 8Mp RAW files. So any speed issue is not a factor for taking
pictures. It is moving data at 66Mb/sec internally as well as doing real
time compression, noise reduction, custom color curve adjustments, etc..
etc..

You are correct that you can NOT make 30 fps movies with it? If having
little movies is a higher priority than picture quality, get an EVF type
P&S. They are very versatile. If you don't want to look through the lens
get an EVF. If you want something smaller, get an EVF. As I said earlier a
P&S camera has a lot of useful features, but currently they all compromise
picture quality.

> Anyway, the speed due to sheer size of the CPU, with more processing power
> makes some sense but may change with the week. The ISO speed makes sense
> also.

Technology is always changing and ISO ratings for a given sensor size are
improving too. Canon managed to replace the 1D with a 4Mp CCD sensor with
the 1D mkII and an 8Mp CMOS sensor that are the same size, yet they managed
to get better high ISO performance out of the new sensor. Of course that was
three years of technology later.

There is already technology to improve this. If you were to cool the CCD in
the Sony F828 it would have lower noise. Unfortunately current technology
would make carrying around a cooling systems extremely bulky.

> I still believe we hang on to old technology because we are comfortable
with
> the SLR concept even though all you points may be excellent ones are still
> not related to having a moving mirror. Why not just look directly through
> the actual lens,, through the actual sensor to actually see what we are
> going to get when we push the synchronize/freeze button (formerly called
a
> shutter...LOL..but we won't go there. The culture shock could cause heart
> attacks)

We are not hanging on to anything. We are using the best that we have now.
I like the way the Panasonic Lumix Z2 allows you to see a full resolution
crop in the center of your frame. That is one of the improvements an EVF
gives you. I like the night vision of the Sony F828. It means that you could
acquire your subject and focus without a series of focus assist flashes. My
wife wants a Sony T1 because with it's folding lens technology it is tiny
and will fit in her purse easily.

Once they manage to get the noise levels down on the smaller sensors and get
3 Mp EVF displays with extremely fast refresh rates that can resolve
contrast nearly as quickly as your eye they will come of age.

The bottom line is that right now there is a HUGE difference in the
performance and quality of the expensive bulky D-SLR's and the smaller P&S
cameras. In the future the small P&S cameras will catch up with the current
performance of these D-SLR's. Of course there is no telling what the
performance of the D-SLR's will be in a few years.

Canon should have a Foveon like sensor out without Bayer pattern artifacts
within 3 years. That will create enormous sized RAW files because there will
be one photo site per color rather than the averaging algorithm they use
now.
Anonymous
July 18, 2004 8:41:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <TbqdnW5uV_1ci2TdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
"Mark Kovalcson" <mkovalcson@comcast.net> wrote:

>Mirror slap typically only effects pictures taken between 1/10 - 2 seconds
>exposures when combined with really long lenses like 300-600mm which are
>typically tripod shots. When shooting on a heavy tripod with a heavy
>professional camera the effects can be minimized. Some photographers will
>even sand bag their cameras for shots like this. So the issue is real.
>However, for the vast majority of people mirror slap has no impact at all
>and a P&S camera with an EVF typically couldn't even take shots where that
>would matter.

I totally disagree. I can take picture with 4x the exposure time on my
Sony F707 as I can on my 10D, hand-held, at the same angle of view. I
need IS on the 10D to make up the loss.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 18, 2004 8:41:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:p l9lf0h9nssk2odt1q0lvfqfuth0q0jr60@4ax.com...
> In message <TbqdnW5uV_1ci2TdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
> "Mark Kovalcson" <mkovalcson@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Mirror slap typically only effects pictures taken between 1/10 - 2
seconds
> >exposures when combined with really long lenses like 300-600mm which are
> >typically tripod shots. When shooting on a heavy tripod with a heavy
> >professional camera the effects can be minimized. Some photographers will
> >even sand bag their cameras for shots like this. So the issue is real.
> >However, for the vast majority of people mirror slap has no impact at all
> >and a P&S camera with an EVF typically couldn't even take shots where
that
> >would matter.
>
> I totally disagree. I can take picture with 4x the exposure time on my
> Sony F707 as I can on my 10D, hand-held, at the same angle of view. I
> need IS on the 10D to make up the loss.

I haven't found what you said to be the case between my D-SLR and P&S
camera. I also found that many people shooting 10D's with the vertical grip
and large L glass have added a lot of vibration dampening mass. In addition
The 10D can take a much faster picture because of better high ISO capability
and it can take an Image stabilized lens that should be good for up to 3
stops of stability.
Anonymous
July 18, 2004 8:55:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <pdlKc.1512$tR1.15@lakeread07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>One of these days, EVFs will probably have overcome their shortcomings and
>the issue will be moot. But unless you are shooting at speeds slower than
>1/4 sec, mirror slap is moot, anyway.

I don't think so. Most of the common wisdom about mirror slap and
shutter speeds comes from tripod work, where the DC component of the
mirror slap is attenuated aggressively by the structure of the tripod,
so we concern ourselves with geting the majority of our exposure time
either during a small fraction of a period, or after damping has
eliminated most of the oscillation. When you are hand-holding the
camera, I think the DC portion of the mirror slap is much greater, and
has an effect in the hand-holdable range of shuter speeds.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 18, 2004 8:55:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:1galf0tjircbj2qe2p0ke5utka4s2ecog1@4ax.com...
> In message <pdlKc.1512$tR1.15@lakeread07>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >One of these days, EVFs will probably have overcome their shortcomings
and
> >the issue will be moot. But unless you are shooting at speeds slower
than
> >1/4 sec, mirror slap is moot, anyway.
>
> I don't think so. Most of the common wisdom about mirror slap and
> shutter speeds comes from tripod work, where the DC component of the
> mirror slap is attenuated aggressively by the structure of the tripod,
> so we concern ourselves with geting the majority of our exposure time
> either during a small fraction of a period, or after damping has
> eliminated most of the oscillation. When you are hand-holding the
> camera, I think the DC portion of the mirror slap is much greater, and
> has an effect in the hand-holdable range of shuter speeds.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I'd be inclined to disagree. For one thing, you have the damping effect of
the soft tissue of your hand and arm. And as shutter speeds get down there
in the lower end of what is possible, other things enter into the equation
that may be mistaken for mirror slap, heartbeat, etc. Put your camera on a
tripod trip the shutter with a remote, and try to feel the mirror. My A2,
1n and D30 all are barely discernable, the mirror is very well damped. I've
never, until now, read any reference to mirror slap being an issue at hand
holdable speeds. Of course hand holdable is in the eye of the holder! ;-)
I don't feel comfortable handholding a 100mm under 1/60 sec, for instance,
you may be able to hold at 1/25. At 1/25, mirror slap _may_, and I mean
_may_, be noticeable. But I've shot a 50mm at 1/4 with an IS lens and no
sign of mirror slap.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!