Add-ons for digicams?

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!!
47 answers Last reply
More about digicams
  1. 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.
  2. 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/
  3. 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?
  4. 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?)
    >
  5. 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?)
    > >
    >
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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:D76dnU5rrvDy-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
  10. 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:PNHEc.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?)
    > > >
    > >
    >
    >
  11. 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?
  12. 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:



    > "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.
  13. 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.
    >
    >
  14. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  15. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  19. 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
  20. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
    > >
  24. 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:D76dnU5rrvDy-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
    >
    >
  25. 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:
    >
    >
    >
    > > "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.
  26. 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>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  27. 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:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > "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.
    >
    >
  28. 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>
    > > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    >
    >
  29. 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?
  30. 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.
    > > >
    >
    >
  31. 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.
    > > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  32. 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.
  33. 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:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > "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.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  34. 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
  35. 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>
    > > > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  36. 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?
    > > >
  37. 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?
  38. 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?
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
    >
    >
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  45. 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:pl9lf0h9nssk2odt1q0lvfqfuth0q0jr60@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.
  46. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  47. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Cameras Peripherals