Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

prosumer future

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:04:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?

More about : prosumer future

Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:04:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

".::SuperBLUE::." <superblue@dontusefakkevip.hr> wrote in message
news:D 08j8d$j12$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
> Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
> cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
> The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?
>
>

And a sincere one, too. If the Sony 828 and Nikon 8800 are "prosumer"
cameras, then what is the Canon 20D? In the film days, cameras like the
Canon A2 were prosumer SLRs, slotted below the pro level 1n, but above the
consumer Rebel and Elan. The 20D slots below the 1D mkII and 1Ds mkII, and
above the Rebel. Wouldn't that make it a "prosumer" camera?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:56:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

".::SuperBLUE::." <superblue@dontusefakkevip.hr> wrote in message
news:D 08j8d$j12$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
> Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
> cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
> The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?

They've about maxxed out the resolution, unless someone decides to do a
larger sensor, and/or a CMOS sensor.

I'd almost say that the next prosumer camera is a consumer D-SLR like the
EOS-350D.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:52:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> ".::SuperBLUE::." <superblue@dontusefakkevip.hr> wrote in message
> news:D 08j8d$j12$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
>> Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer
>> generation cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
>> The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?
>
> They've about maxxed out the resolution, unless someone decides to do
> a larger sensor, and/or a CMOS sensor.
>
> I'd almost say that the next prosumer camera is a consumer D-SLR like
> the EOS-350D.

Agreed about resolution - possibly 7Mp is a better compromise than 8Mp.

I would have bought the 8800 if its lens hadn't been so small an aperture
at full zoom (f/4.9), and people still complain about the slow speeds of
many cameras, so there are two areas which could be improved. Selling
speed isn't as easy as selling on number of megapixels, of course! I'd
also like to see the image-stabilised zooms come down from the focal
length range 36 - 432mm (Panasonic FZ20) to 24 - 288mm, but that's
optically much more challenging. How about building lens distortion
correction into the firmware?

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:16:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The cameras you talk about are (at best) mid-range consumer cameras.
Prosumer does not start until you get past the 300D, D70, *1Ds, and E1
cameras;
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:12:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:

> Obviously a camera with more pixels, the only question is how many
and
> when. Hard to make guesses, but there should be 10 and 12 MP models
> sooner or later.

Don't get so fixated on megapixels. We've already seen what happens
when the pixel size gets too small, both in compact cameras, and the
4:3 style of D-SLRs. Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Olympus did not get rave
reviews of their 8 megapixel compacts, due to noise issues, and the
Olympus E system, with its tiny sensor, also has not done well.

I think that Canon will introduce a non-SLR with a CMOS sensor of their
own design, i.e. Pro 2.

It's interesting that the new Digital Rebel XT EOS-350D is about the
same size and weight of the Pro 1.

Steve
http://digitalslrinfo.com
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:28:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The EVF cameras are a new form factor. Most writers on this newsgroup cannot
wrap their head around that after a lifetime of SLR use and the mantra of
interchangeable lenses.
The digital world is not shackled to fixed optico-mechanical limitations.
If software could be used, in camera or in computer, to correct or create
lens aberrations effects, why would one need or want an SLR with its larger
and heavier form factor? The optical and mechanical properties of any
individual lens will be far less important than they are now. This is
already happening.
If the lens is fixed to the camera, as with EVF/prosumer cameras the design
of such software is made much easier.
A second line of development, also easier if the lens is fixed to the
camera, would involve in camera processing of data coming off the sensor to
widen the apparent exposure latitude of the sensor. A simple example would
be the ability to selectively decrease the signal amplitude coming off the
highlights to minimize blow-out of details in the highlights.
As sensor technology develops sensor size will not be the over-rated issue
it is today. Canon went to 8mps in its dSLR without increasing sensor size
and by most reports I have read that sensor has less noise than the Canon
6mp dSLR sensor.
Since I use both EVF and dSLR cameras I will just say that people who have
not extensively worked with the images created by current 8mp EVF cameras
have no idea what they are talking about. My experience is that these
cameras used properly create images superior to identical images created
with current 6mp dSLRS simply because of the apparent sharpness added by
those 2mps of image data.
I have more bad images because of moire and fringing with my Nikon D70 than
with my Sony 828. The amount of software sharpening required for printing
many D70 images is such that it is difficult to avoid a halo effect that is
far worse than any fringing at high contrast boundaries in images made with
current 8mp sensors.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:28:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:o 00Wd.3371$C47.1604@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> The EVF cameras are a new form factor. Most writers on this newsgroup
> cannot wrap their head around that after a lifetime of SLR use and the
> mantra of interchangeable lenses.
> The digital world is not shackled to fixed optico-mechanical limitations.
> If software could be used, in camera or in computer, to correct or create
> lens aberrations effects, why would one need or want an SLR with its
> larger and heavier form factor? The optical and mechanical properties of
> any individual lens will be far less important than they are now. This is
> already happening.
> If the lens is fixed to the camera, as with EVF/prosumer cameras the
> design of such software is made much easier.
> A second line of development, also easier if the lens is fixed to the
> camera, would involve in camera processing of data coming off the sensor
> to widen the apparent exposure latitude of the sensor. A simple example
> would be the ability to selectively decrease the signal amplitude coming
> off the highlights to minimize blow-out of details in the highlights.
> As sensor technology develops sensor size will not be the over-rated issue
> it is today. Canon went to 8mps in its dSLR without increasing sensor size
> and by most reports I have read that sensor has less noise than the Canon
> 6mp dSLR sensor.
> Since I use both EVF and dSLR cameras I will just say that people who have
> not extensively worked with the images created by current 8mp EVF cameras
> have no idea what they are talking about. My experience is that these
> cameras used properly create images superior to identical images created
> with current 6mp dSLRS simply because of the apparent sharpness added by
> those 2mps of image data.
> I have more bad images because of moire and fringing with my Nikon D70
> than with my Sony 828. The amount of software sharpening required for
> printing many D70 images is such that it is difficult to avoid a halo
> effect that is far worse than any fringing at high contrast boundaries in
> images made with current 8mp sensors.
>
I'm shooting with a Sony F828 and a Canon 10D. The 10D surpasses the image
quality of the F828 hands down both in overall print quality and at an
individual pixel level. The 2 megapixels of extra data aren't significant
in terms of the picture quality.
Are you just using the kit lens with the D70? If so, try some better glass
and compare again.

Jim Kramer
March 4, 2005 7:28:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bmoag wrote:
> The optical and mechanical properties of any
> individual lens will be far less important than they are now. This is
> already happening.

There's still only so much you can do with software to correct poor
optics. There's no reason these advances should be limited to lower end
cameras though. DSLR makers could easily put the transformation
algorithms on a chip in the individual lenses.

> A second line of development, also easier if the lens is fixed to the
> camera, would involve in camera processing of data coming off the sensor to
> widen the apparent exposure latitude of the sensor. A simple example would

Nikon has had that in the Coolpix line to an extent for years. The call
it contrast adjustment. I find the expansion more useful than the
compression, by and large.

Bob
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:16:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <O00Wd.3371$C47.1604@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The EVF cameras are a new form factor. Most writers on this newsgroup cannot
>wrap their head around that after a lifetime of SLR use and the mantra of
>interchangeable lenses.
>The digital world is not shackled to fixed optico-mechanical limitations.
>If software could be used, in camera or in computer, to correct or create
>lens aberrations effects, why would one need or want an SLR with its larger
>and heavier form factor?

Because a) they can take pictures which are not possible to take on a
zoom-compact digicam, regardless of whether it has an EVF of not, and b) the
image quality is better.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:20:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What is the difference between a ccd sensor and a cmos senser that makes
more advancements in resolution using a cmos?

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>".::SuperBLUE::." <superblue@dontusefakkevip.hr> wrote in message
>news:D 08j8d$j12$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
>
>
>>Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
>>cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
>>The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?
>>
>>
>
>They've about maxxed out the resolution, unless someone decides to do a
>larger sensor, and/or a CMOS sensor.
>
>I'd almost say that the next prosumer camera is a consumer D-SLR like the
>EOS-350D.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:16:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109956600.821773.115370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The cameras you talk about are (at best) mid-range consumer cameras.
> Prosumer does not start until you get past the 300D, D70, *1Ds, and E1
> cameras;
>

I'm guessing that you mean "*istD" not *1Ds...
And the Oly E-1 is a solid prosumer camera.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:03:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MRRVd.43916$xt.29880@fed1read07>, Skip M says...

> And a sincere one, too. If the Sony 828 and Nikon 8800 are "prosumer"
> cameras, then what is the Canon 20D?

It's a DLSR. Cameras as the Sony 828, Olympus 8080, Canon G2 are all
prosumers. There has always been a consensus about this.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:03:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <DELETEalfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c92cf49d2f1922f98aa28@news.supernews.com...
> In article <MRRVd.43916$xt.29880@fed1read07>, Skip M says...
>
>> And a sincere one, too. If the Sony 828 and Nikon 8800 are "prosumer"
>> cameras, then what is the Canon 20D?
>
> It's a DLSR. Cameras as the Sony 828, Olympus 8080, Canon G2 are all
> prosumers. There has always been a consensus about this.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Alfred, often you constitute a consensus of one. Of course, the 20D is a
DSLR, that wasn't in question. Isn't there a distinction between a
"prosumer" fixed lens camera and a "prosumer" DSLR? Because the 20D isn't a
full on pro camera, like the 1D mkII, nor is it a consumer grade camera,
like the RebelD/300D.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:04:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d08j8d$j12$1@ls219.htnet.hr>, .::SuperBLUE::. says...
> Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
> cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
> The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?

Obviously a camera with more pixels, the only question is how many and
when. Hard to make guesses, but there should be 10 and 12 MP models
sooner or later.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c92cf49d2f1922f98aa28@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <DELETEalfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <MRRVd.43916$xt.29880@fed1read07>, Skip M says...
>
>> And a sincere one, too. If the Sony 828 and Nikon 8800 are "prosumer"
>> cameras, then what is the Canon 20D?
>
>It's a DLSR. Cameras as the Sony 828, Olympus 8080, Canon G2 are all
>prosumers. There has always been a consensus about this.

No there hasn't. If you remember back to the introduction of the EOS D30, it
was widely hailed as the "first prosumer digital camera".
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:25:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

some general thoughts:
the race for higher resolution dominates present camera models. this will
probably peter out when we reach 25 Megs - about the resolution of decent
oldfashioned film cameras. I'd say, give it another 2 yrs.
my personal suggestion for the next generation: a built-in tap for
piping-hot, freshly-brewed coffee.

".::SuperBLUE::." <superblue@dontusefakkevip.hr> wrote in message
news:D 08j8d$j12$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
> Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
> cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
> The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?
>
>
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:35:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in news:TD8Wd.44056$xt.13029
@fed1read07:

> <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1109956600.821773.115370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> The cameras you talk about are (at best) mid-range consumer cameras.
>> Prosumer does not start until you get past the 300D, D70, *1Ds, and E1
>> cameras;
>
> I'm guessing that you mean "*istD" not *1Ds...
> And the Oly E-1 is a solid prosumer camera.

"Prosumer" is a meaningless category. Pros use what works, whether that's a
$20K Canon or a beat up OM-1. Consumers use whatever they want. A
"prosumer" is presumably a serious photographer, or at least wants very
fine equipment. His needs are not mutually exclusive from either
professionals or consumers, but there is no common thread between various
prosumers in the same way that there is between professional s who simply
demand reliable high performance.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:35:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Barry Bean" <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960FE5CE08D56eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in news:TD8Wd.44056$xt.13029
> @fed1read07:
>
>> <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1109956600.821773.115370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> The cameras you talk about are (at best) mid-range consumer cameras.
>>> Prosumer does not start until you get past the 300D, D70, *1Ds, and E1
>>> cameras;
>>
>> I'm guessing that you mean "*istD" not *1Ds...
>> And the Oly E-1 is a solid prosumer camera.
>
> "Prosumer" is a meaningless category. Pros use what works, whether that's
> a
> $20K Canon or a beat up OM-1. Consumers use whatever they want. A
> "prosumer" is presumably a serious photographer, or at least wants very
> fine equipment. His needs are not mutually exclusive from either
> professionals or consumers, but there is no common thread between various
> prosumers in the same way that there is between professional s who simply
> demand reliable high performance.
>

Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher than the
lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with the
term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured terminology,
but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one available, or in use.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:53:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bmoag" <aetoo@hotmail.com> writes:
>If software could be used, in camera or in computer, to correct or create
>lens aberrations effects, why would one need or want an SLR with its larger
>and heavier form factor? The optical and mechanical properties of any
>individual lens will be far less important than they are now.

I think you vastly overrate software correction of aberrations.

There is one aberration, geometric distortion, that is well-suited to
correction in this manner. If a lens has only geometric distortion, all
the light from a point in the subject converges to a single point in the
image, so the image is *sharp*, but the point isn't in quite the right
place. The process of fixing the image is simply one of taking a sharp
image and slightly "warping" it to put the pixels in the right spot
geometrically. This isn't too expensive, and can be done with almost no
loss of picture information.

But pretty much all other lens aberrations map a point in the subject to
an *area* in the image. The distribution of the light depends on which
aberration you're talking about, but the effect is loss of sharpness
that you can't generally get back. Some information from the source is
lost forever, no matter how much computer power you're prepared to throw
at the problem.

Dave
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 11:44:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:GrbWd.44078$xt.33683@fed1read07...
> Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher than
the
> lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
> take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with the
> term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured
terminology,
> but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one available, or in use.

I don't like "Prosumer" either, but I've not found any better term.

http://www.wordspy.com/words/prosumer.asp

"A consumer who is an amateur in a particular field, but who is
knowledgeable enough to require equipment that has some professional
features ("professional" + "consumer")"

I guess I would say that a "prosumer" camera, has some features similar to
professional models, but the ruggedness and build-quality is not up to
professional standards.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 11:48:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <DELETEalfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c92cf49d2f1922f98aa28@news.supernews.com...
> In article <MRRVd.43916$xt.29880@fed1read07>, Skip M says...
>
> > And a sincere one, too. If the Sony 828 and Nikon 8800 are "prosumer"
> > cameras, then what is the Canon 20D?
>
> It's a DLSR. Cameras as the Sony 828, Olympus 8080, Canon G2 are all
> prosumers. There has always been a consensus about this.

Huh?

Those cameras are higher-end compact digital cameras. They are not
"Prosumer" by a long shot.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 12:03:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <DELETEalfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.

ROTFLMAO!
March 5, 2005 12:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:44:06 GMT
In message <qjeWd.1819$CW2.1410@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:GrbWd.44078$xt.33683@fed1read07...
> > Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher than
> the
> > lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
> > take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with the
> > term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured
> terminology,
> > but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one available, or in use.
>
> I don't like "Prosumer" either, but I've not found any better term.
>
> http://www.wordspy.com/words/prosumer.asp
>
> "A consumer who is an amateur in a particular field, but who is
> knowledgeable enough to require equipment that has some professional
> features ("professional" + "consumer")"

If that is the accepted definition of "prosumer" then ANY camera that
has some professional features is a prosumer camera. That includes
the most expensive and antique cameras available.

> I guess I would say that a "prosumer" camera, has some features similar to
> professional models, but the ruggedness and build-quality is not up to
> professional standards.

I see the term "prosumer" commonly used to refer to both groups of
people as well as types of cameras made and marketed to the "producer"
market -- I was confused -- one term, two different popular usages,
and an entirely different definition.

Jeff
March 5, 2005 1:08:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:03:06 GMT
In message <eBeWd.2563$603.1480@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> "Alfred Molon" <DELETEalfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.
>
> ROTFLMAO!

Heh! Thanks for reminding me...

I should have seen the paradox...

A usenet group with a consensus!

And for years, at that! ;^)

Jeff
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:46:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:s0vi21p0odlt9j0ifs1crh898lb2p4rt83@4ax.com...

> If that is the accepted definition of "prosumer" then ANY camera that
> has some professional features is a prosumer camera. That includes
> the most expensive and antique cameras available.

For film SLRs, at least in the past couple of decades, there have always
been the el-cheapo consumer models (i.e. Rebel), followed by a much higher
end consumer model with better build quality and more features (i.e.
EOS-5/A2E), which was dubbed "prosumer," and then the true professional
quality models (i.e. EOS-1). Personally I never saw any of the compact 35mm
cameras labeled as "Prosumer," even though some of them had more features
than others, and the same went for digital. I guess you could argue that
something like the presence or absence of a hot shoe on a compact digital,
distinguished it between consumer and prosumer, but I never heard that term
used in reference to something like the G2.

All of the above pretty much transferred into the digital world. However the
fact that the sensor is now built-in, versus being sold on rolls, has
changed things, so there is a lot bigger difference between the quality
possible between amateur and professional. With film, you could have used an
L lens on a Rebel, and in many situations gotten results that were just as
good as if it had been on an EOS-1 body. With digital, the differences are
more pronounced.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:07:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
[]
> Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher
> than the lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
> take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with
> the term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured
> terminology, but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one
> available, or in use.

We've taken the Panasonic FZ20 to the Antarctic - does that make a
"professional" camera? Oh, and a Nikon 990 as well.

<G>

David
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:07:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:SpgWd.28867$8B3.15320@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Skip M wrote:
> []
>> Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher
>> than the lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
>> take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with
>> the term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured
>> terminology, but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one
>> available, or in use.
>
> We've taken the Panasonic FZ20 to the Antarctic - does that make a
> "professional" camera? Oh, and a Nikon 990 as well.
>
> <G>
>
> David
>
[Sigh]

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 9:38:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:eBeWd.2563$603.1480@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Alfred Molon" <DELETEalfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.
>
> ROTFLMAO!

It's interesting to see Alfred get bashed on this. My memory has it that the
term prosumer was introduced into the digital camera world for exactly the
use he suggests. The meaning appears to have changed over the intervening
years, though.

(IMHO, it's always been a completely bogus term. But that's a different
question.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 9:38:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 0bun4$i9d$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:eBeWd.2563$603.1480@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Alfred Molon" <DELETEalfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>
> It's interesting to see Alfred get bashed on this. My memory has it that
> the
> term prosumer was introduced into the digital camera world for exactly the
> use he suggests. The meaning appears to have changed over the intervening
> years, though.
>
> (IMHO, it's always been a completely bogus term. But that's a different
> question.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
"Prosumer" was used before the advent of digital DSLRs to describe cameras
such as the Canon A2 and Nikon N/F90, cameras that slotted beneath the full
on pro 1n/1v and F2/F3/F4/F5. It wasn't until the last couple of years that
I had seen the term applied to higher end ZLR digital cameras.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
March 6, 2005 2:39:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:46:02 GMT
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote
In message <K5gWd.2582$603.1560@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>

Thank you for the film --> digital historical perspective.

Jeff
March 6, 2005 2:41:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:07:30 GMT
In message <SpgWd.28867$8B3.15320@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

> We've taken the Panasonic FZ20 to the Antarctic - does that make a
> "professional" camera? Oh, and a Nikon 990 as well.
>
> <G>

I should see if the sensor can be replaced in my 990...
it's a great macro camera and my wife likes it too. :) 

Jeff
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 8:25:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>
>"Alfred Molon" <DELETEalfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.
>
>ROTFLMAO!
>

Yep.. Here's a couple of old, famouse Usenet comments from the past
that still apply today:



Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a
source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
Eugene Spafford

You need two things on Usenet - a civil tongue and a thick skin.
Steve Dorner



To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:07:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <fn0n219eo0alagflaukmmv0v1rt1n60et1@4ax.com>, Doug Warner
says...

> You need two things on Usenet - a civil tongue and a thick skin.
> Steve Dorner

And the ability to pull out of a discussion when it doesn't make sense
anymore.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:19:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in
news:GrbWd.44078$xt.33683@fed1read07:

> Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher
> than the lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
> take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with
> the term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured
> terminology, but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one
> available, or in use.

Do we have to have a term? Are you not able to look at a D70, 300D or
E300 and simply evaluate it on its merits?

Certainly there are reporters, portrait and wedding photographers,
graphic designers, and serious art photographers using the cameras, and
doing so sucessfully. By the same token, there are tons of amateurs who
either shoot seriously on the weekend with these cameras, or well-to-do
hobbyists who simply use these as expensive point-and-shoots.

So it seems that we'd be far better off to simply refer to these cameras
by model, or by some label that refers to their function and build - i.e.
entry level or 1st tier DSLRs as opposed to cameras like the 20D, D2, E1,
et all that could conceivaby be referred to as mid-level or 2nd tier
DSLRs.

It just seems to me to be more useful to categorize cameras based on
camera features, rather than by supposed common features of their users.
March 7, 2005 6:19:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean wrote:
>
> It just seems to me to be more useful to categorize cameras based on
> camera features, rather than by supposed common features of their users.


And simply price.

$200 cameras
$500 cameras
$1000 cameras
$5000 cameras
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:19:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:7KydnRDoLuXlTbbfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> Barry Bean wrote:
>>
>> It just seems to me to be more useful to categorize cameras based on
>> camera features, rather than by supposed common features of their users.
>
>
> And simply price.
>
> $200 cameras
> $500 cameras
> $1000 cameras
> $5000 cameras

Let's look at two cameras 8mp and under $1000, the Canon 350XT and the Sony
828. Same thing? No, similar usage? Similar user? Possibly to both, but
still decidedly different cameras.
Now look at some other cameras, but price independent. The Canon 1D mkII,
20D and 350XT. All 8mp cameras, the 1D mkII is more rugged than either of
the others, and fires off at 8fps. The 20D is, obviously, in the middle,
less rugged than the 1D, faster than the Rebel. All three cameras are aimed
at a different market and different users. Thus the categorization.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:35:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:7KydnRDoLuXlTbbfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Barry Bean wrote:
>>
>>>It just seems to me to be more useful to categorize cameras based on
>>>camera features, rather than by supposed common features of their users.
>>
>>
>>And simply price.
>>
>>$200 cameras
>>$500 cameras
>>$1000 cameras
>>$5000 cameras
>
>
> Let's look at two cameras 8mp and under $1000, the Canon 350XT and the Sony
> 828. Same thing? No, similar usage? Similar user? Possibly to both, but
> still decidedly different cameras.
> Now look at some other cameras, but price independent. The Canon 1D mkII,
> 20D and 350XT. All 8mp cameras, the 1D mkII is more rugged than either of
> the others, and fires off at 8fps. The 20D is, obviously, in the middle,
> less rugged than the 1D, faster than the Rebel. All three cameras are aimed
> at a different market and different users. Thus the categorization.

Hmmm, the problem with this generalization is that almost all 350XT
users would rather be 20D users or better yet, 1D mkII users, if only
they had the money. All three cameras are, if not specifically aimed
at, at least desired by the same market segment. The only
categorization is whether they have a regular credit card, or a gold or
platinum card.
March 7, 2005 6:35:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion wrote:

> Okay... how many photographers can you think of, besides maybe yourself,
> who give the above choice, and *having the means to afford the 1D*,
> would turn it down because it was too big or too heavy? Or because they
> just thought it cost too darn much? I'm not taking about mortgaging the
> firstborn, I'm talking about those having the money for it.

There's a big difference between having the cash available, and deciding
to spend it on a camera. There are many people who choose to buy things
that are not top-of-the-line, even though they could easily afford them,
because they believe it is better to not spend the money.

Bob
March 7, 2005 9:29:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

>>A second line of development, also easier if the lens is fixed to
>>the camera, would involve in camera processing of data coming off
>>the sensor to widen the apparent exposure latitude of the sensor. A
>>simple example would be the ability to selectively decrease the
>>signal amplitude coming off the highlights to minimize blow-out of
>>details in the highlights.
>
>
> It can't be done. If an electron well, is full, then it's full -- the
> image highlights will be clipped. You cannot fix this in software.
> The data have gone.

It may be gone, but it has *come* and gone, which means it was there for a moment,
and that means that perhaps the data can be captured before it's gone. If there is
enough exposure to capture shadow detail, there's a point before that exposure is
completed at which the highlights still have detail. Not being an engineer I'm
blissfully unaware of the myriad problems with designing the camera to capture that
"perfect" exposure, but I imagine that it may be possible to record the (currently
accumulated) data at intermediate points during the exposure. If so, then it should
be possible to compile the best exposure for various parts of the image into a single
image in which both the darkest shadows and lightest highlights have detail. The
devil is in the details of how it's done and any sacrifices you accept for displaying
a wider range than the human eye could perceive in the original scene.

As for the potential capability of software to correct problems, as artificial
intelligence gets better it will presumably be possible for software to adjust any
problems the human intelligence can perceive. I say "adjust" instead of "correct"
because it will still be up to the camera's hardware to collect the data that is
compiled into the final image. If the data is lacking the resulting image may be
highly artificial, but if the data is captured, albeit incorrectly, it may be
possible to restore it realistically. Those capabilities already exist without
artificial intelligence, but it's too time-consuming to manually change more than a
few of 4 or 5 megapixels.

Current software is already capable of adjustment of many of the problems, but can't
adjust for detail that's missing as a result of bad exposure, or poor focus.
Somewhere in the future, though, I can imagine the possibility that improved hardware
and software will mean every final image can be excellent from a technical perspective.


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
March 8, 2005 12:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:56:50 -0000
In message <112lofih9abe042@news.supernews.com>
andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> ...
> > A second line of development, also easier if the lens is fixed to
> > the camera, would involve in camera processing of data coming off
> > the sensor to widen the apparent exposure latitude of the sensor. A
> > simple example would be the ability to selectively decrease the
> > signal amplitude coming off the highlights to minimize blow-out of
> > details in the highlights.
>
> It can't be done.

You pushed my ON button. ;-)

I've seen engineers boxed in by measured data and
circuits before, and I've been lucky enough to have
"done it" when they've said "it can't be done".

> If an electron well, is full, then it's full -- the
> image highlights will be clipped. You cannot fix this
> in software. The data have gone.

All it will take is the eventual moment of inspiration by a programmer
or engineer, or, a brute force computer speed increase. Either way,
the sample rate will be fast enough to grab the captured data just
before the first bucket fills up.

Then reality will take over, and corporate management will decide how
much will be released at various price points during the marketing
cycle at that time... sigh...

Jeff
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:50:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote:


> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

>>>A second line of development, also easier if the lens is fixed to
>>>the camera, would involve in camera processing of data coming off
>>>the sensor to widen the apparent exposure latitude of the sensor. A
>>>simple example would be the ability to selectively decrease the
>>>signal amplitude coming off the highlights to minimize blow-out of
>>>details in the highlights.
>>
>> It can't be done. If an electron well, is full, then it's full -- the
>> image highlights will be clipped. You cannot fix this in software.
>> The data have gone.

> It may be gone, but it has *come* and gone, which means it was there
> for a moment, and that means that perhaps the data can be captured
> before it's gone.

No, it wasn't. It's exactly the same as trying to put two gallons
into a one gallon bucket. Is it correct to say that, for a brief
moment, the one gallon bucket held two gallons, just before it
overflowed?

> If there is enough exposure to capture shadow detail, there's a
> point before that exposure is completed at which the highlights
> still have detail. Not being an engineer I'm blissfully unaware of
> the myriad problems with designing the camera to capture that
> "perfect" exposure, but I imagine that it may be possible to record
> the (currently accumulated) data at intermediate points during the
> exposure.

Effectively, you'd be doing multiple exposures and summing them later.
This is a perfectly reasonable way of extending dynamic range. You
can do it already, albeit rather slowly.

But AFAICS that is rather different from what was proposed, which was
post-processing.

Andrew.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 8:17:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> writes:
>> Okay... how many photographers can you think of, besides maybe
>> yourself, who give the above choice, and *having the means to afford
>> the 1D*, would turn it down because it was too big or too heavy?

I would accept it, and immediately sell it to finance something more
useful to me.

David
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 8:17:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
>>Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> writes:
>>
>>>Okay... how many photographers can you think of, besides maybe
>>>yourself, who give the above choice, and *having the means to afford
>>>the 1D*, would turn it down because it was too big or too heavy?
>
>
> I would accept it, and immediately sell it to finance something more
> useful to me.
>
> David
>
>
More like two or three somethings, with my preferences... A new
computer, and a pretty darn nice P&S I can carry in my pocket!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 9, 2005 8:44:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> It's exactly the same as trying to put two gallons
> into a one gallon bucket. Is it correct to say that, for a brief
> moment, the one gallon bucket held two gallons, just before it
> overflowed?

No, it's exactly different. The whole idea of the one gallon "bucket" is that you
don't want more than one gallon of data, and to have detail that bucket has to have a
different amount in it than other nearby buckets, which means they can't all be full
or you're missing data even though none of them actually overflowed.


> Effectively, you'd be doing multiple exposures and summing them later.

No, I'm suggesting that the data from a single exposure might be captured at various
points during the exposure. That would essentially yield the same data you would get
from multiple exposures (though it wouldn't require as much memory), but wouldn't
require that the scene remain static through multiple exposures. Perhaps it's merely
semantics, but I don't see that as summing multiple exposures, though the final
result may be the same. In the final image you'd use the data from the end (or near
the end) of the exposure for the darkest areas and for the lightest you'd use the
data from the point at which those areas became completely saturated. Everything in
between would be based on the data from points within that range, effectively
reducing the contrast such that you could capture both shadow and highlight detail.


> This is a perfectly reasonable way of extending dynamic range. You
> can do it already, albeit rather slowly.

If it's possible to capture multiple data points from a single exposure it could be
as fast as other relatively simple corrections.


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
March 9, 2005 11:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:30:07 GMT
In message <4hs2g2-mgj.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> Wusses! Planning to go on a hike in Snowdonia in the next few weeks, on
> which I shall be taking my newly acquired MPP large format technical camera.
> The camera weighs 3 kilograms, the tripod it sits on (required) weighs 2.
> That's a minimum shooting weight of 5 kilos, before one takes into account
> the 10D which will be used as a fancy light meter, for maing sure I have the
> exposure right before I waste a sheet of film (costs 3UK pounds to trip the
> shutter on that camera).

LOL! A 10D LIGHT METER? Isn't that just wrong? :-)

Jeff
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 10:19:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> That's a minimum shooting weight of 5 kilos, before one takes into account
> the 10D which will be used as a fancy light meter, for maing sure I have
the
> exposure right before I waste a sheet of film (costs 3UK pounds to trip
the
> shutter on that camera).

You'll need a _long_ telephoto to get reasonable spot readings. You'd be
better of with a Sony F707.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 10:19:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d0nslo$sdq$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>> That's a minimum shooting weight of 5 kilos, before one takes into account
>> the 10D which will be used as a fancy light meter, for maing sure I have
>the
>> exposure right before I waste a sheet of film (costs 3UK pounds to trip
>the
>> shutter on that camera).
>
>You'll need a _long_ telephoto to get reasonable spot readings. You'd be
>better of with a Sony F707.

It's for full previews rather than spot metering. I've got a real spot meter
for that.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 4:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote:


> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

>> It's exactly the same as trying to put two gallons into a one
>> gallon bucket. Is it correct to say that, for a brief moment, the
>> one gallon bucket held two gallons, just before it overflowed?

> No, it's exactly different. The whole idea of the one gallon
> "bucket" is that you don't want more than one gallon of data, and to
> have detail that bucket has to have a different amount in it than
> other nearby buckets, which means they can't all be full or you're
> missing data even though none of them actually overflowed.

Right.

>> Effectively, you'd be doing multiple exposures and summing them later.

> No, I'm suggesting that the data from a single exposure might be
> captured at various points during the exposure. That would
> essentially yield the same data you would get from multiple
> exposures (though it wouldn't require as much memory), but wouldn't
> require that the scene remain static through multiple
> exposures. Perhaps it's merely semantics, but I don't see that as
> summing multiple exposures, though the final result may be the
> same.

OK. Effectively, it's the same thing. :-)

> In the final image you'd use the data from the end (or near
> the end) of the exposure for the darkest areas and for the lightest
> you'd use the data from the point at which those areas became
> completely saturated.

What you're asking for is to read the charge in the electron well
without disturbing it.

Andrew.
March 12, 2005 10:27:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> What you're asking for is to read the charge in the electron well
> without disturbing it.

Isn't that what I said in the first post?

Reflecting a bit further, I wonder if the only thing necessary for many situations
might be simply to know at what point during an exposure any given pixel reaches
saturation. If the light level changed during the exposure, as it would with strobe
use, things would get more complicated, but for many (most?) situations the
accumulation of light will be a linear function of time. That would essentially
provide the extra data that is lost by overfilling the bucket, allowing for an
automated adjustment that would be a function of how much each bucket was filled or
overfilled.


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
!