Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why can't the digital-camera makers get the ergonomics rig..

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:55:15 PM

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

Having just adopted two kittens, I have been thinking about a new digital
camera for taking kitten pictures. I already have an Olympus C-3030Z and a
Canon S110, and although they are both fine cameras, they are also seriously
flawed in comparison to my film SLR cameras.

Here are some of the problems I've observed:

1) Focus is much too slow and imprecise. I cannot select a small area and
say "focus on that, please." Even if I could, focusing takes too long. My
film SLRs are much faster.

2) Not sensitive enough. If I select ISO 400 (on the Olympus), I can use
f/2.8 and almost get a fast enough shutter speed for indoors without flash,
but 400 is pretty grainy and "almost" is a polite way of saying "not". I
can put an f/1.4 lens on my film SLR...

3) OK, so I can use flash. But when I do, the camera always gives two
flashes in quick succession, giving the kittens enough time to close their
eyes.

So the obvious solution is to buy a digital SLR. There is even a nice one
on the market that will take my existing film SLR lenses. Not only that,
but I am led to believe that I should be able to get results at ISO 800 that
are as good as I can get with film at ISO 400. What's the problem?

There are three. One is well known: The sensor is smaller than 35mm, so I
give up wide-angle capability. But even if I'm willing to live with that,
there are two other problems:

1) The finder has the same absolute magnification as the finder in my film
SLR. That means that the image I see through the finder--the image I use to
compose the picture--is 1.5 times smaller than the image I would see when
using filim. I guess that if they increased the finder magnification,
they'd lose brightness--but I'd be willing to live with that to avoid the
tunnel vision I get now.

2) Dust is inevitable, and I appear to have the choice of sending the camera
back for cleaning every so often, or doing it myself and voiding the
warranty.

You're going to say: Why not buy an Olympus DSLR? They claim to have solved
the dust problem, and maybe their finders are better. But the Olympus'
smaller sensor results in reduced performance, and I would have to buy all
new lenses.

The other alternative I've considered is one of the ZLRs with an electronic
viewfinder. But those all have significant time delay compared to a real
optical finder, and again that delay is significant when dealing with
kittens.

Are there any other possible ideas I've missed? Or do I just continue to
wait until someone gets it right?
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:55:16 PM

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

Andrew Koenig wrote:
> Having just adopted two kittens, I have been thinking about a new digital
> camera for taking kitten pictures. I already have an Olympus C-3030Z and a
> Canon S110, and although they are both fine cameras, they are also seriously
> flawed in comparison to my film SLR cameras.
>
> Here are some of the problems I've observed:
>
> 1) Focus is much too slow and imprecise. I cannot select a small area and
> say "focus on that, please." Even if I could, focusing takes too long. My
> film SLRs are much faster.
>
> 2) Not sensitive enough. If I select ISO 400 (on the Olympus), I can use
> f/2.8 and almost get a fast enough shutter speed for indoors without flash,
> but 400 is pretty grainy and "almost" is a polite way of saying "not". I
> can put an f/1.4 lens on my film SLR...
>
> 3) OK, so I can use flash. But when I do, the camera always gives two
> flashes in quick succession, giving the kittens enough time to close their
> eyes.
>
> So the obvious solution is to buy a digital SLR. There is even a nice one
> on the market that will take my existing film SLR lenses. Not only that,
> but I am led to believe that I should be able to get results at ISO 800 that
> are as good as I can get with film at ISO 400. What's the problem?
>
> There are three. One is well known: The sensor is smaller than 35mm, so I
> give up wide-angle capability. But even if I'm willing to live with that,
> there are two other problems:
>
> 1) The finder has the same absolute magnification as the finder in my film
> SLR. That means that the image I see through the finder--the image I use to
> compose the picture--is 1.5 times smaller than the image I would see when
> using filim. I guess that if they increased the finder magnification,
> they'd lose brightness--but I'd be willing to live with that to avoid the
> tunnel vision I get now.
>
> 2) Dust is inevitable, and I appear to have the choice of sending the camera
> back for cleaning every so often, or doing it myself and voiding the
> warranty.
>
> You're going to say: Why not buy an Olympus DSLR? They claim to have solved
> the dust problem, and maybe their finders are better. But the Olympus'
> smaller sensor results in reduced performance, and I would have to buy all
> new lenses.
>
> The other alternative I've considered is one of the ZLRs with an electronic
> viewfinder. But those all have significant time delay compared to a real
> optical finder, and again that delay is significant when dealing with
> kittens.
>
> Are there any other possible ideas I've missed? Or do I just continue to
> wait until someone gets it right?

You have a great reason to justify going out and buying a new camera,
enjoy it. I have the 20D and love it, get the 50mm 1.8 lens shoot at
ISO 1600 and you should have no problems.

As for dust, this is really not a problem for most people. In the 6
months that I have had the 20D it got small bits of dust on it twice,
once in the first month and once in the second. Time to clean the dust
off was less then a minute each time.

Scott
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:55:16 PM

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

Andrew Koenig wrote:
> Having just adopted two kittens, I have been thinking about a new digital
> camera for taking kitten pictures. I already have an Olympus C-3030Z and a
> Canon S110, and although they are both fine cameras, they are also seriously
> flawed in comparison to my film SLR cameras.
>
> Here are some of the problems I've observed:
>
> 1) Focus is much too slow and imprecise. I cannot select a small area and
> say "focus on that, please." Even if I could, focusing takes too long. My
> film SLRs are much faster.
>
> 2) Not sensitive enough. If I select ISO 400 (on the Olympus), I can use
> f/2.8 and almost get a fast enough shutter speed for indoors without flash,
> but 400 is pretty grainy and "almost" is a polite way of saying "not". I
> can put an f/1.4 lens on my film SLR...
>
> 3) OK, so I can use flash. But when I do, the camera always gives two
> flashes in quick succession, giving the kittens enough time to close their
> eyes.
>
> So the obvious solution is to buy a digital SLR. There is even a nice one
> on the market that will take my existing film SLR lenses. Not only that,
> but I am led to believe that I should be able to get results at ISO 800 that
> are as good as I can get with film at ISO 400. What's the problem?
>
> There are three. One is well known: The sensor is smaller than 35mm, so I
> give up wide-angle capability. But even if I'm willing to live with that,
> there are two other problems:
>
> 1) The finder has the same absolute magnification as the finder in my film
> SLR. That means that the image I see through the finder--the image I use to
> compose the picture--is 1.5 times smaller than the image I would see when
> using filim. I guess that if they increased the finder magnification,
> they'd lose brightness--but I'd be willing to live with that to avoid the
> tunnel vision I get now.
>
> 2) Dust is inevitable, and I appear to have the choice of sending the camera
> back for cleaning every so often, or doing it myself and voiding the
> warranty.
>
> You're going to say: Why not buy an Olympus DSLR? They claim to have solved
> the dust problem, and maybe their finders are better. But the Olympus'
> smaller sensor results in reduced performance, and I would have to buy all
> new lenses.
>
> The other alternative I've considered is one of the ZLRs with an electronic
> viewfinder. But those all have significant time delay compared to a real
> optical finder, and again that delay is significant when dealing with
> kittens.
>
> Are there any other possible ideas I've missed? Or do I just continue to
> wait until someone gets it right?

Yes you've missed an idea or two at least. Here's the deal: you don't
want to deal with dust or lack of a WYSIWYG preview of the DSLRs, but
you want a highly responsive digital camera that's fast to focus and
has a good ISO range and low noise, and the obvious answer is the
latest Fuji's P&S cameras. If you just want an automatic JPEG P&S
camera the F10 has been getting rave reviews and you can shoot at ISO
1600.

Here's a pic of a kitten at ISO 1600
http://tinyurl.com/8vjus

Here's from a professional review "... The Fujifilm F10 surprised us
with an overall manual ISO noise score of 11.42. Most compact models
score in the 4-5 range on this test, so to reach this level is pretty
unbelievable. Images are virtually noise-free and they rival SLR
photos. The F10 displayed less noise using its ISO 1600 then any camera
released this year that we have tested at ISO 400 (including the Canon
PowerShot SD500, the Konica Minolta Z5 (at ISO 320), the Kodak Z740,
Panasonic FZ5, etc.). it is truly unbelievable!" "The F10 produced the
fastest startup time of a compact digital camera that we've tested. "
" Shutter to Shot (8.89) Photographers who are tired of slow shutter
lag will appreciate the F10, which only takes .01 seconds from the time
the shutter button is released to the time the exposure is captured.
Very impressive for a compact camera!"
http://tinyurl.com/bmsrs

And here are the reviews http://www.dcviews.com/_fuji/f10.htm
Related resources
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:06:09 PM

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

Andrew Koenig wrote:
> Having just adopted two kittens, I have been thinking about a new
> digital camera for taking kitten pictures. I already have an Olympus
> C-3030Z and a Canon S110, and although they are both fine cameras,
> they are also seriously flawed in comparison to my film SLR cameras.
>

The features you want in a point and shoot have only recently become
available in the better newer dSLR's. They are starting to appear in the
digital point and shoots, so give them another 6 months or so and you should
start finding most of them.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:13:32 PM

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

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B1Wte.1939$IL3.1712@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

> The features you want in a point and shoot have only recently become
> available in the better newer dSLR's. They are starting to appear in the
> digital point and shoots, so give them another 6 months or so and you
> should start finding most of them.

The kittens will be almost full grown by then :-)
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:18:05 PM

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

"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote in
news:nTVte.344216$cg1.47058@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Having just adopted two kittens, I have been thinking about a new
> digital camera for taking kitten pictures. I already have an Olympus
> C-3030Z and a Canon S110, and although they are both fine cameras,
> they are also seriously flawed in comparison to my film SLR cameras.

Consumer grade point and shoot cameras have fewer features than pro SLRs?

Whod'a thunk it.

BTW - you leave out just what brand of lenses you already own, making it
pretty well impossible to make any recommendations for a solution.

<snip>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:31:03 PM

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

"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967C68CFF72B4ericvgillyahoocom@208.49.80.124...

> Consumer grade point and shoot cameras have fewer features than pro SLRs?

> Whod'a thunk it.

Nope, it's not features that are the issue; it's ergonomics.

Why is there not one single digital P+S with a finder anywhere near as good
as many 35mm P+S cameras?

(I know part of the answer -- in an effort to make the camera small, they've
made the finder small too. But not all digital P+S cameras are small.)
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 9:10:06 PM

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

"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote in
news:XoWte.344288$cg1.103395@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns967C68CFF72B4ericvgillyahoocom@208.49.80.124...
>
>> Consumer grade point and shoot cameras have fewer features than pro
>> SLRs?
>
>> Whod'a thunk it.
>
> Nope, it's not features that are the issue; it's ergonomics.

No, actually, it's the features.

Consumers will buy one set of features, professionals another.

Whether or not that's reality, that is definately the perception from the
marketing departments of the major manufacturers, and ultimately they
control what gets released.

> Why is there not one single digital P+S with a finder anywhere near as
> good as many 35mm P+S cameras?

Because your average consumer hates the optical finder and would rather
shoot through the LCD. I'm surprised they even bother to include them
anymore.

<snip>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 9:12:50 PM

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

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119372366.077959.278630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Here's from a professional review "... The Fujifilm F10 surprised us
> with an overall manual ISO noise score of 11.42. Most compact models
> score in the 4-5 range on this test, so to reach this level is pretty
> unbelievable....

Indeed, I have heard good things about it. But it has no optical viewfinder
at all!
Also, I'm disappointed in the amount of purple fringing I've seen in
reviews.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 1:47:36 AM

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

"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967C7BCDCCA9Bericvgillyahoocom@208.49.80.60...

> Because your average consumer hates the optical finder and would rather
> shoot through the LCD. I'm surprised they even bother to include them
> anymore.

And how does "your average consumer" see anything useful in the LCD on a
half bright day, let alone a bright day? I can't...

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 4:15:15 AM

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

"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:
> Having just adopted two kittens, I have been thinking about a new digital
> camera for taking kitten pictures. I already have an Olympus C-3030Z and
> a Canon S110, and although they are both fine cameras, they are also
> seriously flawed in comparison to my film SLR cameras.
>
> Here are some of the problems I've observed:
>
> 1) Focus is much too slow and imprecise. I cannot select a small area and
> say "focus on that, please." Even if I could, focusing takes too long.
> My film SLRs are much faster.
>
> 2) Not sensitive enough. If I select ISO 400 (on the Olympus), I can use
> f/2.8 and almost get a fast enough shutter speed for indoors without
> flash, but 400 is pretty grainy and "almost" is a polite way of saying
> "not". I can put an f/1.4 lens on my film SLR...

Sheesh. This is seriously old news. So buy a dSLR already. ISO 1600 on the
70D or 350D is better than ISO 400 on the consumer cameras (except maybe the
F10, and there I wonder if they're doing in-camera noise reduction) and the
AF is the same as the film SLRs.

> So the obvious solution is to buy a digital SLR. There is even a nice one
> on the market that will take my existing film SLR lenses. Not only that,
> but I am led to believe that I should be able to get results at ISO 800
> that are as good as I can get with film at ISO 400. What's the problem?
>
> There are three. One is well known: The sensor is smaller than 35mm, so I
> give up wide-angle capability.

So buy a dedicated wide angle lens: the 10-22 for Canon or 12-24 for Nikon.
Both are _very_ nice lenses. (Most people really like it that their
telephotos got longer.)

> 1) The finder has the same absolute magnification as the finder in my film
> SLR. That means that the image I see through the finder--the image I use
> to compose the picture--is 1.5 times smaller than the image I would see
> when using filim. I guess that if they increased the finder
> magnification, they'd lose brightness--but I'd be willing to live with
> that to avoid the tunnel vision I get now.

Get over it. (Seriously, you'll get used to it.)

> 2) Dust is inevitable, and I appear to have the choice of sending the
> camera back for cleaning every so often, or doing it myself and voiding
> the warranty.

Use canned air to charge a clean nylon brush. It doesn't void the warranty.
(Also, the dust isn't as bad a problem as some would have you think.
(Aparently is is, though, on the 1Ds and 1Dsmk2.))

Directions at: http://www.prime-junta.tk/

> Are there any other possible ideas I've missed? Or do I just continue to
> wait until someone gets it right?

My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x camera
for US$2000, and Canon will have a full-frame for US$3000 about the same
time.

But the 6 and 8MP cameras make very nice A4 prints, even at ISO 1600. (The
first time I printed out an ISO 1600 image at A4, I was shocked.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 4:15:16 AM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 99aub$lvb$1@nnrp.gol.com...

> Sheesh. This is seriously old news. So buy a dSLR already. ISO 1600 on the
> 70D or 350D is better than ISO 400 on the consumer cameras (except maybe
> the F10, and there I wonder if they're doing in-camera noise reduction)
> and the AF is the same as the film SLRs.

Yes, that's what I said.

>> So the obvious solution is to buy a digital SLR. There is even a nice
>> one on the market that will take my existing film SLR lenses. Not only
>> that, but I am led to believe that I should be able to get results at ISO
>> 800 that are as good as I can get with film at ISO 400. What's the
>> problem?
>>
>> There are three. One is well known: The sensor is smaller than 35mm, so
>> I give up wide-angle capability.

> So buy a dedicated wide angle lens: the 10-22 for Canon or 12-24 for
> Nikon. Both are _very_ nice lenses. (Most people really like it that their
> telephotos got longer.)

As I said, this issue isn't a deal-breaker--but I should point out that even
if we stick with Nikon, the 12-24 on a DSLR won't go as wide as Nikon's 14mm
on a film SLR.

>> 1) The finder has the same absolute magnification as the finder in my
>> film SLR. That means that the image I see through the finder--the image
>> I use to compose the picture--is 1.5 times smaller than the image I would
>> see when using filim. I guess that if they increased the finder
>> magnification, they'd lose brightness--but I'd be willing to live with
>> that to avoid the tunnel vision I get now.

> Get over it. (Seriously, you'll get used to it.)

That's the difference between working around a bug and fixing it.

>> 2) Dust is inevitable, and I appear to have the choice of sending the
>> camera back for cleaning every so often, or doing it myself and voiding
>> the warranty.

> Use canned air to charge a clean nylon brush. It doesn't void the
> warranty. (Also, the dust isn't as bad a problem as some would have you
> think. (Aparently is is, though, on the 1Ds and 1Dsmk2.))

So is it or isn't it?

>> Are there any other possible ideas I've missed? Or do I just continue to
>> wait until someone gets it right?

> My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x camera
> for US$2000, and Canon will have a full-frame for US$3000 about the same
> time.

I don't care much about number of pixels. I do care about the finder -- at
least for me, the finder influences how I compose pictures.

If Nikon's new camera has a better finder, I'll probably buy one. But right
now, every time I pick up my F100, I marvel at how much more pleasant it is
to use than the D70 I tried.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 4:15:17 AM

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:28:41 +0000, Andrew Koenig wrote:

>
> As I said, this issue isn't a deal-breaker--but I should point out that even
> if we stick with Nikon, the 12-24 on a DSLR won't go as wide as Nikon's 14mm
> on a film SLR.
Get a wider lens.
>
>>> 1) The finder has the same absolute magnification as the finder in my
>>> film SLR. That means that the image I see through the finder--the image
>>> I use to compose the picture--is 1.5 times smaller than the image I would
>>> see when using filim. I guess that if they increased the finder
>>> magnification, they'd lose brightness--but I'd be willing to live with
>>> that to avoid the tunnel vision I get now.
>
>> Get over it. (Seriously, you'll get used to it.)
>
> That's the difference between working around a bug and fixing it.
On my 350 it seems the same as I use to get on my Olympus SLRs.
>
>>> 2) Dust is inevitable, and I appear to have the choice of sending the
>>> camera back for cleaning every so often, or doing it myself and voiding
>>> the warranty.
You get dust with film and don't forget the tramlines from labs heavy
handling.
>
>> Use canned air to charge a clean nylon brush. It doesn't void the
>> warranty. (Also, the dust isn't as bad a problem as some would have you
>> think. (Aparently is is, though, on the 1Ds and 1Dsmk2.))
>
> So is it or isn't it?
>
>>> Are there any other possible ideas I've missed? Or do I just continue
>>> to wait until someone gets it right?
>
>> My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x
>> camera for US$2000, and Canon will have a full-frame for US$3000 about
>> the same time.
>
> I don't care much about number of pixels. I do care about the finder --
> at least for me, the finder influences how I compose pictures.
>
> If Nikon's new camera has a better finder, I'll probably buy one. But
> right now, every time I pick up my F100, I marvel at how much more
> pleasant it is to use than the D70 I tried.
That is just personal preference in action.
--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:21:17 AM

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

"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:
>
> If Nikon's new camera has a better finder, I'll probably buy one. But
> right now, every time I pick up my F100, I marvel at how much more
> pleasant it is to use than the D70 I tried.

The F100 has what is, to the best of my knowledge, the best finder of any
camera ever made. OM-1, FM3, Contax Aria, every Canon ever made, every MF
SLR ever made; none are even close. And don't get me started on the medium
format rangefinders.

If you insist that your next camera has as good a finder as the F100, you'll
never buy another camera.

(When I got back into film photography 4 years ago, I looked at a lot of
cameras. The F100 really is seriously amazingly wonderful and a lot more
than head and shoulders above everything else I considered.)

Anyway, I think you are overreacting to the dSLR viewfinders. Some of the
best photos in history were composed on hopelessly dim ground glass upside
down (or left-to-right reversed), or with the totally useless viewfinder in
the pre-M Leicas. The dSLRs get enough right that it's worth it to put up
with a couple of irritations here and there.

Also, get a cheap and light body (e.g. F65) for you 14mm lens. Not that much
heavier than the lens alone. You don't have to use digital for everything.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:21:18 AM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 99er8$o4d$1@nnrp.gol.com...

> The F100 has what is, to the best of my knowledge, the best finder of any
> camera ever made. OM-1, FM3, Contax Aria, every Canon ever made, every MF
> SLR ever made; none are even close. And don't get me started on the medium
> format rangefinders.

The Fuji GW690 has an excellent finder, also.

> If you insist that your next camera has as good a finder as the F100,
> you'll never buy another camera.

I don't insist that it be as good, but I"m looking for one that is at least
in the same league.

> (When I got back into film photography 4 years ago, I looked at a lot of
> cameras. The F100 really is seriously amazingly wonderful and a lot more
> than head and shoulders above everything else I considered.)

Yeah, I know; I've been spoiled :-)

> Anyway, I think you are overreacting to the dSLR viewfinders. Some of the
> best photos in history were composed on hopelessly dim ground glass upside
> down (or left-to-right reversed), or with the totally useless viewfinder
> in the pre-M Leicas. The dSLRs get enough right that it's worth it to put
> up with a couple of irritations here and there.

Maybe. But I would really hate to buy a D70s and have Nikon release a new
one in a few months with more sensible finder magnification.

> Also, get a cheap and light body (e.g. F65) for you 14mm lens. Not that
> much heavier than the lens alone. You don't have to use digital for
> everything.

Understood.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:21:19 AM

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

In article <eQXte.344496$cg1.33440@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Andrew Koenig <ark@acm.org> wrote:
>Maybe. But I would really hate to buy a D70s and have Nikon release a new
>one in a few months with more sensible finder magnification.

The model that Nikon is supposed to announce soon is the replacement for the
D100. I doubt that Nikon will release a consumer camera with a better finder
than the D2X. I don't know how big the gap is between the finders of the
D70 and D2X. If the gap is big enough, Nikon may create a finder that is
somewhat in between.

The big question is whether Nikon will develop a new body for the consumer
DSLRs, or whether they will keep using F80 derived models.

I guess that Nikon will keep the F80 body in the 'D200' if there are
going to be significant improvements to the sensor.

If the sensor is not really better than the 20D, Nikon may try to create
something semi-professional.

I have a D1, and the finder doesn't get in the way. But I don't have a
good idea how the D70 compares to the D1.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:21:20 AM

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

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:5odjgs6uft4u2591e5i8oil4k2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <eQXte.344496$cg1.33440@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

> I have a D1, and the finder doesn't get in the way. But I don't have a
> good idea how the D70 compares to the D1.

The key number is the focal length at which the image in the finder has as
much magnification as a direct view of the subject.

For the F100, that number is 75mm. For some earlier, manual-focus Nikons,
the number is even less, around 65-70mm.

For the D70, that number is *also* 75mm. To be the same in practical use as
the F100, it would have to be 50mm, which is a big difference. For the D2X
and D2HS, it's 58mm, which is almost there. I can't find the specs for the
D100.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:21:21 AM

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

In article <9FYte.344637$cg1.228256@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Andrew Koenig <ark@acm.org> wrote:
>"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
>news:5odjgs6uft4u2591e5i8oil4k2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
>> In article <eQXte.344496$cg1.33440@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>
>> I have a D1, and the finder doesn't get in the way. But I don't have a
>> good idea how the D70 compares to the D1.
>
>The key number is the focal length at which the image in the finder has as
>much magnification as a direct view of the subject.
>
>For the F100, that number is 75mm. For some earlier, manual-focus Nikons,
>the number is even less, around 65-70mm.
>
>For the D70, that number is *also* 75mm. To be the same in practical use as
>the F100, it would have to be 50mm, which is a big difference.

This doesn't make much sense to me. You start with 'The key number is the
focal length' and 'For the D70, that number is *also* 75mm [...] it would
have to be 50mm'.

Either the focal length is a key number or, you can just call it magnification
as just about everybody else does.

(How do you compute this focal length from the magnification?)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:21:22 AM

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

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:ahjsnkk6lcq6aostnm3l5l5td7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...

> This doesn't make much sense to me. You start with 'The key number is the
> focal length' and 'For the D70, that number is *also* 75mm [...] it would
> have to be 50mm'.

> Either the focal length is a key number or, you can just call it
> magnification
> as just about everybody else does.

> (How do you compute this focal length from the magnification?)

Nikon's specs for the D70 (and F100) say that the finder magnification is
0.75x with a 50mm lens. That means that for 1.0x finder magnification, I'd
have to use a 67mm lens. a number I get by dividing 50mm by 0.75. (I
misspoke before when I said 75mm).

That means that when I look into the finder, the image I see occupies as
much of my field of view as the camera can capture with a 67mm lens.

An F100 has a substantially wider field of view with a 67mm lens than a D70
has. Accordingly, its finder image looks that much bigger through the
eyepiece.

For the D2 cameras, that 0.75x becomes 0.86x, so the 67mm becomes 58mm
(50mm/0.86).
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:21:22 AM

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

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
> This doesn't make much sense to me. You start with 'The key number is the
> focal length' and 'For the D70, that number is *also* 75mm [...] it would
> have to be 50mm'.
>
> Either the focal length is a key number or, you can just call it
> magnification as just about everybody else does.

The D70 has the same viewfinder as the F80, except the edges are
masked off. The viewfinder magnification is the same. The D70 just
has a narrower field of of view. You see a smaller rectangle in the
viewfinder. It's cropped just like the APS-sized sensor crops away
part of the full-frame 35mm image coming from the lens. Does this
explain it?
June 22, 2005 5:21:23 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xbr5zuy30.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
>> This doesn't make much sense to me. You start with 'The key number is the
>> focal length' and 'For the D70, that number is *also* 75mm [...] it would
>> have to be 50mm'.
>>
>> Either the focal length is a key number or, you can just call it
>> magnification as just about everybody else does.
>
> The D70 has the same viewfinder as the F80, except the edges are
> masked off. The viewfinder magnification is the same. The D70 just
> has a narrower field of of view. You see a smaller rectangle in the
> viewfinder. It's cropped just like the APS-sized sensor crops away
> part of the full-frame 35mm image coming from the lens. Does this
> explain it?

It also explains why the Pentax *ist D and *ist DS have better finders as
their pentaprisms were optimized for the APC-C format.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 1:12:59 PM

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

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>>
>> The D70 has the same viewfinder as the F80, except the edges are
>> masked off. The viewfinder magnification is the same. The D70 just
>> has a narrower field of of view. You see a smaller rectangle in the
>> viewfinder. It's cropped just like the APS-sized sensor crops away
>> part of the full-frame 35mm image coming from the lens. Does this
>> explain it?
>
> It also explains why the Pentax *ist D and *ist DS have better finders as
> their pentaprisms were optimized for the APC-C format.

And explains why I don't mind the D70 finder: my glasses prevent me from
seeing the whole frame with many SLRs, so being able to compose without
moving my head to see what's happening in the corners is a pleasure.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 1:26:20 PM

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

In article <d9aclr$m5$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>>>
>>> The D70 has the same viewfinder as the F80, except the edges are
>>> masked off. The viewfinder magnification is the same. The D70 just
>>> has a narrower field of of view. You see a smaller rectangle in the
>>> viewfinder. It's cropped just like the APS-sized sensor crops away
>>> part of the full-frame 35mm image coming from the lens. Does this
>>> explain it?
>>
>> It also explains why the Pentax *ist D and *ist DS have better finders as
>> their pentaprisms were optimized for the APC-C format.
>
>And explains why I don't mind the D70 finder: my glasses prevent me from
>seeing the whole frame with many SLRs, so being able to compose without
>moving my head to see what's happening in the corners is a pleasure.

Even without glasses I have to same problem with an FE2 (compared to a F3HP):
the field of view of the FE2 is simply to big to see the entrie image.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 1:29:05 PM

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

In article <7xbr5zuy30.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
>> This doesn't make much sense to me. You start with 'The key number is the
>> focal length' and 'For the D70, that number is *also* 75mm [...] it would
>> have to be 50mm'.
>>
>> Either the focal length is a key number or, you can just call it
>> magnification as just about everybody else does.
>
>The D70 has the same viewfinder as the F80, except the edges are
>masked off. The viewfinder magnification is the same. The D70 just
>has a narrower field of of view. You see a smaller rectangle in the
>viewfinder. It's cropped just like the APS-sized sensor crops away
>part of the full-frame 35mm image coming from the lens. Does this
>explain it?

It seems to me that field of view is the relevant parameter. But
I don't know how you should compute that from frame size and view finder
magnification.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 1:29:06 PM

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

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
> It seems to me that field of view is the relevant parameter. But
> I don't know how you should compute that from frame size and view finder
> magnification.

You also need the apparent distance of the focusing screen from the
eyepiece. It is the same between the D70 and F80.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 1:47:51 PM

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

Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:

> The model that Nikon is supposed to announce soon is the replacement
> for the D100. I doubt that Nikon will release a consumer camera with
> a better finder than the D2X. I don't know how big the gap is
> between the finders of the D70 and D2X.

The gap is enormous. To my eye, the finder of the D2x is no worse
than the F100. It might depend on whether you wear glasses or not: I
do, and if the image size of the D2x were much larger I wouldn't be
able to see it all without removing my glasses.

Andrew.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 8:49:59 PM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xacli75bi.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

> You also need the apparent distance of the focusing screen from the
> eyepiece. It is the same between the D70 and F80.

Naah -- all you need is the (taking lens) focal length at which the image
seen through the finder is the same size as the actual subject--or,
equivalently, the apparent magnification at a given focal length. Nikon
publishes the latter for some of their cameras.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 10:11:43 PM

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

In article <7xacli75bi.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
>> It seems to me that field of view is the relevant parameter. But
>> I don't know how you should compute that from frame size and view finder
>> magnification.
>
>You also need the apparent distance of the focusing screen from the
>eyepiece. It is the same between the D70 and F80.

Is that an important parameter? For constant field of view does the apparent
brightness depend on the apparent distance?


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
June 28, 2005 12:44:35 AM

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

>My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x camera
>for US$2000, and Canon will have a full-frame for US$3000 about the same
>time.

I wouldn't bet on it. Canon 1Ds's (!) prices haven't budget a cent
since 1Ds release in 2002.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 3:50:10 AM

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

"JónR" <jonragnarsson@gmail.com> writes:

>>My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x camera
>>for US$2000, and Canon will have a full-frame for US$3000 about the same
>>time.
>
> I wouldn't bet on it. Canon 1Ds's (!) prices haven't budget a cent
> since 1Ds release in 2002.

Well, I wouldn't bet on anything in this area either; DSLR pricing
depends on far too many things I don't know enough about.

However, I would point out that the 1Ds has been sitting pretty as the
only game in town for certain uses for some time, which could explain
the price stability in a field where prices usually fall. The Nikon
D2x may change that a little bit; further interesting releases from
Nikon could change that considerably. Canon probably has considerable
room for price motion on their high end by now, they just have no
incentive to give up profit. Competition would be to the benefit of
the consumers!
--
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
June 28, 2005 8:56:22 PM

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

John McWilliams wrote:
> GD wrote:
> >>>My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x camera
> >>>for US$2000, and Canon will have a full-frame for US$3000 about the same
> >>>time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Whats the point where more megapixels dont give any more real
> > resolution because lenses cant be manufactured to that high
> > quality in commercial quantities, or that they become diffraction
> > limited?
>
> And just how close to that point do you figure we are??
>
> --
>
> John McWilliams
>
> I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
> not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 11:07:23 PM

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

>>My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x camera
>>for US$2000, and Canon will have a full-frame for US$3000 about the same
>>time.


Whats the point where more megapixels dont give any more real
resolution because lenses cant be manufactured to that high
quality in commercial quantities, or that they become diffraction
limited?
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 11:07:24 PM

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

GD wrote:
>>>My bet is that by this time next year, Nikon will have a 12MP 1.5x camera
>>>for US$2000, and Canon will have a full-frame for US$3000 about the same
>>>time.
>
>
>
> Whats the point where more megapixels dont give any more real
> resolution because lenses cant be manufactured to that high
> quality in commercial quantities, or that they become diffraction
> limited?

And just how close to that point do you figure we are??

--

John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
!