Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

no swivel LCD?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:22:03 AM

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

I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
I've read that the 828 is even worse.

One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my head,
swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
for Sony to release the 939?

I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around the
swivel problem.

Anna

More about : swivel lcd

Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:22:04 AM

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

"anna cypher" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:vcyWd.70133$8a6.63914@trndny09...
> I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
> now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
> strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
> I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>
> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my head,
> swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
> I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
> necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
> seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
> accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
> for Sony to release the 939?
>
> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around the
> swivel problem.
>
> Anna

Unless you're 3 feet tall, I'm not sure why you feel the need to shoot above your head
when taking people shots.
If you're shooting their entire length, you'd actually be better off shooting a bit lower
than their heads anyway, since this will give a more pleasing/accurate representation of
their body's proportions (shooting from high will shorten their legs in the image unless
you're well back from them).

You will not find a true SLR with an optical viewfinder that has a swivel.
It's just not possible. However, I would highly recommend that you seriously consider a
DSLR (like the 20D, or perhaps the up-coming 350 Digital Rebel...or...A Nikon D70, etc.).
When you get your hands on a true SLR...with it's instant responsiveness and lack of
shutter lag...quick focus control...practically zero noise...you will wonder how you could
ever stand shooting with anything else.

-Mark
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:22:04 AM

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

anna cypher wrote:
> I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
> now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
> strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
> I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>
> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my head,
> swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
> I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
> necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
> seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
> accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
> for Sony to release the 939?
>
> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around the
> swivel problem.
>
> Anna
>
>
You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.

While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it is
generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:22:04 AM

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

Larry and David are on the money. The 828 is very slightly noisier,
but I find that the noise is very easy to deal with and is not a
problem - admittedly I shoot mostly at 64/100..

I had the 717, and loved it dearly. Then I got to use the 828
extensively at work, and found it a better camera in every respect than
the 717, *except* for the purple fringing issue (which only cropped up
occasionally, and those slightly increased noise levels. In particular
the AF on the 828 is a vast improvement on the 717, and the 28-200 lens
is simply superb in every other respect.

Because I wanted slightly bigger prints than the 717 could give me, I
now have the lighter and more compact Olympus C8080, which gives images
that are very similar in quality to the 828. The 8080's zoom `only`
reaches 28-140, but the lens is CA- and purple-fringe-free! It has a
swing-out screen that will do what you wish, and my only real complaint
with it, is the obscure and occasionally annoying menu system. The 828
is probably a nicer camera overall, and the laser focus and nightshot
functions are pretty cool, but is it worth the extra cash?

Have you considered the 7 Mp cameras? I don't know if there any that
meet your requirements precisely, but they seem to be better in the
noise department, if that really is a big issue..
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:22:05 AM

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

I often find the need to have the camera over my head to get the right shot...
and my Olympus C8080 has a screen that "swivels" out, up down, whatever... a
very highly rated camera. I love the camera. Spectacular pictures.

Tim
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:22:06 AM

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

"Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cjzWd.24353$Sn6.11598@lakeread03...
>I often find the need to have the camera over my head to get the right shot...
> and my Olympus C8080 has a screen that "swivels" out, up down, whatever... a
> very highly rated camera. I love the camera. Spectacular pictures.
>
> Tim

I'm glad you like your camera and that you're happy with it.
The number one reason I can't live without a DSLR is timing...specically: that the shutter
releases precisely when I want it to.
This also takes into consideration that DSLRs are wildly better at dealing with moving
subjects.
One of the most frustrating aspects of most point-and-shoot digitals is that it's nearly
impossible to capture tack-sharp (and well-times) shots of moving things (like kids at
play, or any other high-motion subject).

Again...I'm glad you're pleased.

We all have different needs.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:22:07 AM

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

Hey Mark... I guess you can tell from the post directly after this one that I am
looking to move into dSLR arena! :) 
I am torn between the year old D70 and this new Rebel due out in a couple of
weeks. It just seems like there must have been a bunch of technology
improvements since the D70 was released, but maybe not...

Tim
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:58:04 AM

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

"Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

: Unless you're 3 feet tall, I'm not sure why you feel the need to shoot
: above your head when taking people shots.

I think you mistook her problem. She isn't taking pictures of people, she
is trying to take pictures from behind people. Visualize a person watching
a parade and in nothing flat, the taller people close in around and then
infront of a person who is below their eye level. This is normally not an
intentional action, just a natural flow toward the object of interest and
anything that does not block the view tends to be ignored. So if a photog
is less than a full head taller than the surrounding crowd, it becomes
difficult to aim and focus a camera that must be held at eye level (and
behind the head or sholders of the crowd).

To the OP. It would be very difficult to find an SLR camera with a swivel
screen as the imageing chip is not exposed to the light until the shutter
is pressed. Thus there is nothing for a screen to display until the photo
has already been taken. You will probably have to stick with consumer
grade cameras for such a feature.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:58:05 AM

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

"Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:D 0egms$fs0$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> : Unless you're 3 feet tall, I'm not sure why you feel the need to shoot
> : above your head when taking people shots.
>
> I think you mistook her problem. She isn't taking pictures of people, she
> is trying to take pictures from behind people. Visualize a person watching
> a parade and in nothing flat, the taller people close in around and then
> infront of a person who is below their eye level. This is normally not an
> intentional action, just a natural flow toward the object of interest and
> anything that does not block the view tends to be ignored. So if a photog
> is less than a full head taller than the surrounding crowd, it becomes
> difficult to aim and focus a camera that must be held at eye level (and
> behind the head or sholders of the crowd).
>
> To the OP. It would be very difficult to find an SLR camera with a swivel
> screen as the imageing chip is not exposed to the light until the shutter
> is pressed. Thus there is nothing for a screen to display until the photo
> has already been taken. You will probably have to stick with consumer
> grade cameras for such a feature.
>
> Randy

Ah!
OK.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 12:16:08 PM

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

In article <vcyWd.70133$8a6.63914@trndny09>, anna cypher
<noone@nowhere.net> wrote:

> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around the
> swivel problem.

What useful purpose would a swivel LCD do on a DSLR?
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 1:09:06 PM

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

DP Review has a side by side comparison. Get the D70 even with it's faults.

"Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o MzWd.24354$Sn6.17722@lakeread03...
>
> Hey Mark... I guess you can tell from the post directly after this one
> that I am
> looking to move into dSLR arena! :) 
> I am torn between the year old D70 and this new Rebel due out in a couple
> of
> weeks. It just seems like there must have been a bunch of technology
> improvements since the D70 was released, but maybe not...
>
> Tim
>
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 1:41:26 PM

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

anna cypher wrote:
[]
> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
> head, swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a
> picture of. I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front
> of me it's a necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at
> (aside from the F828) seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no
> LCD at all! Are there any accessories that could help me out? Or
> should I just repair my F717 and wait for Sony to release the 939?

Plenty of high-end cameras have swivel LCDs. Look at the Nikon Coolpix
8400 (24mm widest angle) and 8800 (10x image-stabilised zoom) for example.
Both have 8Mp sensors.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/

David
March 6, 2005 1:41:27 PM

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

In article <q7BWd.29438$8B3.6782@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk says...
> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
> > head, swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a
> > picture of. I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front
> > of me it's a necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at
> > (aside from the F828) seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no
> > LCD at all! Are there any accessories that could help me out? Or
> > should I just repair my F717 and wait for Sony to release the 939?
>



What is broken on your 717???

I have the 717 and over-all the 717 is the best 5mp camera I have ever used.
When I stated this in the group before there was a lot of "fault pointing"
that actually pointed to the faults of the 707.

I was not thrilled with the noise levels in the 828, but if you dont use ISO
400 or 800 the camera becomes a super picture taker. The "purple fringing" in
the 828 seems to be a sensor overload thing, not a lens issue, as it goes
away if you avoid the situations that cause it (very high contrast/strong
backlight) Not a perfect solution, but the fringing can be avoided. The 828
swivels just as the 717 does.

I watch Sony very closely and have seen no sign of a replacement for the 828
forthcoming. (no insode rumors among employees ect.) This is NOT a good siqn.
If they had a "killer camera" on the horizon they would be making noise about
it. If another model gets the "stealth release" that the 828 got, then avoid
it, I learned my lesson on the 828.

Sony is too busy selling sensors to other camera companies to be bothered
developing anything GREAT.

I missed (or you didn't state) what the problem is with your 717.

I wouldn't hesitate to spend a few hundred dollars to fix mine should it need
repair (heaven forbid) I consider the 717 to be the finest 5mp camera around,
and Ive never seen anything to convince me otherwise. If it could shoot raw
it would be the "perfect" non DSLR camera.

In the meantime, Im waiting for a shakeout on the price of the old DRebel to
see if it goes low enough for it to be a bargain for me.

If you really USE the swivel head on the camera, then get the 717 repaired if
its affordable, or pick up a used 828, it IS an improvement over the 717 in
MANY ways (faster shutter release, REAL manual zoom, higher resolution) it
just isnt all it should have been.

All of the 8mp ZLRs and point & shoot cameras have faults (most of them use
the same Sony sensor as the 828, with a different color filter on it).

I think that all the camera makers came up against a hard place at the 8
megapixel level, and I dont think ANY of them are stellar performers. The
8080 comes close, but no cigar. Its probably something to do with sensor
size/pixel count that cant be cured easily or soon.

If you want better performance than the 717 can give you, you are going to
need to go into a DSLR.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 2:09:47 PM

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

Or was that the XT. Bugger go for the Pentax it's better than both anyway.

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:6FAWd.186310$K7.15815@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> DP Review has a side by side comparison. Get the D70 even with it's
> faults.
>
> "Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:o MzWd.24354$Sn6.17722@lakeread03...
>>
>> Hey Mark... I guess you can tell from the post directly after this one
>> that I am
>> looking to move into dSLR arena! :) 
>> I am torn between the year old D70 and this new Rebel due out in a couple
>> of
>> weeks. It just seems like there must have been a bunch of technology
>> improvements since the D70 was released, but maybe not...
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 2:11:34 PM

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

> Plenty of high-end cameras have swivel LCDs. Look at the Nikon Coolpix
> 8400 (24mm widest angle) and 8800 (10x image-stabilised zoom) for example.
> Both have 8Mp sensors.


HAHA, you're serious aren't you??? 8MP does not make a high end camera,
these P&S cameras even at 8MP are far too noisy to be even half serious.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 2:47:32 PM

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

Pete D wrote:
>> Plenty of high-end cameras have swivel LCDs. Look at the Nikon
>> Coolpix 8400 (24mm widest angle) and 8800 (10x image-stabilised
>> zoom) for example. Both have 8Mp sensors.
>
>
> HAHA, you're serious aren't you??? 8MP does not make a high end
> camera, these P&S cameras even at 8MP are far too noisy to be even
> half serious.

The OP mentioned the Sony 717 and 828. The cameras I suggested are in the
same class.

Have you tried printing at up to, say 10 inches by 8 inches, images from
these cameras? I regard them as completely serious, as are their 5Mp
counterparts. The smaller sensor does mean more noise, yes, but you trade
that off against a DSLR's extra size, weight, convenience and cost.
Oh, and lack of a swivel LCD as the OP wanted.

David
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:04:15 PM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> anna cypher wrote:
>> I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>> now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>> strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>> I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>> head,
>> swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>> I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>> necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>> seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>> accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>> for Sony to release the 939?
>> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around
>> the
>> swivel problem.
>> Anna
>>
> You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>
> While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it
> is generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
> pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.

That's simply incorrect. With proper holding techniques (which are of
course somewhat camera-dependent), you can hold the camera out in
front of you much *more* stably than you can hold it up to your face.

Like this: For a camera with "conventional" strap attachments, put
the strap around your neck, hold the sides of the camera in your
hands, pull your elbows in to your stomach, and then push *out* until
the strap becomes tight. Now you have a good solid support triangle
on each side, and the camera is much more effectively tied to your
entire body mass than I've ever been able to achieve holding a flat
camera up to my curved face.

I've verified by testing what shutter speeds I can hand-hold sharply
at that this is *more* stable than conventional grips (and I've been
specializing in low-light hand-held photography for 35 years).

The LCD, and especially one that twists and rotates, makes it *much*
easier to get shots from unusual angles, and often contributes to
getting more interesting pictures. Or else to getting less mud on
your knees :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
March 6, 2005 3:54:31 PM

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

"Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:D 0egms$fs0$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
>
> To the OP. It would be very difficult to find an SLR camera with a swivel
> screen as the imageing chip is not exposed to the light until the shutter
> is pressed. Thus there is nothing for a screen to display until the photo
> has already been taken. You will probably have to stick with consumer
> grade cameras for such a feature.
>
Which is why no dSLR cameras have a "live preview" as the mirror has to be
out of the way. With the S3Pro you can't take a picture when it is in the
preview mode. The 20Da it's live view is during exposure..
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:55:18 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "anna cypher" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:vcyWd.70133$8a6.63914@trndny09...
>
>>I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>
>>One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my head,
>>swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>for Sony to release the 939?
>>
>>I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around the
>>swivel problem.
>>
>>Anna
>
>
> Unless you're 3 feet tall, I'm not sure why you feel the need to shoot above your head
> when taking people shots.
> If you're shooting their entire length, you'd actually be better off shooting a bit lower
> than their heads anyway, since this will give a more pleasing/accurate representation of
> their body's proportions (shooting from high will shorten their legs in the image unless
> you're well back from them).
>
> You will not find a true SLR with an optical viewfinder that has a swivel.
> It's just not possible. However, I would highly recommend that you seriously consider a
> DSLR (like the 20D, or perhaps the up-coming 350 Digital Rebel...or...A Nikon D70, etc.).
> When you get your hands on a true SLR...with it's instant responsiveness and lack of
> shutter lag...quick focus control...practically zero noise...you will wonder how you could
> ever stand shooting with anything else.
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
I assume you are telling us that a film SLR is better. I think we have
hashed that discussion sufficiently. If that is what you like, use it.
I have used film SLRs, and if I never hoist another to my eye, it will
be a day too soon.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 6, 2005 3:55:49 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:q7BWd.29438$8B3.6782@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> anna cypher wrote:
> []
> > One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
> > head, swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a
> > picture of. I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front
> > of me it's a necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at
> > (aside from the F828) seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no
> > LCD at all! Are there any accessories that could help me out? Or
> > should I just repair my F717 and wait for Sony to release the 939?
>
> Plenty of high-end cameras have swivel LCDs. Look at the Nikon Coolpix
> 8400 (24mm widest angle) and 8800 (10x image-stabilised zoom) for example.
> Both have 8Mp sensors.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/
>
What does pixel count of the sensor have to do with a swivel screen?
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:57:16 PM

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

Destin_FL wrote:
> I often find the need to have the camera over my head to get the right shot...
> and my Olympus C8080 has a screen that "swivels" out, up down, whatever... a
> very highly rated camera. I love the camera. Spectacular pictures.
>
> Tim
>
>
I have done shots like that with Kodak Instamatics. It takes a bit of
practice, but works pretty well. Never used an LCD for the purpose.
Perhaps if you nudged your way to the front of the group you could use
the camera in a more conventional manner. Camera shake is an almost
unavoidable result of such a difficult posture.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:58:31 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cjzWd.24353$Sn6.11598@lakeread03...
>
>>I often find the need to have the camera over my head to get the right shot...
>>and my Olympus C8080 has a screen that "swivels" out, up down, whatever... a
>>very highly rated camera. I love the camera. Spectacular pictures.
>>
>>Tim
>
>
> I'm glad you like your camera and that you're happy with it.
> The number one reason I can't live without a DSLR is timing...specically: that the shutter
> releases precisely when I want it to.
> This also takes into consideration that DSLRs are wildly better at dealing with moving
> subjects.
> One of the most frustrating aspects of most point-and-shoot digitals is that it's nearly
> impossible to capture tack-sharp (and well-times) shots of moving things (like kids at
> play, or any other high-motion subject).
>
> Again...I'm glad you're pleased.
>
> We all have different needs.
>
>
Catching children is always difficult, no matter what camera you have.
Very often they are gone before you can get the camera pointed in their
direction...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:01:11 PM

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

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> : Unless you're 3 feet tall, I'm not sure why you feel the need to shoot
> : above your head when taking people shots.
>
> I think you mistook her problem. She isn't taking pictures of people, she
> is trying to take pictures from behind people. Visualize a person watching
> a parade and in nothing flat, the taller people close in around and then
> infront of a person who is below their eye level. This is normally not an
> intentional action, just a natural flow toward the object of interest and
> anything that does not block the view tends to be ignored. So if a photog
> is less than a full head taller than the surrounding crowd, it becomes
> difficult to aim and focus a camera that must be held at eye level (and
> behind the head or sholders of the crowd).
>
> To the OP. It would be very difficult to find an SLR camera with a swivel
> screen as the imageing chip is not exposed to the light until the shutter
> is pressed. Thus there is nothing for a screen to display until the photo
> has already been taken. You will probably have to stick with consumer
> grade cameras for such a feature.
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
It is perfectly feasible for a DSLR to have this feature. If it has an
EVF, then the sensor used for that purpose could be switched to the LCD.
Granted such a multi-sensor camera would be expensive.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:04:26 PM

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

Darrell wrote:
> "Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
> news:D 0egms$fs0$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
>
>>To the OP. It would be very difficult to find an SLR camera with a swivel
>>screen as the imageing chip is not exposed to the light until the shutter
>>is pressed. Thus there is nothing for a screen to display until the photo
>>has already been taken. You will probably have to stick with consumer
>>grade cameras for such a feature.
>>
>
> Which is why no dSLR cameras have a "live preview" as the mirror has to be
> out of the way. With the S3Pro you can't take a picture when it is in the
> preview mode. The 20Da it's live view is during exposure..
>
>
>
I am sure I will catch a lot of grief for this, but:
A DSLR is a dumb concept. The primary advantages of a SLR are the
direct view through the viewfinder of the actual through the lens view,
and the ability to interchange lenses. Either feature can be provided
in any digital camera with either an EVF, or a 'live' LCD. There is no
magic to interchangeable lenses, its just a mechanical thing. All the
other features normally found in film SLRs can be on ANY camera,
internal mirror/prism, or not.
Why add bulk, moving parts, and weight to the mechanism?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:07:48 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>anna cypher wrote:
>>
>>>I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>>now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>>strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>>I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>>One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>>>head,
>>>swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>>I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>>necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>>seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>>accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>>for Sony to release the 939?
>>>I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around
>>>the
>>>swivel problem.
>>>Anna
>>>
>>
>>You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>>
>>While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it
>>is generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
>>pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.
>
>
> That's simply incorrect. With proper holding techniques (which are of
> course somewhat camera-dependent), you can hold the camera out in
> front of you much *more* stably than you can hold it up to your face.

Unless you are bracing it on something, that is mechanically impossible.

>
> Like this: For a camera with "conventional" strap attachments, put
> the strap around your neck, hold the sides of the camera in your
> hands, pull your elbows in to your stomach, and then push *out* until
> the strap becomes tight. Now you have a good solid support triangle
> on each side, and the camera is much more effectively tied to your
> entire body mass than I've ever been able to achieve holding a flat
> camera up to my curved face.
>
> I've verified by testing what shutter speeds I can hand-hold sharply
> at that this is *more* stable than conventional grips (and I've been
> specializing in low-light hand-held photography for 35 years).
>
> The LCD, and especially one that twists and rotates, makes it *much*
> easier to get shots from unusual angles, and often contributes to
> getting more interesting pictures. Or else to getting less mud on
> your knees :-).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:11:16 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>anna cypher wrote:
>>
>>>I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>>now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>>strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>>I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>>One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>>>head,
>>>swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>>I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>>necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>>seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>>accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>>for Sony to release the 939?
>>>I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around
>>>the
>>>swivel problem.
>>>Anna
>>>
>>
>>You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>>
>>While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it
>>is generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
>>pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.
>
>
> That's simply incorrect. With proper holding techniques (which are of
> course somewhat camera-dependent), you can hold the camera out in
> front of you much *more* stably than you can hold it up to your face.

Not true, without special bracing.


>
> Like this: For a camera with "conventional" strap attachments, put
> the strap around your neck, hold the sides of the camera in your
> hands, pull your elbows in to your stomach, and then push *out* until
> the strap becomes tight. Now you have a good solid support triangle
> on each side, and the camera is much more effectively tied to your
> entire body mass than I've ever been able to achieve holding a flat
> camera up to my curved face.

That may be a method that works for you, but I have watched so many
amateur photographers who don't have a clue about holding the camera,
with their arms stretched out, watching the LCD. Then they stab the
shutter, and wonder why the pictures look fuzzy. Sigh.

>
> I've verified by testing what shutter speeds I can hand-hold sharply
> at that this is *more* stable than conventional grips (and I've been
> specializing in low-light hand-held photography for 35 years).

And you developed those techniques overnight, right? The point is that
most people using the swivel LCDs don't have clue about holding the
camera steady.

>
> The LCD, and especially one that twists and rotates, makes it *much*
> easier to get shots from unusual angles, and often contributes to
> getting more interesting pictures. Or else to getting less mud on
> your knees :-).

Yes, and feet as well. Still, I have managed for about 55 years of
taking pictures without one. It's not high on my want list...



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:12:26 PM

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

Pete D wrote:
>>Plenty of high-end cameras have swivel LCDs. Look at the Nikon Coolpix
>>8400 (24mm widest angle) and 8800 (10x image-stabilised zoom) for example.
>>Both have 8Mp sensors.
>
>
>
> HAHA, you're serious aren't you??? 8MP does not make a high end camera,
> these P&S cameras even at 8MP are far too noisy to be even half serious.
>
>
Doesn't that depend on your needs? Suppose you ONLY take pictures in
well-lit spaces. Different people have different needs.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:28:34 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:rxIWd.37552$7b5.30106@fe06.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Destin_FL" <mounttimmy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:cjzWd.24353$Sn6.11598@lakeread03...
>>
>>>I often find the need to have the camera over my head to get the right shot...
>>>and my Olympus C8080 has a screen that "swivels" out, up down, whatever... a
>>>very highly rated camera. I love the camera. Spectacular pictures.
>>>
>>>Tim
>>
>>
>> I'm glad you like your camera and that you're happy with it.
>> The number one reason I can't live without a DSLR is timing...specically: that the
>> shutter releases precisely when I want it to.
>> This also takes into consideration that DSLRs are wildly better at dealing with moving
>> subjects.
>> One of the most frustrating aspects of most point-and-shoot digitals is that it's
>> nearly impossible to capture tack-sharp (and well-times) shots of moving things (like
>> kids at play, or any other high-motion subject).
>>
>> Again...I'm glad you're pleased.
>>
>> We all have different needs.
>>
>>
> Catching children is always difficult, no matter what camera you have. Very often they
> are gone before you can get the camera pointed in their direction...

True...it's always difficult.
But it's darn near impossible with a camera that doesn't have tracking focus, and one with
significant shutter/focus lag.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:42:25 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:%CIWd.37555$Vf5.23185@fe06.lga...
> Darrell wrote:
>> "Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
>> news:D 0egms$fs0$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
>>
>>>To the OP. It would be very difficult to find an SLR camera with a swivel
>>>screen as the imageing chip is not exposed to the light until the shutter
>>>is pressed. Thus there is nothing for a screen to display until the photo
>>>has already been taken. You will probably have to stick with consumer
>>>grade cameras for such a feature.
>>>
>>
>> Which is why no dSLR cameras have a "live preview" as the mirror has to be
>> out of the way. With the S3Pro you can't take a picture when it is in the
>> preview mode. The 20Da it's live view is during exposure..
>>
>>
>>
> I am sure I will catch a lot of grief for this, but:
> A DSLR is a dumb concept. The primary advantages of a SLR are the direct view through
> the viewfinder of the actual through the lens view, and the ability to interchange
> lenses. Either feature can be provided in any digital camera with either an EVF, or a
> 'live' LCD. There is no magic to interchangeable lenses, its just a mechanical thing.
> All the other features normally found in film SLRs can be on ANY camera, internal
> mirror/prism, or not.
> Why add bulk, moving parts, and weight to the mechanism?

There's a lot more to the differences than that.
Very few all-in-ones have the ability to focus quickly, or zoom quickly, since they are
nearly universally using elctronic zooms and focus.
With an SLR lens, zooming and focus are done manually...meaning it zooms either
quickly...slowly...or anything in-between, depending on what you want. With electronic
zooms (controlled by a motor), you are stuck with whatever speed it disctates.

An example of when this is problematic:
You're trying to shoot a runner as he/she approaches you, and you want them framed teh
same way (say, full body) and you want multiple frames of this as they approach you and
while you're shooting.

With a manual zoom (like on SLR lenses), you will be able to match the frame and
speed-of-zooming to precisely what is needed according to the speed of teh runner's
approach. With all-in-one cameras, you are stuck with whatever zoom-speed it's little
whiny motor dictates, and chances are, it might even make you focus AFTER you zoom! In
other words... You're screwed.

Further... Live LCD viewers are NEVER really in "real-time" as there is always a
refresh-rate to them. This means, for example, that if you're waiting for a split-second
timing shot (say, a mother bird sticking a worm in it's chick's quick little beak), by the
time the LCD preview screen has refreshed...and you react...you've missed the shot because
of the delay. **This is why LCD viewfinders NEVER are as fast or accurate as the truly
optical viewfinders in SLRs.

It's a trade off.
With the DSLR, you trade away the ability to view away from your face (above your head, on
the ground, etc.)...for the ability to have truly live views with the instantaneous
reaction and vision it allows.

The list of differences (advantages/disadvantages) goes on, but the above are teh major
ones that I would not trade away.
Other's preferences obviously differ, but these are some of the reasons you rarely see
professional photogs using an all-in-one...because they just can't afford to give up these
crucial elements of timing and control.

None of the above poo-poos the usefulness and often the "preferability" of all-in-ones for
many folks.
It just underscores (to me, anyway) why there are definitely advantages to be had from
what you refer to as the "dumb concept" of DSLRs.
:) 

-Mark
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:45:37 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ruIWd.37549$t95.28631@fe06.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "anna cypher" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:vcyWd.70133$8a6.63914@trndny09...
>>
>>>I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>>now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>>strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>>I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>>
>>>One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my head,
>>>swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>>I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>>necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>>seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>>accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>>for Sony to release the 939?
>>>
>>>I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around the
>>>swivel problem.
>>>
>>>Anna
>>
>>
>> Unless you're 3 feet tall, I'm not sure why you feel the need to shoot above your head
>> when taking people shots.
>> If you're shooting their entire length, you'd actually be better off shooting a bit
>> lower than their heads anyway, since this will give a more pleasing/accurate
>> representation of their body's proportions (shooting from high will shorten their legs
>> in the image unless you're well back from them).
>>
>> You will not find a true SLR with an optical viewfinder that has a swivel.
>> It's just not possible. However, I would highly recommend that you seriously consider
>> a DSLR (like the 20D, or perhaps the up-coming 350 Digital Rebel...or...A Nikon D70,
>> etc.). When you get your hands on a true SLR...with it's instant responsiveness and
>> lack of shutter lag...quick focus control...practically zero noise...you will wonder
>> how you could ever stand shooting with anything else.
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>>
>>
> I assume you are telling us that a film SLR is better.

Not for holding over your head...no.
It's not better for THAT at all.
:) 

>I think we have hashed that discussion sufficiently. If that is what you like, use it. I
>have used film SLRs, and if I never hoist another to my eye, it will be a day too soon.

Read my other post to you above.
I don't think you need to interpret my remarks as somehow decrying your choice of camera
type at all.
DSLRs answer some specific needs that some people simply do not care about.
Again... It's not a question of "better", rather it's a question of application and
specific needs.

-Mark
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:53:23 PM

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

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:m2vf84r6qo.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>> anna cypher wrote:
>>> I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>> now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>> strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>> I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>>> head,
>>> swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>> I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>> necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>> seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>> accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>> for Sony to release the 939?
>>> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around
>>> the
>>> swivel problem.
>>> Anna
>>>
>> You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>>
>> While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it
>> is generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
>> pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.
>
> That's simply incorrect. With proper holding techniques (which are of
> course somewhat camera-dependent), you can hold the camera out in
> front of you much *more* stably than you can hold it up to your face.

That's misleading.
Any time you extend an object away from it's base of support, it will become more prone to
movement.
This is even true on sturdy tripods with long extensions.
The most stable point will always be right at the triangle (or in the secured center of a
triangle--if that's possible)...not extended away from it.
Your shoulders act as moving hinges. The farther you extend from those "hinges" the more
motion is accentuated/pronounced.
You create stability by securing your natural "hinges" --like bracinf your "hinged" arms
against a tree or based which has no hinge.

> Like this: For a camera with "conventional" strap attachments, put
> the strap around your neck, hold the sides of the camera in your
> hands, pull your elbows in to your stomach, and then push *out* until
> the strap becomes tight. Now you have a good solid support triangle
> on each side, and the camera is much more effectively tied to your
> entire body mass than I've ever been able to achieve holding a flat
> camera up to my curved face.

That's good and helpful, but not really what people are doing when they hold their
point-and-shoot up over their head as is being discussed.

> I've verified by testing what shutter speeds I can hand-hold sharply
> at that this is *more* stable than conventional grips (and I've been
> specializing in low-light hand-held photography for 35 years).
>
> The LCD, and especially one that twists and rotates, makes it *much*
> easier to get shots from unusual angles, and often contributes to
> getting more interesting pictures. Or else to getting less mud on
> your knees :-).

Very true, and a capability that DSLRs lack, for sure.

-Mark
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:55:54 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:o JIWd.37559$Zg5.23909@fe06.lga...
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>anna cypher wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>>>now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>>>strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>>>I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>>>One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>>>>head,
>>>>swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>>>I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>>>necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>>>seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>>>accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>>>for Sony to release the 939?
>>>>I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around
>>>>the
>>>>swivel problem.
>>>>Anna
>>>>
>>>
>>>You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>>>
>>>While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it
>>>is generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
>>>pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.
>>
>>
>> That's simply incorrect. With proper holding techniques (which are of
>> course somewhat camera-dependent), you can hold the camera out in
>> front of you much *more* stably than you can hold it up to your face.
>
> Not true, without special bracing.
>
>
>>
>> Like this: For a camera with "conventional" strap attachments, put
>> the strap around your neck, hold the sides of the camera in your
>> hands, pull your elbows in to your stomach, and then push *out* until
>> the strap becomes tight. Now you have a good solid support triangle
>> on each side, and the camera is much more effectively tied to your
>> entire body mass than I've ever been able to achieve holding a flat
>> camera up to my curved face.
>
> That may be a method that works for you, but I have watched so many amateur
> photographers who don't have a clue about holding the camera, with their arms stretched
> out, watching the LCD. Then they stab the shutter, and wonder why the pictures look
> fuzzy. Sigh.

Yes!
In this way, it is very similar to why shooting a pistol or revolver required a lack of
this "stabbing" at the trigger.
It's funny to watch people hold rock-solid still, only to pull the trigger, or press the
shutter with a quick, motion-filled "stab" as you say.
They completely negate their efforts at holding their body still by punctuating it with
the stab.

>> I've verified by testing what shutter speeds I can hand-hold sharply
>> at that this is *more* stable than conventional grips (and I've been
>> specializing in low-light hand-held photography for 35 years).
>
> And you developed those techniques overnight, right? The point is that most people
> using the swivel LCDs don't have clue about holding the camera steady.
>
>>
>> The LCD, and especially one that twists and rotates, makes it *much*
>> easier to get shots from unusual angles, and often contributes to
>> getting more interesting pictures. Or else to getting less mud on
>> your knees :-).
>
> Yes, and feet as well. Still, I have managed for about 55 years of taking pictures
> without one. It's not high on my want list...
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:58:49 PM

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

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:GzBWd.186442$K7.11717@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Plenty of high-end cameras have swivel LCDs. Look at the Nikon Coolpix
>> 8400 (24mm widest angle) and 8800 (10x image-stabilised zoom) for example. Both have
>> 8Mp sensors.
>
>
> HAHA, you're serious aren't you??? 8MP does not make a high end camera, these P&S
> cameras even at 8MP are far too noisy to be even half serious.

Whether a particular camera is "serious" or not has much more to do with the "seriousness"
of it's user than with the specs of the camera.

Used with care and skill, you can be quite "serious" with a box brownie rig...

If you're talking about noise specifically, then there are definitely limitations imposed
by many of these high-pixel-count jobs, but that has little to do with any "seriousness"
question.
:) 
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:02:15 PM

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

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:060320050916082731%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <vcyWd.70133$8a6.63914@trndny09>, anna cypher
> <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around the
>> swivel problem.
>
> What useful purpose would a swivel LCD do on a DSLR?

It's a trick question, because they can't do it with optical viewfinders...
....But the fact that it actually IS a useful "wish" is underscored by the long-time
existance of angle viewer attachments for SLRs, which allow the photog to see his viewer
from above his camera (for use, say, on the ground).

Folks who use swivel screen cameras don't have to worry about this need.

(They have other limitations which would bother me, but that's not the question at
hand...)
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:10:52 PM

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

Articulated LCD screens can be a major convenience for a number of
applications. As mentioned, shooting above ones head is one. The same
can also hold true for shoot images without crouching, such as taking an
image of a smaller child at eye level. They basically can work
similarly to a waist-level viewfinder.

For people who have limited mobility for any number of reasons (such as
being wheelchair bound, as two people I know are), or don't like to get
on their knees to take close to ground shots, or where someone wishes to
have the LCD face the person being photographed, they can be very helpful.

Further useful aspects include some that can be turned inward and locked
down so the vulnerable LCD surface is protected when the camera is
stored or otherwise not in use, and one can alter angles to prevent the
LCD from becoming unreadable due to sun angle.

Art

Ron Hunter wrote:

> anna cypher wrote:
>
>> I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>> now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>> strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the
>> noise, and
>> I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>
>> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my head,
>> swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>> I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>> necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the
>> F828)
>> seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>> accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717
>> and wait
>> for Sony to release the 939?
>>
>> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around the
>> swivel problem.
>>
>> Anna
>>
>>
> You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>
> While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it is
> generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
> pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.
>
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:10:53 PM

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

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Articulated LCD screens can be a major convenience for a number of
> applications. As mentioned, shooting above ones head is one. The same
> can also hold true for shoot images without crouching, such as taking an
> image of a smaller child at eye level. They basically can work
> similarly to a waist-level viewfinder.
>
> For people who have limited mobility for any number of reasons (such as
> being wheelchair bound, as two people I know are), or don't like to get
> on their knees to take close to ground shots, or where someone wishes to
> have the LCD face the person being photographed, they can be very helpful.
>
> Further useful aspects include some that can be turned inward and locked
> down so the vulnerable LCD surface is protected when the camera is
> stored or otherwise not in use, and one can alter angles to prevent the
> LCD from becoming unreadable due to sun angle.
>
> Art
>

And, you can shoot around corners. Grin.
It's not a feature I would rate high on my want list, but others may
find it useful.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 7:26:56 PM

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

*If* it was able to preview, it would be *incredibly* useful in some
situations. Why do you assume your shooting style is the only one?

Having used prosumers in a studio environment, the swivel LCD is a
wonderful time- (and back-) saver.

Have you never used a waist-level finder?

Shot over a crowd?
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:07:13 PM

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

Darrell wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> message news:q7BWd.29438$8B3.6782@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> anna cypher wrote:
>> []
>>> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>>> head, swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a
>>> picture of. I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front
>>> of me it's a necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at
>>> (aside from the F828) seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or
>>> no LCD at all! Are there any accessories that could help me out? Or
>>> should I just repair my F717 and wait for Sony to release the 939?
>>
>> Plenty of high-end cameras have swivel LCDs. Look at the Nikon
>> Coolpix 8400 (24mm widest angle) and 8800 (10x image-stabilised
>> zoom) for example. Both have 8Mp sensors.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/
>>
> What does pixel count of the sensor have to do with a swivel screen?

The comment was about higher-end cameras.

David
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:58:11 PM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>>
>>>anna cypher wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>>>now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>>>strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>>>I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>>>One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>>>>head,
>>>>swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>>>I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>>>necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>>>seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>>>accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>>>for Sony to release the 939?
>>>>I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around
>>>>the
>>>>swivel problem.
>>>>Anna
>>>>
>>>
>>>You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>>>
>>>While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it
>>>is generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
>>>pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.
>> That's simply incorrect. With proper holding techniques (which are
>> of
>> course somewhat camera-dependent), you can hold the camera out in
>> front of you much *more* stably than you can hold it up to your
>> face.
>
> Unless you are bracing it on something, that is mechanically impossible.

Did you read my explanation of what I do? Since you put this before
that part of my message, I can't tell.

I described in detail how to do it. I said I'd tested various holds
to *see* which ones let me use lower shutter speeds. A theoretical
refuation of an easily-testable procedure is chancy at best. You
don't even bother to explain your theory, you just assert it's
impossible.

Your claim of "mechanical impossibility" flies in the face of a lot of
experience in another field -- rifle marksmanship, where proper use of
the sling can give you a *much* more stable (and hence accurate)
standing shot than just holding the rifle freehand.

So, since I've gotten good results out of my technique, I shall
continue to use it, regardless of your unsupported claim that it
"can't" work.

>> Like this: For a camera with "conventional" strap attachments, put
>> the strap around your neck, hold the sides of the camera in your
>> hands, pull your elbows in to your stomach, and then push *out* until
>> the strap becomes tight. Now you have a good solid support triangle
>> on each side, and the camera is much more effectively tied to your
>> entire body mass than I've ever been able to achieve holding a flat
>> camera up to my curved face. I've verified by testing what shutter
>> speeds I can hand-hold sharply
>> at that this is *more* stable than conventional grips (and I've been
>> specializing in low-light hand-held photography for 35 years).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:06:03 PM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:m2vf84r6qo.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>>
>>> anna cypher wrote:
>>>> I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>>> now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>>> strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>>> I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>>> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>>>> head,
>>>> swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>>> I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>>> necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>>> seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>>> accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>>> for Sony to release the 939?
>>>> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around
>>>> the
>>>> swivel problem.
>>>> Anna
>>>>
>>> You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>>>
>>> While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it
>>> is generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
>>> pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.
>>
>> That's simply incorrect. With proper holding techniques (which are of
>> course somewhat camera-dependent), you can hold the camera out in
>> front of you much *more* stably than you can hold it up to your face.
>
> That's misleading.
> Any time you extend an object away from it's base of support, it will become more prone to
> movement.
> This is even true on sturdy tripods with long extensions.
> The most stable point will always be right at the triangle (or in the secured center of a
> triangle--if that's possible)...not extended away from it.
> Your shoulders act as moving hinges. The farther you extend from those "hinges" the more
> motion is accentuated/pronounced.
> You create stability by securing your natural "hinges" --like bracinf your "hinged" arms
> against a tree or based which has no hinge.
>
>> Like this: For a camera with "conventional" strap attachments, put
>> the strap around your neck, hold the sides of the camera in your
>> hands, pull your elbows in to your stomach, and then push *out* until
>> the strap becomes tight. Now you have a good solid support triangle
>> on each side, and the camera is much more effectively tied to your
>> entire body mass than I've ever been able to achieve holding a flat
>> camera up to my curved face.
>
> That's good and helpful, but not really what people are doing when
> they hold their point-and-shoot up over their head as is being
> discussed.

I was reacting to Ron's claim that holding it out in front of you
"can't" be as stable as holding it up to your face. Experimentally,
I've found that it can. (Look at the set of triangles created in the
technique I describe, from above and from both sides; it's amazingly
stable!)

I will now agree with *you* (and presumably Ron as well) that the way
many people actually hold their LCD backed cameras is not nearly as
stable as holding it up to their faces, and that their blurred
pictures are largely because of their unstable support of their
cameras.

And my technique as described doesn't, of course, work for holding
over the head. But I first held a camera over my head to shoot *long*
before I had a digital camera. I've used TLRs upside-down that way
(which is nice since you can see through the viewfinder that way), and
I've used film SLRs that way, which is a pain since you have to guess
about the framing. When holding over the head in a way that isn't so
steady, you need to pick your shutter speed accordingly.

I tend to read claims carefully and respond to precisely what they
say. If you say "Many people get blurred pictures from their digital
P&S because they don't hold the camera steady", I'll say "Yes, that's
true, I see them doing it a lot". But if you say "holding the camera
out in front of you can't be as steady as holding it up to your eye",
I'll say "Yes it can, I've tested a particular technique that's *more*
steady."
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:07:40 PM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> Randy Berbaum wrote:
>> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> : Unless you're 3 feet tall, I'm not sure why you feel the need to
>> shoot
>> : above your head when taking people shots.
>> I think you mistook her problem. She isn't taking pictures of
>> people, she is trying to take pictures from behind people. Visualize
>> a person watching a parade and in nothing flat, the taller people
>> close in around and then infront of a person who is below their eye
>> level. This is normally not an intentional action, just a natural
>> flow toward the object of interest and anything that does not block
>> the view tends to be ignored. So if a photog is less than a full
>> head taller than the surrounding crowd, it becomes difficult to aim
>> and focus a camera that must be held at eye level (and behind the
>> head or sholders of the crowd). To the OP. It would be very
>> difficult to find an SLR camera with a swivel screen as the imageing
>> chip is not exposed to the light until the shutter is pressed. Thus
>> there is nothing for a screen to display until the photo has already
>> been taken. You will probably have to stick with consumer grade
>> cameras for such a feature.

> It is perfectly feasible for a DSLR to have this feature. If it has
> an EVF, then the sensor used for that purpose could be switched to the
> LCD. Granted such a multi-sensor camera would be expensive.

An interesting theory, but not DSLR has an EVF, so it's an empty set.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
March 6, 2005 10:15:56 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:YzIWd.37553$hd5.32143@fe06.lga...
> > >
> It is perfectly feasible for a DSLR to have this feature. If it has an
> EVF, then the sensor used for that purpose could be switched to the LCD.
> Granted such a multi-sensor camera would be expensive.
>
It then would NOT be a dSLR. A camera with a EVF is not a SLR.
March 6, 2005 10:17:19 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:%CIWd.37555$Vf5.23185@fe06.lga...
> Darrell wrote:
> > "Randy Berbaum" <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
> > news:D 0egms$fs0$1@wildfire.prairienet.org...
> >
> >>To the OP. It would be very difficult to find an SLR camera with a
swivel
> >>screen as the imageing chip is not exposed to the light until the
shutter
> >>is pressed. Thus there is nothing for a screen to display until the
photo
> >>has already been taken. You will probably have to stick with consumer
> >>grade cameras for such a feature.
> >>
> >
> > Which is why no dSLR cameras have a "live preview" as the mirror has to
be
> > out of the way. With the S3Pro you can't take a picture when it is in
the
> > preview mode. The 20Da it's live view is during exposure..
> >
> >
> >
> I am sure I will catch a lot of grief for this, but:
> A DSLR is a dumb concept. The primary advantages of a SLR are the
> direct view through the viewfinder of the actual through the lens view,
> and the ability to interchange lenses. Either feature can be provided
> in any digital camera with either an EVF, or a 'live' LCD. There is no
> magic to interchangeable lenses, its just a mechanical thing. All the
> other features normally found in film SLRs can be on ANY camera,
> internal mirror/prism, or not.
> Why add bulk, moving parts, and weight to the mechanism?
>
I have yet to see a EVF that is any good, maybe I am spolied with the
optical SLR viewfinde, but IMHO an EVF is inferior.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:39:54 PM

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

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:m2wtsknu2s.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
>> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:m2vf84r6qo.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
>>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> anna cypher wrote:
>>>>> I've had some quality years with my Sony F717, but it's in need of repair
>>>>> now and I'm thinking of just upgrading to a new camera. I would have
>>>>> strongly considered the 828, but my one beef with the 717 was the noise, and
>>>>> I've read that the 828 is even worse.
>>>>> One thing I loved about the F717 is that I could hold it above my
>>>>> head,
>>>>> swivel the lens, and still be able to see what I was taking a picture of.
>>>>> I'm short, so when I take pictures with people in front of me it's a
>>>>> necessity. All the higher-end cameras I've looked at (aside from the F828)
>>>>> seem to have an LCD that does not swivel, or no LCD at all! Are there any
>>>>> accessories that could help me out? Or should I just repair my F717 and wait
>>>>> for Sony to release the 939?
>>>>> I'd really like to get the 20D, but I haven't found any way around
>>>>> the
>>>>> swivel problem.
>>>>> Anna
>>>>>
>>>> You might carry a box around to stand on. Grin.
>>>>
>>>> While I can see uses for the swivel LCD, in special circumstances, it
>>>> is generally NOT a good idea to use the LCD for composing and shooting
>>>> pictures as it contributes to excessive camera movement.
>>>
>>> That's simply incorrect. With proper holding techniques (which are of
>>> course somewhat camera-dependent), you can hold the camera out in
>>> front of you much *more* stably than you can hold it up to your face.
>>
>> That's misleading.
>> Any time you extend an object away from it's base of support, it will become more prone
>> to
>> movement.
>> This is even true on sturdy tripods with long extensions.
>> The most stable point will always be right at the triangle (or in the secured center of
>> a
>> triangle--if that's possible)...not extended away from it.
>> Your shoulders act as moving hinges. The farther you extend from those "hinges" the
>> more
>> motion is accentuated/pronounced.
>> You create stability by securing your natural "hinges" --like bracinf your "hinged"
>> arms
>> against a tree or based which has no hinge.
>>
>>> Like this: For a camera with "conventional" strap attachments, put
>>> the strap around your neck, hold the sides of the camera in your
>>> hands, pull your elbows in to your stomach, and then push *out* until
>>> the strap becomes tight. Now you have a good solid support triangle
>>> on each side, and the camera is much more effectively tied to your
>>> entire body mass than I've ever been able to achieve holding a flat
>>> camera up to my curved face.
>>
>> That's good and helpful, but not really what people are doing when
>> they hold their point-and-shoot up over their head as is being
>> discussed.
>
> I was reacting to Ron's claim that holding it out in front of you
> "can't" be as stable as holding it up to your face. Experimentally,
> I've found that it can. (Look at the set of triangles created in the
> technique I describe, from above and from both sides; it's amazingly
> stable!)

I agree with you there...that there are definitely ways to increase stability even with
arms extended.
-It's jsut that your worthy technique doesn't tend to be what people think of when they
picture the use of swivel LCDs over-head, or extended out.

> I will now agree with *you* (and presumably Ron as well) that the way
> many people actually hold their LCD backed cameras is not nearly as
> stable as holding it up to their faces, and that their blurred
> pictures are largely because of their unstable support of their
> cameras.

Ya.
Same as above...

> And my technique as described doesn't, of course, work for holding
> over the head. But I first held a camera over my head to shoot *long*
> before I had a digital camera. I've used TLRs upside-down that way
> (which is nice since you can see through the viewfinder that way), and
> I've used film SLRs that way, which is a pain since you have to guess
> about the framing. When holding over the head in a way that isn't so
> steady, you need to pick your shutter speed accordingly.

That's where using wide angle cameras that have a high pixel count and fast shutter speed
can come in handy for people like photo-journalists, etc. They can guess, overhead as you
mention, and have considerable leeway with wide angle--especially with full-size sensors
and high pixel counts--because they can then afford to crop their image down to what's
essential.
-Only troulbe is, this usually is only useful for things like big crowds of people
crowding around the guy talking into the microphone, etc.
:) 

> I tend to read claims carefully and respond to precisely what they
> say. If you say "Many people get blurred pictures from their digital
> P&S because they don't hold the camera steady", I'll say "Yes, that's
> true, I see them doing it a lot". But if you say "holding the camera
> out in front of you can't be as steady as holding it up to your eye",
> I'll say "Yes it can, I've tested a particular technique that's *more*
> steady."

In this, we are complete agreement.
I tend to do the same thing, and react similarly to the sweeping statements that get
hurled around here so often.
Replacing "always" with "often" does wonders for a conversation.
:) 

-Mark
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:48:42 PM

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

In article <1110155216.664923.94920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<chrlz@go.com> wrote:

> *If* it was able to preview, it would be *incredibly* useful in some
> situations. Why do you assume your shooting style is the only one?
>
> Having used prosumers in a studio environment, the swivel LCD is a
> wonderful time- (and back-) saver.
>
> Have you never used a waist-level finder?
>
> Shot over a crowd?


Hey dummy! There's mirror in the way of the sensor. You look through
that little rectangular hole on the top and you can actually see
through the lens that's going to take the picture. You see what the
film/sensor will see. Pretty cool, eh?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:15:21 AM

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

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:060320052048422473%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <1110155216.664923.94920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <chrlz@go.com> wrote:
>
>> *If* it was able to preview, it would be *incredibly* useful in some
>> situations. Why do you assume your shooting style is the only one?
>>
>> Having used prosumers in a studio environment, the swivel LCD is a
>> wonderful time- (and back-) saver.
>>
>> Have you never used a waist-level finder?
>>
>> Shot over a crowd?
>
>
> Hey dummy!

You're so tactful, Randall!
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:41:42 AM

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

Oh, and before you say it.. yes, I know very few SLR's, let alone
DSLR's (1?), use such technology, but, with all due respect, your
*stupid* question was:

>What useful purpose would a swivel LCD do on a DSLR?

It was NOT: `could a swivel LCD work on most DSLR's?`

So I answered the question you asked. Apart from pellicle technology,
there are other ways this could be implemented, and it IS very useful.
..
..
..
Moral? Do not enter a battle of wits only half-armed.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:48:05 AM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>I am sure I will catch a lot of grief for this, but:
>A DSLR is a dumb concept. The primary advantages of a SLR are the
>direct view through the viewfinder of the actual through the lens view,
>and the ability to interchange lenses. Either feature can be provided
>in any digital camera with either an EVF, or a 'live' LCD.

Someone *could* build an interchangeable-lens camera with EVF or
direct-view LCD, but it would have a couple of problems compared to a
real SLR:

- Electronic sensors with video output give lower quality images
than ones that are not capable of this

- Existing electronic viewfinders provide far worse resolution than
the sensor itself, and worse than an all-optical viewfinder, because
of the low pixel count

- Both EVF and LCD have problems in very bright surroundings. LCDs wash
out and EVFs have a maximum white that they cannot exceed

- The reflex mirror in a SLR provides a place to sample light for a fast
phase-detection autofocus system. Your proposed camera is likely to
use the slower contrast-detection scheme, if existing designs are any
guide.

You might think that the advantages would outweight the disadvantages,
but no manufacturer has chosen to risk their money on this.

>Why add bulk, moving parts, and weight to the mechanism?

Because it adds higher image quality, fast focusing, and better
viewfinder (for some circumstances at least).

Dave
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:48:06 AM

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>I am sure I will catch a lot of grief for this, but:
>>A DSLR is a dumb concept. The primary advantages of a SLR are the
>>direct view through the viewfinder of the actual through the lens view,
>>and the ability to interchange lenses. Either feature can be provided
>>in any digital camera with either an EVF, or a 'live' LCD.
>
>
> Someone *could* build an interchangeable-lens camera with EVF or
> direct-view LCD, but it would have a couple of problems compared to a
> real SLR:
>
> - Electronic sensors with video output give lower quality images
> than ones that are not capable of this
>
> - Existing electronic viewfinders provide far worse resolution than
> the sensor itself, and worse than an all-optical viewfinder, because
> of the low pixel count
>
> - Both EVF and LCD have problems in very bright surroundings. LCDs wash
> out and EVFs have a maximum white that they cannot exceed
>
> - The reflex mirror in a SLR provides a place to sample light for a fast
> phase-detection autofocus system. Your proposed camera is likely to
> use the slower contrast-detection scheme, if existing designs are any
> guide.
>
> You might think that the advantages would outweight the disadvantages,
> but no manufacturer has chosen to risk their money on this.
>
>
>>Why add bulk, moving parts, and weight to the mechanism?
>
>
> Because it adds higher image quality, fast focusing, and better
> viewfinder (for some circumstances at least).
>
> Dave
The point is that a camera could be built to provide the same quality,
and features, without the need for a mirror, and the weight and bulk it
implies. I MUCH prefer optical viewfinders, but some seem to consider
EVF an advantage because of the information about the picture they can
display on it.
If all of the things you mention are in a dSLR, there is no reason they
can't be put in a non-slr camera of the same price range.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:24:48 AM

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

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c94b21cf7eba9e998972f@news.individual.NET...
> What is broken on your 717???

It got dropped (from only knee-height), and now it won't focus in any of the
photo modes. I believe part of the focusing mechanism, a physical gear-tooth
interface, is broken, from the sounds and manual focus behavior.

> I have the 717 and over-all the 717 is the best 5mp camera I have ever
used.

Yes, it is a great camera. I've taken many outdoor shots that would be hard
for me to believe could be much better for normal 4x6 printing. I've also
printed numerous 8.5x11's which made perfect Christmas presents -
thoughtful, beautiful, and invariably appreciated.

> If you really USE the swivel head on the camera, then get the 717 repaired
if
> its affordable, or pick up a used 828, it IS an improvement over the 717
in
> MANY ways (faster shutter release, REAL manual zoom, higher resolution) it
> just isnt all it should have been.

Regarding the 828... I'm ready to kick the quality of my pictures up a
notch. The 717 has given me such wonderful results that I'm now willing to
spend more on my equipment. Not $8000, but maybe as much as $3000. This
means the smaller CCD's aren't an option for me. I don't particularly care
about whether or not the camera is a true DSLR, but I do want a CMOS sensor.
The low-light performace of the 717 I find unacceptable; I'm not about to
slide back another stop in sensitivity for an extra 3MP. Sensitvity is one
of the reasons I've been strongly considering the 20D.

> I watch Sony very closely and have seen no sign of a replacement for the
828
> forthcoming. (no insode rumors among employees ect.) This is NOT a good
siqn.
<...>
> Sony is too busy selling sensors to other camera companies to be bothered
> developing anything GREAT

Actualy I happen to know that the two-tone black and silver 939 is due in
spring and will use either a 10 or 12 MP CMOS. This is unoffocial
information, though, so take the release date with a grain of salt. But I do
believe it's only a matter of time until you eat those last words, possibly
to our mutual delight.

Given the counsel of the other posters, "no DSLR's have a swivel LCD", I
guess I will probably have to stick with Sony for now. If the 939 takes a
microdrive and has much lower noise, I think I can live with that.

Thanks to everyone who responded,
Anna
!