Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What's non-DSLR future? e.g., Sony updates F828?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 3:02:44 AM

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

Non-DSLRs seem to be heading in new directions such as the Canon S2 IS
and the Sony DSC H1. Longer is better, mpeg movies are in, etc.
Meanwhile, the price gap between higher end digicams and DSLRs
continues to shrink.

Yet, for straight up still photography, cameras like the Sony F828 (OR
Oly 8080) offer a decent alternative to DSLRs, especially as a
smaller, lighter "take more often" camera. Lots of pixels, great
picture quality, excellent non-plasticy build, (just like the good old
35mm days) and a handy combination of zoom and features with a top
quality lense. Maybe DoF contol will never happen due to sensor size,
but OK.

Everyone here knows what you give up vs. a DSLR but, pro v. con, the
SIZE of the package is a real incentive. Check out Fig. 1 on this web
page to see a side by side comparison of the size of an F828 v. a
Canon 10D with "L" lenses.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony8...

No holy wars, please, but I really like the F828. But it'll be two
years next month since it was announced. Any visionaries out there
care to comment on the likelihood of Sony (or even Olympus, Canon,
etc.) introducing a newer, more refined version of this camera type in
the near future? Or do you think the market will begin to stratify
between more and more plasticy do-all D2 IS type cameras and better
designed (esp. smaller, better build qualtiy like the old Pentaxes, or
the Nikon FMs) DSLRs
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 3:02:45 AM

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

"Tom McMahon" <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8aptc1p415u27il0cs3mi5m00k375h0023@4ax.com...
> Non-DSLRs seem to be heading in new directions such as the Canon S2 IS
> and the Sony DSC H1. Longer is better, mpeg movies are in, etc.
> Meanwhile, the price gap between higher end digicams and DSLRs
> continues to shrink.
>
dSLR will likely be dead if two current in-design technologies end up being
what hypothesis said they would. The first and probably last to get
completed (to shelft) is the liquid gas lens Phillips introduced at the PMA
before last. They estimated a 5-year development to shelf period. That
leaves 3 years to go. If rumour is correct (hahahah) then several of the
large (but not biggest) digi cam and digi camcorder companies have partnered
in the R&D of the same for rights if it all comes to fruition.

The second is the Samsung (chock, chock I know) senor that is appearently
close to release for inclusion in digital cams/corders, cell phones and
hand held devices. The sensor is appearenly a fraction of the height of
existing sensors, somewhat smaller but equal or better in performance and
end result (naturally the lens will play a large part, but referring to the
noise per ISO setting) and equally good news is this new sensor is
drastically cheaper to produce. If all is as advertised than even full
featured digicams should be able to be built a lot smaller and cost the
consumer a lot less.

I'm waiting to see though as it would not be the first time announcements
that sounded promising turned out to be air ware.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 3:02:45 AM

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

"Tom McMahon" <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8aptc1p415u27il0cs3mi5m00k375h0023@4ax.com...
> Non-DSLRs seem to be heading in new directions such as the Canon S2 IS
> and the Sony DSC H1. Longer is better, mpeg movies are in, etc.
> Meanwhile, the price gap between higher end digicams and DSLRs
> continues to shrink.
>
> Yet, for straight up still photography, cameras like the Sony F828 (OR
> Oly 8080) offer a decent alternative to DSLRs, especially as a
> smaller, lighter "take more often" camera. Lots of pixels, great
> picture quality, excellent non-plasticy build, (just like the good old
> 35mm days) and a handy combination of zoom and features with a top
> quality lense. Maybe DoF contol will never happen due to sensor size,
> but OK.
>
> Everyone here knows what you give up vs. a DSLR but, pro v. con, the
> SIZE of the package is a real incentive. Check out Fig. 1 on this web
> page to see a side by side comparison of the size of an F828 v. a
> Canon 10D with "L" lenses.
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony8...
>
> No holy wars, please, but I really like the F828. But it'll be two
> years next month since it was announced. Any visionaries out there
> care to comment on the likelihood of Sony (or even Olympus, Canon,
> etc.) introducing a newer, more refined version of this camera type in
> the near future? Or do you think the market will begin to stratify
> between more and more plasticy do-all D2 IS type cameras and better
> designed (esp. smaller, better build qualtiy like the old Pentaxes, or
> the Nikon FMs) DSLRs

No question, the F828 is a wonderful "Swiss Army Knife" type camera. I don't
know of any other camera that offers so many good tools, including built in
IR as the F828. But it isn't perfect, and if Sony could fix two issues, it
would be a true gem: noise and PF. Yes, bot can be dealt with now, but
wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to? And a better viewfinder and
faster AF would also be nice, but not as important as the previous two
issues. In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy my F828 as an adjunct to the
20D system I also use.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 3:02:45 AM

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

"Tom McMahon" <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8aptc1p415u27il0cs3mi5m00k375h0023@4ax.com...
> Non-DSLRs seem to be heading in new directions such as the Canon S2 IS
> and the Sony DSC H1. Longer is better, mpeg movies are in, etc.
> Meanwhile, the price gap between higher end digicams and DSLRs
> continues to shrink.
>
> Yet, for straight up still photography, cameras like the Sony F828 (OR
> Oly 8080) offer a decent alternative to DSLRs, especially as a
> smaller, lighter "take more often" camera. Lots of pixels, great
> picture quality, excellent non-plasticy build, (just like the good old
> 35mm days) and a handy combination of zoom and features with a top
> quality lense. Maybe DoF contol will never happen due to sensor size,
> but OK.
>
> Everyone here knows what you give up vs. a DSLR but, pro v. con, the
> SIZE of the package is a real incentive. Check out Fig. 1 on this web
> page to see a side by side comparison of the size of an F828 v. a
> Canon 10D with "L" lenses.
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony8...
>
> No holy wars, please, but I really like the F828. But it'll be two
> years next month since it was announced. Any visionaries out there
> care to comment on the likelihood of Sony (or even Olympus, Canon,
> etc.) introducing a newer, more refined version of this camera type in
> the near future? Or do you think the market will begin to stratify
> between more and more plasticy do-all D2 IS type cameras and better
> designed (esp. smaller, better build qualtiy like the old Pentaxes, or
> the Nikon FMs) DSLRs

Actually DSLRs are Dead. They are old school and soon only old-school
photographers will use them. Electronic viewfinders need improve only a tiny
bit to become superior to TTL viewfinders. EVFs have the advantage of
showing exactly what the sensor is seeing and more. If you think about it
the whole idea of flip up mirrors should soon be obsolete. What a waste of
time and hardware.

Modern digital cameras will move toward more built-in functionality on one
end and greater convenience on the other.

ER
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 3:02:46 AM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "Tom McMahon" <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:8aptc1p415u27il0cs3mi5m00k375h0023@4ax.com...
>
>>Non-DSLRs seem to be heading in new directions such as the Canon S2 IS
>>and the Sony DSC H1. Longer is better, mpeg movies are in, etc.
>>Meanwhile, the price gap between higher end digicams and DSLRs
>>continues to shrink.
>>
>
> dSLR will likely be dead if two current in-design technologies end up being
> what hypothesis said they would. The first and probably last to get
> completed (to shelft) is the liquid gas lens Phillips introduced at the PMA
> before last. They estimated a 5-year development to shelf period. That
> leaves 3 years to go. If rumour is correct (hahahah) then several of the
> large (but not biggest) digi cam and digi camcorder companies have partnered
> in the R&D of the same for rights if it all comes to fruition.

I read about this type of lens awhile ago. It was quite interesting.
From what I remember it mimicked the eyes of animals in the way it
functions. Gotta love technology. :) 

> The second is the Samsung (chock, chock I know) senor that is appearently
> close to release for inclusion in digital cams/corders, cell phones and
> hand held devices. The sensor is appearenly a fraction of the height of
> existing sensors, somewhat smaller but equal or better in performance and
> end result (naturally the lens will play a large part, but referring to the
> noise per ISO setting) and equally good news is this new sensor is
> drastically cheaper to produce. If all is as advertised than even full
> featured digicams should be able to be built a lot smaller and cost the
> consumer a lot less.
>
> I'm waiting to see though as it would not be the first time announcements
> that sounded promising turned out to be air ware.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>
>
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 6:42:24 AM

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

In article <MOGdnfFDjoDNs1LfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote:

> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> > "Tom McMahon" <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:8aptc1p415u27il0cs3mi5m00k375h0023@4ax.com...

>
> I read about this type of lens awhile ago. It was quite interesting.
> From what I remember it mimicked the eyes of animals in the way it
> functions. Gotta love technology. :) 

Until it makes you obsolete as well.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 6:42:25 AM

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

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:
> In article <MOGdnfFDjoDNs1LfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>>
>>>"Tom McMahon" <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:8aptc1p415u27il0cs3mi5m00k375h0023@4ax.com...
>
>
>>I read about this type of lens awhile ago. It was quite interesting.
>> From what I remember it mimicked the eyes of animals in the way it
>>functions. Gotta love technology. :) 
>
>
> Until it makes you obsolete as well.

Hell, I'm already obsolete.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 6:50:43 AM

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

In article <42cf396a_1@newsgate.x-privat.org>, "ER" <evad@dodgeit.com>
wrote:
>
> Actually DSLRs are Dead. They are old school and soon only old-school
> photographers will use them. Electronic viewfinders need improve only a tiny
> bit to become superior to TTL viewfinders. EVFs have the advantage of
> showing exactly what the sensor is seeing and more. If you think about it
> the whole idea of flip up mirrors should soon be obsolete. What a waste of
> time and hardware.
>
> Modern digital cameras will move toward more built-in functionality on one
> end and greater convenience on the other.
>
> ER

Since there is a lag time between what you see and your ability
to depress the shutter, lets do away with fingers and install
a probe directly into the photographers cerebral cortex. That way
we can boil down the so called creativity photographers think they have
to an instantaneous response. Lets make working as any kind of
professional completely free for that matter as thought of any kind
really doesn't belong to the user.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 6:50:44 AM

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

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:
> In article <42cf396a_1@newsgate.x-privat.org>, "ER" <evad@dodgeit.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Actually DSLRs are Dead. They are old school and soon only old-school
>>photographers will use them. Electronic viewfinders need improve only a tiny
>>bit to become superior to TTL viewfinders. EVFs have the advantage of
>>showing exactly what the sensor is seeing and more. If you think about it
>>the whole idea of flip up mirrors should soon be obsolete. What a waste of
>>time and hardware.
>>
>>Modern digital cameras will move toward more built-in functionality on one
>>end and greater convenience on the other.
>>
>>ER
>
>
> Since there is a lag time between what you see and your ability
> to depress the shutter, lets do away with fingers and install
> a probe directly into the photographers cerebral cortex. That way
> we can boil down the so called creativity photographers think they have
> to an instantaneous response. Lets make working as any kind of
> professional completely free for that matter as thought of any kind
> really doesn't belong to the user.

I'm sure the quick sketch artists said the same thing when those
new-fangled photographers came on the scene in the mid 1800's. ;) 
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:27:39 AM

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

BTW: Look for Sony to get into the DSLR market before long..

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
July 9, 2005 12:06:40 PM

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

"Mark Roberts" <mark@robertstech.com> wrote in message
news:D aobmm0232s@news3.newsguy.com...
> BTW: Look for Sony to get into the DSLR market before long..
>
They already are, D100, D70(s), 7D, *ist D/DS/DL
July 9, 2005 3:50:56 PM

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

Tom McMahon wrote:

> Yet, for straight up still photography, cameras like the Sony F828 (OR
> Oly 8080) offer a decent alternative to DSLRs, especially as a
> smaller, lighter "take more often" camera.

It's been pointed out to me that the F828 isn't a great example to use
in this part of the argument. The reason being that it's actually
24% _heavier_ than a 350D plus kit lens. Something like the K-M A200
is very convincing in the smaller/lighter stakes.

I'm surprised that we haven't seen a new 2/3 sensor yet. The 8MP
versions don't look all that great when compared to the smaller 7MP
sensors in eg the DSC-P200. If you could scale those 7MPs up to the
2/3 size you'd have a pretty handy 10MP camera.

I guess that the affordable DSLRs on one side and the tiny-sensor
big-zoom cameras on the other have put the squeeze on the market
for F828-like cameras.

- Len
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 5:21:08 PM

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

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:

>"Mark Roberts" <mark@robertstech.com> wrote in message
>news:D aobmm0232s@news3.newsguy.com...
>> BTW: Look for Sony to get into the DSLR market before long..
>>
>They already are, D100, D70(s), 7D, *ist D/DS/DL

I meant selling a complete DSLR under the Sony name.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 10:42:16 PM

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

Mark Roberts wrote:
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark Roberts" <mark@robertstech.com> wrote in message
>>news:D aobmm0232s@news3.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>BTW: Look for Sony to get into the DSLR market before long..
>>>
>>
>>They already are, D100, D70(s), 7D, *ist D/DS/DL
>
>
> I meant selling a complete DSLR under the Sony name.
>


I don't think they would do that. If they do, you'd have no choice but
to use 4/3 format and they need to develop a senor in that format first.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:00:24 PM

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

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:50:56 GMT, Leonard <user@example.net> wrote:


:It's been pointed out to me that the F828 isn't a great example to use
:in this part of the argument. The reason being that it's actually
:24% _heavier_ than a 350D plus kit lens. Something like the K-M A200
:is very convincing in the smaller/lighter stakes.

Because it's built much better. Haven't seen the 350 yet, but it looks
very cheap, and dpreview confirms as much. I know it's all about the
picture, but I just miss the solid feel of quality 35mm cameras that
is so often absent in new digicams. It's almost as if the big
manufacturers are thinking: "It really doesn't matter if this camera
doesn't hold up and won't take a few knocks, because even as we write
this that technology is already yesterday's news. "

:I guess that the affordable DSLRs on one side and the tiny-sensor
:big-zoom cameras on the other have put the squeeze on the market
:for F828-like cameras.

I fear you may be right, which is what got me thinking about this
topic to begin with. Once upon a time cameras were also quality
instruments that were a pleasure to hold and use. Oh well, have
plastic bumpers on my new SUV, too.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:29:50 PM

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

>"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
>news:MM6dnf2aH4i9p1LfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:
>> Until it makes you obsolete as well.
>
> Hell, I'm already obsolete.

heheehe, I think all us humans have been obsolete for a long time, it is
just that the techno devices are having too much fun watching us chase them
around hahaha.

That liquid gas lens is the size of a regular pencil eraser tip. It does
zoom and wide by one lever (control arm) attached to a very small electronic
board. If the user zooms the arm lifts so the lens' height is full, while
wide angle is a fully compressed lens. It all did sound interesting I just
hope it comes to fruition.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:34:01 PM

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

"ER" <evad@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:42cf396a_1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>
> Modern digital cameras will move toward more built-in functionality on one
> end and greater convenience on the other.
>
> ER
>

I hope so. I think the new sensor and lens technology being developed will
play a big part in making dSLR as we know it now obsolete. If you want super
zoom ?(like 1000mm+) you'll simply (in the future) be buying the pocketable
camera that has the larger/longer liquid gas lens and super small sensor
that performs as good as today's best dSLR sensors.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:36:05 PM

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

"Little Green Eyed Dragon"
> Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
> a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
> in the middle.

As long as you are not a rat or dragon it really should make no difference
which you see hahaha.

Though that would have to be one giant rat to eat a dragon, or one very tiny
dragon!

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:37:13 PM

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

"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
news:Ct-dnYkLl6xY3FLfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>
> I'm sure the quick sketch artists said the same thing when those
> new-fangled photographers came on the scene in the mid 1800's. ;) 
>
Yip, just like both Kodak and Fugi said Film would never die :-)

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 12:24:11 AM

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

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:02:44 GMT, Tom McMahon <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote:

>Non-DSLRs seem to be heading in new directions such as the Canon S2 IS
>and the Sony DSC H1. Longer is better, mpeg movies are in, etc.
>Meanwhile, the price gap between higher end digicams and DSLRs
>continues to shrink.
>
>Yet, for straight up still photography, cameras like the Sony F828 (OR
>Oly 8080) offer a decent alternative to DSLRs, especially as a
>smaller, lighter "take more often" camera. Lots of pixels, great
>picture quality, excellent non-plasticy build, (just like the good old
>35mm days) and a handy combination of zoom and features with a top
>quality lense. Maybe DoF contol will never happen due to sensor size,
>but OK.
>
>Everyone here knows what you give up vs. a DSLR but, pro v. con, the
>SIZE of the package is a real incentive. Check out Fig. 1 on this web
>page to see a side by side comparison of the size of an F828 v. a
>Canon 10D with "L" lenses.
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony8...
>
>No holy wars, please, but I really like the F828. But it'll be two
>years next month since it was announced. Any visionaries out there
>care to comment on the likelihood of Sony (or even Olympus, Canon,
>etc.) introducing a newer, more refined version of this camera type in
>the near future? Or do you think the market will begin to stratify
>between more and more plasticy do-all D2 IS type cameras and better
>designed (esp. smaller, better build qualtiy like the old Pentaxes, or
>the Nikon FMs) DSLRs

The Minolta "Z" series is also quite impressive. I have the lowest
priced version, the Z10, and am quite happy with its capabilities.
For the $165 I actually paid for it (from Digital Foto), it was a bargain.

Jerome Bigge
Photographer and Astronomer
Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"
July 10, 2005 4:43:23 PM

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

Tom McMahon wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:50:56 GMT, Leonard <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> :It's been pointed out to me that the F828 isn't a great example to use
> :in this part of the argument. The reason being that it's actually
> :24% _heavier_ than a 350D plus kit lens. Something like the K-M A200
> :is very convincing in the smaller/lighter stakes.
>
> Because it's built much better. Haven't seen the 350 yet, but it looks
> very cheap, and dpreview confirms as much. I know it's all about the
> picture, but I just miss the solid feel of quality 35mm cameras that
> is so often absent in new digicams.

Can't agree that it looks cheap at all. The body feels solid enough but
I haven't dropped a camera in years and I'm not about to just to prove
whether or not it'll survive. I suspect the weak point will prove to
be the directional pushbuttons. For me, it could do with being a bit
bigger, and lighter would be good too. As for the lens, I prefer the
35mm f2 to the flimsy-feeling and only fractionally lighter kit lens.

- Len
!