Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What digicams do that DSLR's can't

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 4:45:01 AM

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

IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
up to:

1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
Wow!)

2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
(or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?

So, what's up?

More about : digicams dslr

July 24, 2005 4:45:02 AM

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

Tom McMahon wrote:

> IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
> up to:
>
> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> Wow!)
>
> 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
> composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
> more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
> (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?
>
> So, what's up?

What's "UP" is you can't really focus using a LCD screen. You can compose OK
with either but none are good enough to actually focus with. Also holding
the camera out in front of you looking at an LCD screen is the best way to
end up with shakey/fuzzy images. The reason you NEED to compose on the LCD
screen with a digicam is the viewfinder isn't showing you what the lens is
seeing, an SLR does.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 4:45:02 AM

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

In article <6ai5e11e3ls448smsfv2unam066mld8845@4ax.com>, Tom McMahon
<tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote:

> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> Wow!)

Yeah, nothing like a 10:1 zoom. Couldn't get that 28-500?

> 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
> composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
> more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
> (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?

Damn...if we could only rip out that mirror in there, we could hold the
camera at arm's length and compose an image by looking at the LCD.

> So, what's up?

Certainly not your IQ.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 4:45:02 AM

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

Stacey wrote:
>What's "UP" is you can't really focus using a >LCD screen.

Depends on the digicam; I do it all the time with my Sony quasi-SLR
digicam (DSC-D770). In fact, I never use the viewfinder.
Face it, DSLRs would be selling a whole lot better if they really
had any great advantage over top-end digicams. DSLRs now cost far less
than quasi-SLR digicams did just 3-4 years ago - but the truth is that
the digicams still sell briskly.

Browse this gun show for FREE! Shop the
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 4:45:02 AM

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

Tom McMahon wrote:
> IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
> up to:
>
> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> Wow!)
>
> 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
> composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
> more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
> (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?

Try that with the sun coming in over your shoulder... =)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 4:45:03 AM

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

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:51:41 -0400, Stacey wrote:

> What's "UP" is you can't really focus using a LCD screen. You can
> compose OK with either but none are good enough to actually focus with.
> Also holding the camera out in front of you looking at an LCD screen is the
> best way to end up with shakey/fuzzy images. The reason you NEED to
> compose on the LCD screen with a digicam is the viewfinder isn't showing
> you what the lens is seeing, an SLR does.

That doesn't need to be the case. Although I've never looked
through the finder of a KM A2, its EVF had far more resolution than
any other I've heard of. Where most have a little more than 100k
pixels and a few have double that, the A2 has over 900k pixels.
Several reviewers have lamented that its replacement, the KM A200
reverted to a lower resolution EVF. More resolution than most, but
still, far less than the A2. And with an EVF you *can* see what the
lens sees. And the center portion of the EVF on some cameras can be
enlarged when manually focusing, which helps, and which optical
finders don't do. They're not perfect, but the once common 'LCD
lag' is much less a problem than it used to be. Same goes for dim
displays in the dark and poor visibility on a sunny day. I'd like
to see a camera that had both an optical viewfinder as well as an
EVF.
July 24, 2005 4:45:03 AM

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

editor@netpath.net wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>What's "UP" is you can't really focus using a >LCD screen.
>
> Depends on the digicam; I do it all the time with my Sony quasi-SLR
> digicam (DSC-D770). In fact, I never use the viewfinder.

Is it a real SLR finder with a mirror in front of the lens? If not, 'm not
surprized you don't use the finder. The thing with this type camera is, the
DOF is so great, you'll never see focus errors.

> Face it, DSLRs would be selling a whole lot better if they really
> had any great advantage over top-end digicams.

People buy these others because they are cheaper..

--

Stacey
July 24, 2005 4:45:04 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:51:41 -0400, Stacey wrote:
>
>> What's "UP" is you can't really focus using a LCD screen. You can
>> compose OK with either but none are good enough to actually focus with.
>> Also holding the camera out in front of you looking at an LCD screen is
>> the best way to end up with shakey/fuzzy images. The reason you NEED to
>> compose on the LCD screen with a digicam is the viewfinder isn't showing
>> you what the lens is seeing, an SLR does.
>
> That doesn't need to be the case. Although I've never looked
> through the finder of a KM A2, its EVF had far more resolution than
> any other I've heard of.

I've tested cameras with EVF and hi rez LCD's, none are even CLOSE to being
able to see the focus point that a GOOD dSLR focus screen provides. I'm
sure this will draw flames but the canon focus screen doesn't do a very
good job, it's designed more for brightness than focus contrast, nikon and
olympus both have focus screens that show the focus point very well.


> And with an EVF you *can* see what the
> lens sees. And the center portion of the EVF on some cameras can be
> enlarged when manually focusing, which helps, and which optical
> finders don't do.

Because they don't need to?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 4:45:04 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3kghdnFtujstU1@individual.net...
> editor@netpath.net wrote:
>
>> Stacey wrote:
>>>What's "UP" is you can't really focus using a >LCD screen.
>>
>> Depends on the digicam; I do it all the time with my Sony quasi-SLR
>> digicam (DSC-D770). In fact, I never use the viewfinder.
>
> Is it a real SLR finder with a mirror in front of the lens? If not, 'm not
> surprized you don't use the finder. The thing with this type camera is,
> the
> DOF is so great, you'll never see focus errors.
>
>> Face it, DSLRs would be selling a whole lot better if they really
>> had any great advantage over top-end digicams.
>
> People buy these others because they are cheaper..
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Stop it, Stacey, you've got me agreeing with you... ;-)
As some one else said, if you don't see the advantages of a DSLR, then it
probably isn't the right camera for you.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 5:16:46 AM

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

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:41:07 -0400, Stacey wrote:

>> That doesn't need to be the case. Although I've never looked
>> through the finder of a KM A2, its EVF had far more resolution than
>> any other I've heard of.
>
> I've tested cameras with EVF and hi rez LCD's, none are even CLOSE to
> being able to see the focus point that a GOOD dSLR focus screen provides.
> I'm sure this will draw flames but the canon focus screen doesn't do a very
> good job, it's designed more for brightness than focus contrast, nikon and
> olympus both have focus screens that show the focus point very well.

But I wasn't referring to Canon, Nikon or Olympus, but to one
particular Konika/Minolta camera, that has/had an EVF with far more
resolution than any of the LDC displays in the 3 brands you've
mentioned. The LCDs I've seen touted as hi-res usually have 250k to
330k pixels, far less than the EVF in the KM A2, which BTW didn't
have a particularly hi-res LCD.


>> And with an EVF you *can* see what the
>> lens sees. And the center portion of the EVF on some cameras can be
>> enlarged when manually focusing, which helps, and which optical
>> finders don't do.
>
> Because they don't need to?

True. But a good part of the reason why has little to do with EVF
vs. optical viewfinders. It's more because SLRs and DSLRs have much
faster, more precise manual focusing. If the A2 had that type of
manual focusing ability, its EVF would easily be up to the task,
with one caveat. I don't know what kind of lag it has. If it's
very short, a DSLR's optical finder would only have a very slight
advantage in focusing speed. That slight difference would be enough
to rule in favor of DLSRs for some working pros, but for others it
would probably be only a minor consideration.

There's also one other consideration when manually focusing with
optical viewfinders. Warning! I'm making an assumption that a
DSLR's focusing mechanism may get slightly out of alignment due to
wear and tear and have to be sent back to the manufacturer for
servicing. So if that's not the case, you needn't read any
further. But if it is, then you'd have to examine the image after
pictures are taken to see the problem. Probably on a computer
monitor. With a super hi-res EVF that wouldn't matter, because even
if the lens is old and worn out, the EVF is WYSIWYG, so when
something looks like it's focused properly, it is!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 5:28:47 AM

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

You are actually seious aren't you?? Ha ha ha you said Sony!!

"Tom McMahon" <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6ai5e11e3ls448smsfv2unam066mld8845@4ax.com...
> IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
> up to:
>
> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> Wow!)
>
> 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
> composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
> more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
> (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?
>
> So, what's up?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 7:49:17 AM

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

<editor@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1122170044.307400.219270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Stacey wrote:
> >What's "UP" is you can't really focus using a >LCD screen.
>
> Depends on the digicam; I do it all the time with my Sony quasi-SLR
> digicam (DSC-D770). In fact, I never use the viewfinder.
> Face it, DSLRs would be selling a whole lot better if they really
> had any great advantage over top-end digicams. DSLRs now cost far less
> than quasi-SLR digicams did just 3-4 years ago - but the truth is that
> the digicams still sell briskly.
>
> Browse this gun show for FREE! Shop the
> http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW

LOL, yes and cheap 35mm point and shoot cameras sold "briskly" back in the
days before dslrs...the pros got slrs though...
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 9:24:40 AM

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

Dirty Harry wrote:
>LOL, yes and cheap 35mm point and shoot cameras sold "briskly" back in the
>days before dslrs...the pros got slrs though...

That's not the real analogy. The real analogy is that
relatively-expensive, very-capable rangefinder 35mms sold at the same
time as 35mm SLRs did - and both sold well in the same American market,
often both by the same Japanese manufacturers!
I predict an identical future for the digicam market. The
really-capable digicams will coexist in the market with the DSLRs -
each for a different kind of serious photographer. The low-end
digicams will also stay in that market - for the parent just wanting to
take pictures of his kids, etc. And the real cheapos will also coexist
in that market - for those wanting not to risk any serious money on any
digicam (or camera) to take to the beach, for taking deer brag photos
when their hands are covered with deer blood, etc.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 10:12:55 AM

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

> There's also one other consideration when manually focusing with
> optical viewfinders. Warning! I'm making an assumption that a
> DSLR's focusing mechanism may get slightly out of alignment due to
> wear and tear and have to be sent back to the manufacturer for
> servicing.

Rarely happens. However any electronic device is more prone to failure I
would think.

So if that's not the case, you needn't read any
> further. But if it is, then you'd have to examine the image after
> pictures are taken to see the problem. Probably on a computer
> monitor. With a super hi-res EVF that wouldn't matter, because even
> if the lens is old and worn out, the EVF is WYSIWYG, so when
> something looks like it's focused properly, it is!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 11:42:48 AM

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

Stacey wrote:
> editor@netpath.net wrote:
[]
>> Face it, DSLRs would be selling a whole lot better if they really
>> had any great advantage over top-end digicams.
>
> People buy these others because they are cheaper..

Some people buy the most appropriate camera for their needs - they may be
prepare to forego the high-ISO performance and interchangeable lens
systems of a DSLR for the smaller size and better facilities of a
similarly priced P&S.

David
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 11:47:23 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
[]
> That doesn't need to be the case. Although I've never looked
> through the finder of a KM A2, its EVF had far more resolution than
> any other I've heard of. Where most have a little more than 100k
> pixels and a few have double that, the A2 has over 900k pixels.
> Several reviewers have lamented that its replacement, the KM A200
> reverted to a lower resolution EVF. More resolution than most, but
> still, far less than the A2.
[]

I purchased an A2 and eventually returned it, but I would have loved to
keep the EVF - it was truly excellent. It is a great pity that Minolta
dropped it on subsequent models and that other manufacturers haven't used
this excellent EVF. Perhaps they were too difficult to make, or too
expensive?

David
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 2:59:42 PM

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

In article <3kg70tFttreaU2@individual.net>, Stacey says...

> Also holding
> the camera out in front of you looking at an LCD screen is the best way to
> end up with shakey/fuzzy images.

At longer exposure times (i.e. 1/25s and longer) I get less motion blur
when holding the camera in front of me than when it's glued to the face.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 3:25:26 PM

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

In article <6ai5e11e3ls448smsfv2unam066mld8845@4ax.com>, Tom McMahon
says...
> IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
> up to:
>
> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> Wow!)
>
> 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
> composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
> more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
> (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?

3) Huge DOF even at the widest aperture, making these cameras especially
suitable for landscape photography in low light.

4) The small sensor makes these cameras very suitable for macro
photography of small objects (for instance insects). With a DSLR you
will need an expensive macro lens, while the lens of P&S usually
suffices.

5) If you are into panoramic photography, it is easier to rotate the
camera around its nodal point when you can look at a LCD screen for
framing. With a DSLR you kind of have to "walk around the camera" to
frame each shot or use a panoramic head.

6) Detailed exposure information (preview histograms) *before* pressing
the shutter, allowing you to precisely adjust the exposure settings.
With a DLSR you can only make corrections after the fact, which can be a
problem especially if the exposure was long (i.e. several seconds).

In any case the mirror/prism design of current DLSRs is an anachronism.
The first cars where designwise horse carriages with a combustion engine
added. Modern cars have a completely different design than horse
carriages. I'd expect that DSLRs will evolve and get live preview with
high resolution viewfinders (and possibly high resolution LCD screens as
well).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
July 24, 2005 5:17:10 PM

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

Tom McMahon wrote:

> IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
> up to:
>
> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> Wow!)
>
> 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
> composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
> more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
> (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?
>
3) Photos that often look like crash scenes because they have such a
huge DOF (f2.8 gives about f11 DOF)

4) About half the resolution as a dslr of same mp.
(Look at the sample images from the new FZ30 - there is no detail not
blurred out to 3 or 4 pixels width in any shot. The only "pixel level"
detail visible is noise)

That said, they're okay for what they are - taking (sometimes very nice
snaps.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 5:17:11 PM

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:17:10 +1200, frederick <nomail@nomail.com>
wrote:

>>
>3) Photos that often look like crash scenes because they have such a
>huge DOF (f2.8 gives about f11 DOF)

Indeed... my calculations show that slightly smaller than f16 on a 35
mm camera will give the same DoF as f2.8 on the Lumix FZ20 and f3.5 on
the new Lumix FZ30.

The FZ30 is 2/3 of a stop better than the FZ20, so they are moving in
the right direction.

KS
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 5:17:11 PM

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

frederick wrote:
[]
> (Look at the sample images from the new FZ30 - there is no detail not
> blurred out to 3 or 4 pixels width in any shot. The only "pixel
> level" detail visible is noise)

Well, considering the Bayer sensor pattern, plus the anti-alias filter,
any DSLR which is showing single pixel width detail is most likely
equipped with an inadequate anti-alias filter, and will therefore be
capable of introducing nasty aliasing artefacts into images.

David
July 24, 2005 5:17:12 PM

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

King Sardon wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:17:10 +1200, frederick <nomail@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>3) Photos that often look like crash scenes because they have such a
>>huge DOF (f2.8 gives about f11 DOF)
>
> Indeed... my calculations show that slightly smaller than f16 on a 35
> mm camera will give the same DoF as f2.8 on the Lumix FZ20 and f3.5 on
> the new Lumix FZ30.
>


For some type of images this is a GOOD thing, like macro shooting and some
landscape shots. For other things it's a bad thing so it depends on the
use.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 5:23:55 PM

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:45:01 GMT, Tom McMahon <tmcmahon@verizon.net>
wrote:

>IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
>up to:
>
>1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
>Wow!)

There are 28-300 and 50-500 zooms available for DSLRs already, and
more are sure to come.

>2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
>composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
>more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
>(or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?

I remember hearing about a DSLR body that can display an LCD preview,
don't remember which brand and model. However, for precision manual
focus, an optical TTL sight is still far better than an LCD or an
electronic sight. An LCD preview on a DSLR could have its uses,
although it is easy and costs nothing to take a test shot and get all
the data you want from it. It would be nice to know it is there for
special situations, although this is certain to reduce battery life
and might cause the CCD/CMOS sensor to heat up. I would not be willing
to give up the optical sight, though - a DSLR without the SLR is,
well,....

The original post did not touch on what DSLRs can do that POS can't. I
am sure some one else will. It did not mention, either, what IMHO are
the two foremost advantages of a POS: (1) If you need a camera that
fits into your pocket, then no DSLR is a match for a small POS,
fullstop. (2) There are situations in which a DSLR may attract
unwanted attention, while a POS will not get a second look but still
get the job done.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 5:23:56 PM

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:23:55 +0900, Deedee Tee wrote:

> The original post did not touch on what DSLRs can do that POS can't. I
> am sure some one else will. It did not mention, either, what IMHO are
> the two foremost advantages of a POS: (1) If you need a camera that
> fits into your pocket, then no DSLR is a match for a small POS,
> fullstop. (2) There are situations in which a DSLR may attract
> unwanted attention, while a POS will not get a second look but still
> get the job done.

That's P&S, not POS, unless you're editorializing . . . :) 
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 24, 2005 6:15:41 PM

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

"Tom McMahon" <tmcmahon@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6ai5e11e3ls448smsfv2unam066mld8845@4ax.com...
> IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
> up to:
>
> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> Wow!)
>
> 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
> composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
> more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
> (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?
>
> So, what's up?

You need to learn a lot more about DSLR's
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 12:30:52 AM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <6ai5e11e3ls448smsfv2unam066mld8845@4ax.com>, Tom McMahon
> says...
>
>>IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
>>up to:
>>
>>1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
>>Wow!)
>>
>>2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
>>composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
>>more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
>>(or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?
>
>
> 3) Huge DOF even at the widest aperture, making these cameras especially
> suitable for landscape photography in low light.
>
> 4) The small sensor makes these cameras very suitable for macro
> photography of small objects (for instance insects). With a DSLR you
> will need an expensive macro lens, while the lens of P&S usually
> suffices.
>
> 5) If you are into panoramic photography, it is easier to rotate the
> camera around its nodal point when you can look at a LCD screen for
> framing. With a DSLR you kind of have to "walk around the camera" to
> frame each shot or use a panoramic head.
>
> 6) Detailed exposure information (preview histograms) *before* pressing
> the shutter, allowing you to precisely adjust the exposure settings.
> With a DLSR you can only make corrections after the fact, which can be a
> problem especially if the exposure was long (i.e. several seconds).
>
> In any case the mirror/prism design of current DLSRs is an anachronism.
> The first cars where designwise horse carriages with a combustion engine
> added. Modern cars have a completely different design than horse
> carriages. I'd expect that DSLRs will evolve and get live preview with
> high resolution viewfinders (and possibly high resolution LCD screens as
> well).


It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.
July 25, 2005 12:45:42 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> frederick wrote:
> []
>
>>(Look at the sample images from the new FZ30 - there is no detail not
>>blurred out to 3 or 4 pixels width in any shot. The only "pixel
>>level" detail visible is noise)
>
>
> Well, considering the Bayer sensor pattern, plus the anti-alias filter,
> any DSLR which is showing single pixel width detail is most likely
> equipped with an inadequate anti-alias filter, and will therefore be
> capable of introducing nasty aliasing artefacts into images.
>
> David
>
>
Yeah - you can see it here:
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/edge.jpg
Evidence of a weak AA filter... lol
The only evidence I have seen of it (apart from when using a RAW
converter that didn't deal with bayer interpolation correctly) was some
moire in one image (out of many thousands) here:
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/moire.jpg
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 12:45:43 AM

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

I missed the first message in this thread, but don't understand what I see.

I thought a digicam stood for digital still camera. A DSLR IS a
digicam. To me, all digital cameras are digicams, though they are not
all SLR, nor all rangefinders, etc. Isn't digicam the most generic term
for a digital camera?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 12:45:44 AM

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

Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in
news:_yPEe.11$2g3.1983@news.uswest.net:
> I thought a digicam stood for digital still camera. A DSLR IS a
> digicam. To me, all digital cameras are digicams, though they are not
> all SLR, nor all rangefinders, etc. Isn't digicam the most generic
> term for a digital camera?

Yes.

--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm&gt;
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 1:57:58 AM

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

Tom McMahon wrote:
> IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
> up to:
>
> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> Wow!)

Hmmm....
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...

"Fast" in some ways maybe, but not in others... most ZLRs have powered
zooms that take a coon's age to run from one end to the other (the F828
doesn't, but it's one of the few).

The Canon lenses linked above are also USM models - AF is VERY fast.
Most ZLRs have dismal AF performance.

I don't see that this is something DSLRs are "still catching up to".
Not all DSLRs anyway (oddly, Nikon's site doesn't list any lenses with
anywhere near that kind of range).


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0529-2, 07/21/2005
Tested on: 7/24/2005 2:57:44 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 2:03:30 AM

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

l e o wrote:

> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> In article <6ai5e11e3ls448smsfv2unam066mld8845@4ax.com>, Tom McMahon
>> says...
>>
>>> IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
>>> up to:
>>>
>>> 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
>>> Wow!)
>>>
>>> 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
>>> composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
>>> more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
>>> (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) Huge DOF even at the widest aperture, making these cameras
>> especially suitable for landscape photography in low light.
>>
>> 4) The small sensor makes these cameras very suitable for macro
>> photography of small objects (for instance insects). With a DSLR you
>> will need an expensive macro lens, while the lens of P&S usually
>> suffices.
>>
>> 5) If you are into panoramic photography, it is easier to rotate the
>> camera around its nodal point when you can look at a LCD screen for
>> framing. With a DSLR you kind of have to "walk around the camera" to
>> frame each shot or use a panoramic head.
>>
>> 6) Detailed exposure information (preview histograms) *before*
>> pressing the shutter, allowing you to precisely adjust the exposure
>> settings. With a DLSR you can only make corrections after the fact,
>> which can be a problem especially if the exposure was long (i.e.
>> several seconds).
>>
>> In any case the mirror/prism design of current DLSRs is an
>> anachronism. The first cars where designwise horse carriages with a
>> combustion engine added. Modern cars have a completely different
>> design than horse carriages. I'd expect that DSLRs will evolve and get
>> live preview with high resolution viewfinders (and possibly high
>> resolution LCD screens as well).
>
>
>
> It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
> all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.

And with regard to #6, the camera is not going to always get ACCURATE
exposure info without an appropriate period of time. It's impossible to
get IMMEDIATE usable histogram info for what would be a multi-minute
exposure in very low light.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0529-2, 07/21/2005
Tested on: 7/24/2005 3:03:17 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 2:23:07 AM

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

<editor@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1122207880.428865.100830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirty Harry wrote:
> >LOL, yes and cheap 35mm point and shoot cameras sold "briskly" back in
the
> >days before dslrs...the pros got slrs though...
>
> That's not the real analogy. The real analogy is that
> relatively-expensive, very-capable rangefinder 35mms sold at the same
> time as 35mm SLRs did - and both sold well in the same American market,
> often both by the same Japanese manufacturers!
> I predict an identical future for the digicam market. The
> really-capable digicams will coexist in the market with the DSLRs -
> each for a different kind of serious photographer. The low-end
> digicams will also stay in that market - for the parent just wanting to
> take pictures of his kids, etc. And the real cheapos will also coexist
> in that market - for those wanting not to risk any serious money on any
> digicam (or camera) to take to the beach, for taking deer brag photos
> when their hands are covered with deer blood, etc.
>
> No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
> http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
>
I would predict that the low-end market will almost completely disappear as
their capabilities are integrated into the ubiquitous cell phone.
When the cell phones are capable of capturing DECENT 800x600 images and
transfering them via wifi to your printer for a decent 4x6 print or to an
email server, there will be no reason or market for a low end camera.
YMMV
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 2:51:46 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:

> Tom McMahon wrote:
>
> > IMHO, here's what digicams currently do that DSLRs are still catching
> > up to:
> >
> > 1) Fast, great ranging zooms. (e.g. Sony F828 - 28-200 f/2.0-2.8.
> > Wow!)
> >
> > 2) Use of the increasingly more excellent LCDs for framing and
> > composing. (there's 2 to 2.5 inches of clear screen to focus in, and
> > more and more info to view in realtime. C'mon holly rollers, why don't
> > (or better stated, when will) top end DSLRs do this?
> >
> > So, what's up?
>
> What's "UP" is you can't really focus using a LCD screen. You can compose OK
> with either but none are good enough to actually focus with. Also holding
> the camera out in front of you looking at an LCD screen is the best way to
> end up with shakey/fuzzy images. The reason you NEED to compose on the LCD
> screen with a digicam is the viewfinder isn't showing you what the lens is
> seeing, an SLR does.

The "shake" argument is totally backwards. I can hand-hold a camera
out in front of my chest much more stably then I can hold it up to my
eye, as confirmed by thousands of low-light shots over the years.

You don't do it by just holding the camera out in your hands, of
course. Probably most people *do* do it badly; but that's bad
technique, not a disadvantage in the style of camera.

The trick is to loop the neck strap around your neck, pull your elbows
into your gut, and then push the camera out against the neckstrap.
And of course, while you can do this with an SLR, you can't use the
viewfinder while doing it. Whereas with a P&S with LCD on the back,
you can actually see what you're doing!
--
David Dyer-Bennet
Recovering from server meltdown! Email and web service on www.dd-b.net
including all virtual domains (demesne.com, ellegon.com, dragaera.info,
mnstf.org, and many others) is rudimentary and intermittent.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 3:51:23 AM

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

In article <0USEe.3231$0C.225@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, l e o
says...

> It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
> all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.

If you shoot at lowest ISO, noise won't be noticeable, but the
advantages still hold.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 3:51:24 AM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <0USEe.3231$0C.225@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, l e o
> says...
>
>
>>It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
>>all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.
>
>
> If you shoot at lowest ISO, noise won't be noticeable, but the
> advantages still hold.


low light and low ISO don't go well together.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 5:30:37 AM

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

In message <1122170044.307400.219270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"editor@netpath.net" <editor@netpath.net> wrote:

>Face it, DSLRs would be selling a whole lot better if they really
>had any great advantage over top-end digicams. DSLRs now cost far less
>than quasi-SLR digicams did just 3-4 years ago - but the truth is that
>the digicams still sell briskly.

In bright light, the differences aren't always that great, but let me
see an image from a small-sensor camera pushed to an exposure index of
ISO 25,600 as I often do. I bet it will look like confetti.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 5:32:02 AM

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

In message <3kghdnFtujstU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>People buy these others because they are cheaper..

.... and lighter. Also, most people don't even know DSLRs exist.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 5:32:29 AM

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

In message <3jFEe.18714$HV1.18558@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>Stop it, Stacey, you've got me agreeing with you... ;-)

Even a stopped clock ...

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 5:39:14 AM

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

In message <MPG.1d4d76d11de02c0098ac6a@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>At longer exposure times (i.e. 1/25s and longer) I get less motion blur
>when holding the camera in front of me than when it's glued to the face.

Yes, this probably varies with cameras and individuals. To say that it
must be pressed against the face, as some people say, is a bit
narrow-minded. I never had any blur problems when composing with my
Sony F707's swivel-body.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 5:48:38 AM

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

In message <0USEe.3231$0C.225@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
>all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.

It's true that the sensors are noisier, but it is also true that
low-f-stop (fast) lenses are cheaper to make for the crops, so the
non-DSLRs gain back some of the disadvantages.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 6:23:56 AM

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

In article <P7UEe.3309$0C.2340@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, l e o
says...

> >>It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
> >>all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.
> >
> >
> > If you shoot at lowest ISO, noise won't be noticeable, but the
> > advantages still hold.
>
>
> low light and low ISO don't go well together.

Use a long exposure time and a tripod.

And don't forget that most DSLR zooms start at F3.5 and you'll need to
stop down the lens to around F6-F8 anyway to have enough DOF, while the
P&S will have enough DOF even wide open at F2. You'll be able to shoot
at low ISO with the P&S, while you'll have to use a higher ISO with the
DSLR (to achieve the same exposure time).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 2:29:48 PM

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

In article <QeWdndLzAKOQ0HnfRVn-sw@berkshire.net>,
Jack Rosier <jhrosier@berkshire.net> wrote:
>
>I would predict that the low-end market will almost completely disappear as
>their capabilities are integrated into the ubiquitous cell phone.
>When the cell phones are capable of capturing DECENT 800x600 images and
>transfering them via wifi to your printer for a decent 4x6 print or to an
>email server, there will be no reason or market for a low end camera.
>YMMV

Other than the wifi bit, we passed that mark ages ago. 2 megapixel phones
are getting more and more common, some newer models have optical zoom
lenses. No need to bother with wifi though, just do what you do with a
digital camera and put the flash card directly into the socket on the
printer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 3:31:09 PM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:
> l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
>>all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.
>
> It's true that the sensors are noisier, but it is also true that
> low-f-stop (fast) lenses are cheaper to make for the crops, so the
> non-DSLRs gain back some of the disadvantages.

But you still have to stop down the P&S cameras to f/5.6 or so to get the
best performance from the lens. (Yes, wide open is fine for portraits, but
anything that requires the sharpness your camera claims to provide requires
f/5.6.) That leaves the very narrow range of only one f stop that is
actually usable (since at f/8.0, the image is already degraded by
diffraction). All my MF lenses are as sharp as a 4000 dpi scan can use from
f/4.0 to f/16. With DSLRs that's reduced to f/5.6 to f/11, and you're stuck
at f/5.6 with a P&S dcam.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
July 25, 2005 3:31:10 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
>With DSLRs that's reduced to f/5.6 to f/11,

With a good lens, a dSLR should be good from f4 to f11.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 4:16:49 PM

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

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

> In article <QeWdndLzAKOQ0HnfRVn-sw@berkshire.net>, Jack Rosier
> <jhrosier@berkshire.net> wrote:
> >
> > I would predict that the low-end market will almost completely disappear
> > as their capabilities are integrated into the ubiquitous cell phone.
> > When the cell phones are capable of capturing DECENT 800x600 images and
> > transfering them via wifi to your printer for a decent 4x6 print or to
> > an email server, there will be no reason or market for a low end camera.
> > YMMV
>
> Other than the wifi bit, we passed that mark ages ago. 2 megapixel phones
> are getting more and more common, some newer models have optical zoom
> lenses. No need to bother with wifi though, just do what you do with a
> digital camera and put the flash card directly into the socket on the
> printer.
>

It might be a good idea if someone designed a mobile handset sans lens etc
that can integrate with your digicam when necessary.

It might also have been a good idea to have brought out a digiback for
Olympus OM1n and other changeable back slrs.

--
T Ritchie (Sr)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 10:06:48 PM

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

On 24 Jul 2005 05:24:40 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
<editor@netpath.net> wrote:

>The low-end
>digicams will also stay in that market - for the parent just wanting to
>take pictures of his kids, etc. And the real cheapos will also coexist
>in that market - for those wanting not to risk any serious money on any
>digicam (or camera) to take to the beach, for taking deer brag photos
>when their hands are covered with deer blood, etc.

Actually those migrate into the mobile phones.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
July 25, 2005 11:25:15 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
>>l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
>>>all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.
>>
>>It's true that the sensors are noisier, but it is also true that
>>low-f-stop (fast) lenses are cheaper to make for the crops, so the
>>non-DSLRs gain back some of the disadvantages.
>
>
> But you still have to stop down the P&S cameras to f/5.6 or so to get the
> best performance from the lens. (Yes, wide open is fine for portraits, but
> anything that requires the sharpness your camera claims to provide requires
> f/5.6.) That leaves the very narrow range of only one f stop that is
> actually usable (since at f/8.0, the image is already degraded by
> diffraction). All my MF lenses are as sharp as a 4000 dpi scan can use from
> f/4.0 to f/16. With DSLRs that's reduced to f/5.6 to f/11, and you're stuck
> at f/5.6 with a P&S dcam.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
Totally agree - except why do you say the dslr's largest sharp aperture
is f5.6? In actual fact, when using a 35mm lens on a dslr, fully wide
it's probably better than the same lens on 35mm - as it's lost the edges
where fall-off in sharpness and CA are seen most.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 25, 2005 11:25:16 PM

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

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>>>l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
>>>>all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.
>>>
>>>It's true that the sensors are noisier, but it is also true that
>>>low-f-stop (fast) lenses are cheaper to make for the crops, so the
>>>non-DSLRs gain back some of the disadvantages.
>>
>> But you still have to stop down the P&S cameras to f/5.6 or so to get the
>> best performance from the lens. (Yes, wide open is fine for portraits,
>> but anything that requires the sharpness your camera claims to provide
>> requires f/5.6.) That leaves the very narrow range of only one f stop
>> that is actually usable (since at f/8.0, the image is already degraded by
>> diffraction). All my MF lenses are as sharp as a 4000 dpi scan can use
>> from f/4.0 to f/16. With DSLRs that's reduced to f/5.6 to f/11, and
>> you're stuck at f/5.6 with a P&S dcam.
>>
> Totally agree - except why do you say the dslr's largest sharp aperture is
> f5.6? In actual fact, when using a 35mm lens on a dslr, fully wide it's
> probably better than the same lens on 35mm - as it's lost the edges where
> fall-off in sharpness and CA are seen most.

It depends on the lens, of course, but many (most???) lenses for dSLRs
provide noticeably sharper images stopped down somewhat from wide open. My
Tamron 28-75 is a tad soft at 28mm at f/2.8, but is sharp enough to exhibit
Moiré at f/2.8 in the 50 to 75mm range on the 300D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
July 26, 2005 12:24:10 AM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>>><JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It looks like someone ignores the fact that a small sensor is noisier so
>>>>>all those perceived advantages will all be washed away.
>>>>
>>>>It's true that the sensors are noisier, but it is also true that
>>>>low-f-stop (fast) lenses are cheaper to make for the crops, so the
>>>>non-DSLRs gain back some of the disadvantages.
>>>
>>>But you still have to stop down the P&S cameras to f/5.6 or so to get the
>>>best performance from the lens. (Yes, wide open is fine for portraits,
>>>but anything that requires the sharpness your camera claims to provide
>>>requires f/5.6.) That leaves the very narrow range of only one f stop
>>>that is actually usable (since at f/8.0, the image is already degraded by
>>>diffraction). All my MF lenses are as sharp as a 4000 dpi scan can use
>>>from f/4.0 to f/16. With DSLRs that's reduced to f/5.6 to f/11, and
>>>you're stuck at f/5.6 with a P&S dcam.
>>>
>>
>>Totally agree - except why do you say the dslr's largest sharp aperture is
>>f5.6? In actual fact, when using a 35mm lens on a dslr, fully wide it's
>>probably better than the same lens on 35mm - as it's lost the edges where
>>fall-off in sharpness and CA are seen most.
>
>
> It depends on the lens, of course, but many (most???) lenses for dSLRs
> provide noticeably sharper images stopped down somewhat from wide open. My
> Tamron 28-75 is a tad soft at 28mm at f/2.8, but is sharp enough to exhibit
> Moiré at f/2.8 in the 50 to 75mm range on the 300D.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
I think that most lenses provide noticeably sharper images stopped down
somewhat from wide open regardless of format.
There are some exceptions.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 26, 2005 3:22:13 AM

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

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:4brer2-jgs.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <QeWdndLzAKOQ0HnfRVn-sw@berkshire.net>,
> Jack Rosier <jhrosier@berkshire.net> wrote:
> >
> >I would predict that the low-end market will almost completely disappear
as
> >their capabilities are integrated into the ubiquitous cell phone.
> >When the cell phones are capable of capturing DECENT 800x600 images and
> >transfering them via wifi to your printer for a decent 4x6 print or to an
> >email server, there will be no reason or market for a low end camera.
> >YMMV
>
> Other than the wifi bit, we passed that mark ages ago. 2 megapixel phones
> are getting more and more common, some newer models have optical zoom
> lenses. No need to bother with wifi though, just do what you do with a
> digital camera and put the flash card directly into the socket on the
> printer.
Are the photos halfway decent quality?
Anyone here have experience with these?
I'm surprised that a phone would have a removable card. What kind of memory
cards are used?
It might be an interesting toy if the photos were not too terrible.
!