Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The ZLRs I own

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 4, 2005 8:36:53 PM

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

I thought I would post something germain to the topic of this newsgroup.


First the Sony F828:

The BIGGY with this camera for people who are thinking of getting it is
probably the "purple fringing" (sometimes, I think, incorrectly called ca).

The first thing I noticed when I got the camera is that the fringing isn't a
big problem except under specific conditions.

Those conditions are: If you take a picture of a tree line with a VERY bright
sky above and behind it, you WILL get fringing unless you under-expose.

The fact that I can "make it go away" most of the time by under exposing
tells me it is definately NOT chromatic aberation from the lens, it is
fringing from the sensor. Thats the bad news. The good news is, it can mostly
be avoided by framing/exposing so as NOT to put the sensor into a situation
where you have fine detail that is VERY brightly back lit.

The second biggest complaint is high noise at anything over ISO 100.
The bad news is: REVIEWERS ARE CORRECT!. There is NO good news on this
front.

Does it take good pictures? YES. At ISO 100 or lower it does a GREAT job
and I can't fault it for speed, clarity, color, contrast, or saturation. I
use the camera with color set to "REAL", contrast and sharpness set to the
neutral setting.

If you use the Constant Auto Focus, there is very little lag in this camera
and you can get into the rythm of using it to capture the frame just the way
you want it.

MORE BAD NEWS:

The camera seems to take about a week and a half to save a RAW file.

In actual practice it takes about 10 to 12 seconds to save a RAW file, but
that can seem like a week and makes it unusable for sports/action
photography.

Overall, this is a lot LESS camera than it should have been for a thousand
dollars (US $999)

If the Sony F-717 could shoot RAW it would be a better camera than the 828
even though its only 5MP.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

More about : zlrs

Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:20:10 AM

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

> [Larry:]
> I thought I would post something germain
> to the topic of this newsgroup.
> First the Sony F828

The Sony F828 is an EVF camera, not a reflex camera, and thus is off-topic
in a group supposedly dealing with reflex cameras such as ZLRs.

Because of its aspect, which for untrained eyes may resemble that of
reflex camera, some people fraudulently refer to the Sony F828 and other
EVF cameras as ZLRs and thus as reflex cameras.

The acronym "ZLR", one should remember, stands for "Zomm-Lens-Reflex"
cameras, a subset of SLRs, or "Single-Lens-Reflex" cameras. Reflex cameras
in general are characterized by far superior image quality and features,
and much higher prices, than EVFs.

However, this newsgroup is fully commited to spread, support and further
the marketing fraud that EVFs are ZLRs or reflex cameras.

Anyone who buys an EVF thinking that it is a reflex camera, or even an
association of customers, might consider the civil and even criminal
liability of anyone directly or indirectly involved in furthering this
fraud, even without the apparent purpose of achieving personal gain.

Whatever may be the case, the fact remains that this newsgroup became,
assuming that it was not from the start, a source of intentional
misinformation intended to make customers believe that they are buying a
reflex camera while they are buying merely an EVF camera. A crooked
resource on the internet.

Wish you all good luck!

Julio.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 4:14:36 AM

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

I have the 828 and a D70.
The 828 is slower to start up, has more shutter delay and takes longer than
it should to write any kind of file but RAW is worse of all. However after
doing alot of comparison shooting with this camera image quality for RAW and
TIFF is not that much better than jpeg: cyan blues are a little more
accurate in RAW but not too much else.
The camera is slow to handle and the EVF makes tracking and trying to
capture fast moving objects a matter of luck.
Purple fringing is a rare issue and easily gotten rid of. I cannot recall
any image that I have made where I thought it ruined the image.
Noise at much above ISO 200 is real but how objectionable depends on the
image; easily disguised with Photoshop in most images anyway. I have made
multiple comparison shots as different ISOs and I am not sure what users
expect when you turn the gain up that high on any digital sensor.
For average shooting, despite the limits, I would rate overall image and
lens quality as often stellar, seldom disappointing. The 828 is definitely
not fast handling and should not be purchased if you have the fantasy of
shooting high ISO digital images.
The D70: handles like an SLR, fast to start up, writes files nearly as fast
as you can shoot, particularly with RAW files for which Nikon wisely uses a
compressed format.
Moire is a constant problem on any image that has detailed areas of linear,
small stroke texture. I take alot of pictures of birds and many cannot be
printed larger than snapshot size because of moire visible where there are
expanses of light or neutral feathers. Purple fringing also is easily seen
in high contrast images. Noise is obvious above ISO 200 but not as ugly as
the 828 at top ISOs. Reviewers who downplay the real problems with the D70
are lying to you or oblivious.
The D70 is all but useless shooting in jpeg with image quality that is no
better or worse than most mid-level P&S cameras even if you are using your
very best Nikon glass.
However if you shoot RAW, are adept at Photoshop and do not print images
larger that 8.5x11 you can coax great images out of the D70. In fact it can
be addicting.
For what it is, I love the 828 despite its foibles. I agree the 828 is
seriously overpriced.
I use my D70 constantly, more than the 828, but cannot help but wish it
were better because it should and could be.
Put it this way: I do not regret buying the 828 but I wish I had waited for
the next generation Nikon dSLR.
Related resources
February 5, 2005 6:55:39 AM

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

> "J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message news:o pslo9zwn1lw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br...

I own a Panasonic DMC FZ-20 5mp 12x zoom digital ZLR camera and because of that I can post
to this group and talk about it as much as I like. I really enjoy using this type of ZLR camera. It's the
best in its class. What type of ZLR camera do you own?
February 5, 2005 9:46:17 AM

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

In article <06VMd.585$lz5.560@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>,
apquilts@pacbell.net says...
> I have the 828 and a D70.
> The 828 is slower to start up, has more shutter delay and takes longer than
> it should to write any kind of file but RAW is worse of all. However after
> doing alot of comparison shooting with this camera image quality for RAW and
> TIFF is not that much better than jpeg: cyan blues are a little more
> accurate in RAW but not too much else.

<snipped for space not content>

Since most of the shooting I do is under-exposed because I dont use anything
higher than ISO 100 on the Sony (probably limiting myself but its what Ive
been doing) I find slightly more advantage with RAW on the 828. Simply using
the exposure slider in Photoshop CS raw plugin gets the picture where I want
it (usually) with less noise (hopefully) than I would get with the higher ISO
setting.

When I bought the 828 I was going by my experience with the 717 and figured
it would perform at least as well plus give me the RAW files. Though its NOT
exactly what I expected, I wouldn't say I regret buying it, as I sold enough
photos from it to pay for it several times over in the first 3 months I had
it.

Its MUCH faster than any other Point & Shoot I have ever used except the Sony
V-1. (its about equal to the V-1, MAYBE a little faster)

I must add here that getting shots I can sell is a priority, but its not my
only priority, and thats why Im a little dissapointed with the 828. I have
often gotten pictures that would have been "just a little better" if the
camera had lived up to my expectations and I hate to sell them that way.
Sony, however, is not responsible for my expectations, so I guess my only
REAL complaint is that the camera was (and still is) overpriced.

When I got the 828 my choices in the same price range were limited. (July
04).

For a thousand dollars I could get the 828 or a Digital Rebel, everything
else in the price range didn't seem to be "value for money".

I almost got the Rebel, but then I did the math... I NEEDED the full range of
the lens on the Sony, and if I were to get it I would need to buy the Rebel
and at LEAST two more lenses. The kit lens on the Rebel would only be
suitable for "Posed" shots (about 10% of my shooting)

Ive never been able to settle for "cheap" lenses, so if I were to get what I
needed from the Rebel, I'de need to spend about $3000 up front. Ya' cant do
that on a 1000 dollar budget.

Knowing the quality of the lens on the F-717 was a selling point for the 828,
and I must admit that the 828 is the ONLY camera I ever bought without
holding/shooting/testing first. I have experienced NO disapointment with the
lens on either the 717 or the 828

The final clincher (for me) was the cf-card slot on the camera.

One of my regular photo customers is a specialty clothing designer (Western
Wear for Western Riders), and she uses her photos to advertise the stuff she
is wearing in the picture.

I have found the VERY SLIGHT color inacuracy in the Sony is sometimes a
hindrance in this, so when I'm shooting her I usually use the Fuji S7000 if
she is wearing any shade of GREEN or LIGHT BLUE.

The Fuji SEEMS a little more accurate for that kind of shooting.

The Sony doesn't seem to discriminate well between the "Greenish-Blues" and
the "Blueish-Greens" she seems to favor.. (probably due to the "emerald"
sensors) Outdoors in Sunlight, carefull exposure settings and NO AUTOMATION
except focus can make the Sony get the colors right, but most of my pictures
arent taken under those conditions.

The subtle differences show up better with the Fuji set on "Chrome" color.
(Im not sure what that setting is SUPPOSED to do, but I THINK it makes the
picture look more like it was shot on FUJICHROME film, probably should get
around to RTFM)

Right now I'm thinking about what to do for the oncoming season (my shooting
season is April through October for horse shows) I'm hoping the income from
the first couple of shows will be timed right for a good DSLR. (I must admit
to yearning for the Oly E-volt with the self cleaning sensor gadget, but the
lens range isn't there yet for any price.)

Here again Im looking at a camera that doesn't inherantly have the lens range
I need!

This is why I've been stuck in the ZLR area for so long. I dont want to be
out in the middle of the show ring, changing lenses!!!

When Im in that ring I need 30mm to 210 equivalent MOUNTED AND READY and to
get that on a DSLR with a high quality lens is NOT going to be a small matter
of "pocket change".

The "Show Rings" I shoot in are getting BIGGER, figure 100 ft. by 200 ft.
(minium) and the picture I want can be ANYWHERE in that ring at any time
during the class Im shooting!

In reality, I can only cover about 1/4 to 1/3 of the ring at any given time,
and my flash can only fill a given area, so having the lens ON THE CAMERA for
the whole 7 to 12 minutes of the class is imperitive.

Picture in your mind, taking photos in a room where they are sand blasting a
car body with no ventilation and you can get an idea of the environment I
shoot in. Luckily the dust level is usually only bad at the END of the class
and I get my pictures during the first 3/4 of the class, but I cant exit the
ring until the horses do, so the camera is exposed to ALL the dust.. I
usually tuck it under my vest for the last minute or two of the class to
protect it as much as possible.

Granted the dust is (mostly) non-abrasive (its 80% ground-up horse-dung) and
can be brushed off the camera with a soft make-up brush,and blown away with a
bulb, but it gets INSIDE every DSLR I have seen in the ring, almost
immediatley. (its probably the major reason most horse show event
photographers dont do what I do unless they are using film). So far Ive not
had it intrude on the inner workings of either the 717 or the 828.

If my incomming e-mail is any indicator, I may well have more business than I
can handle this coming season, and the price of a new E-volt with a perfect
(for me) lens wont be out of the question. My print costs are LOW and I'm
finding more people are willing to pay for several (or a dozen or more)
pictures on cdrom than are willing to pay for individual prints. I do, of
course, put Logos on ALL photos on a cdrom, and include a warning label about
copyright rules on all cdroms delivered. So far, all of my pictures that I
have seen published have been done so with my permission (and my thanks). I
have had only ONE case where the photo had my logo trimmed off by the
publisher, and no credit was given. I di recieve an apology (un-solocited)
from the publisher.

Hope I haven't rambled on too much..

If anyone is interested, some time this weekend (probably Sunday) I will post
my experiences with the Fuji S5000 and the Fuji S7000.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:59:22 AM

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

Larry wrote:
> I thought I would post something germain to the topic of this
> newsgroup.

Thanks, Larry.

Between myself and my wife the ZLRs we have are the Nikon Coolpix 5700 and
8400, and the Panasonic FZ20. We both started with Nikon, a Coolpix 900
in my case and the 990 for my wife.

- the 5700 has been my main camera for a couple of years. I do like the
extended telephoto, and having the electronic reflex to the EVF allowed a
much better taking posture for me of the camera to the face rather than at
arm's length. These days I need reading glasses, so changing glasses just
to take a photo eliminated that, and provided a much better view in
sunlight. OK, so there are some low-light issues, but taking three photos
to get one good one if needed costs nothing.

- when my wife needed a long zoom camera, image stabilisation had just
appeared. We looked at the various offerings and concluded that the
Panasonic FZ20 was the best value. The CF cards and AA batteries of the
Canon S1 IS would have fitted in better with our existing kit, by Cecilia
wanted a step up from the 3MP of the Nikon 990 to the 5MP of the
Panasonic. The camera hasn't been used a lot in anger as yet, but has
produced some good pictures. The image stabilisation works very well, and
the manual focussing is excellent too.

- The Nikon 8400 has 24mm wide-angle built in. I analysed the pictures I
took with the 5700 on a trip to Prague, and found that many were at the
wide-angle end. I had a tiny 24mm adapter for the Coolpix 990, but I
didn't want the bulk of the equivalent adapter for the 5700. The flash
coverage on the 8400 is excellent, making it an excellent camera for
indoors.

So today, on a short trip I take the Nikon 8400 and Cecilia takes her
Panasonic FZ20. I don't know what I will do on longer trips where I want
the telephoto of my 5700 and the wide-angle of the 8400. I may even take
both!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:59:23 AM

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

David J Taylor commented courteously ...

> Between myself and my wife the ZLRs we have are the
> Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8400, and the Panasonic FZ20.
> We both started with Nikon, a Coolpix 900 in my
> case and the 990 for my wife.

Hi, David.

I, too, have a Nikon 5700, you may have seen my rants and
pleas for help with flash exposure problems on
rec.photo.digital.

Do you, perchance, take flash pictures in museum settings
with your 5700, either with the built-in Speedlight or an
external flash? If Yes, how are your results.

Thanks.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 4:25:14 PM

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

All Things Mopar wrote:
> David J Taylor commented courteously ...
>
>> Between myself and my wife the ZLRs we have are the
>> Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8400, and the Panasonic FZ20.
>> We both started with Nikon, a Coolpix 900 in my
>> case and the 990 for my wife.
>
> Hi, David.
>
> I, too, have a Nikon 5700, you may have seen my rants and
> pleas for help with flash exposure problems on
> rec.photo.digital.
>
> Do you, perchance, take flash pictures in museum settings
> with your 5700, either with the built-in Speedlight or an
> external flash? If Yes, how are your results.
>
> Thanks.

Jerry,

I must admit that the small built-in flash on these cameras has its
limitations. With my own photography, when inside museums etc. I usually
try and use the natural lighting, even if that means having to prop the
camera on an object for support. (I carry neither a tripod nor an
external flashgun). I've just bought a "pod" support to try out!

http://www.thepod.ca/home.html

The flash I do use is restricted to objects at a fairly constant distance,
i.e. not with great range between front and back like a car close-up. The
fall off of light with distance is rather rapid - although you can use
bounce flash if the ceiling is low enough. I have found that you need to
keep the front of the camera clear of obstructions. If the flash sensor
or the lamp itself is obstructed you can get odd exposures.

Although I've only had it a short while, the flash on the 8400 seems a
little better - it covers all of the 24mm field of view - although that
might mean in your case getting an overall impression of the room rather
than a detailed close-up of a single vehicle.

At least with digital you get the chance to checkout the results and try
again.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 4:25:15 PM

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

David J Taylor commented courteously ...

> I must admit that the small built-in flash on these
> cameras has its limitations. With my own photography,
> when inside museums etc. I usually try and use the
> natural lighting, even if that means having to prop
> the camera on an object for support.

Hi, David.

I've had nothing but trouble shooting available light with
my 5700. I shoot mainly car pictures at places like The
Henry Ford Museum and The Walter P. Chrysler Museum. Both
are dim, the HF museum would make a bar look bright! I've
tried a small tripod, which works, but its cumbersome and
slow.

What's worse, though, is that in my experience, anything
over ISO 200, certainly 800, creates images that look like
the car was painted on beach sand. That's true even if I
turn on the 5700's Noise Reduction. The noise is so bad
that I cannot realistically eliminate it even using Paint
Shop Pro 9's outstanding Digital Camera Noise Reduction
Filter.

As to flash, you're clearly right about the Speedlight -
it's range is about 10', max. My Sunpak 433D has a guide
number of 120, so should have a range of up to about 30-
35', which is more than ample.

I only alluded to my problem in my previous post. I'd say
that about 1/3 of my flash pictures (either flash) are
excellent, another 1/3 are underexposed but can be easily
fixed in PSP 9, but the final 1/3 are 5-6 f/stops under
(which of course starts kicking up noise). I can sometimes
fix these in PSP also, but not always.

I have the 5700's feature to display the just-shot image
in the EVF for 3 seconds after each shot, so I can tell
right away if I've gotten an underexposure.

I've worked with Nikon Tech Support and sent the camera in
for service but no dice. I've "talked" to a couple of
other 5700 owners who also said they got inconsistent
exposures similar to mine.

I've tried to determine a root cause so I could avoid it,
but haven't found one yet. I have yet to get a bad picture
in smaller rooms, such as my house or a closed-in area of
a museum.

The biggest culprits are: very dark ambient light, dark
cars (the bright cars work much better), and areas where
there's nothing around or over the car to reflect the
flash (museums selding have drop ceiling so your
suggestion to tilt the Sunpak's flash head up for bounce
doesn't help me).

Also, while not conclusive, I find that when I have to
stand back and use mild-to-moderate telephoto on the zoom
lens, I get more underexposures (can't always fix that,
though, because of barriers preventing me from getting
closer).

It seems to me anecdotally that the 5700's flash sensor is
biased to wide-angle and it is reading that even though
I've zoomed in. I changed from "matrix" to "spot" metering
in Setup which has helped, but only marginally.

When I know I've got an unacceptably bad exposure, I
switch to full manual mode (M), estimate the distance by
pacing it off, and use the Sunpak's GN. Works pretty well,
but it is much slower to do this. Also, even when I have a
pretty accurate distance, I find that the 5700 tends to
underexpose anyway, so I often have to take a series of
test shots once I have the so-called "correct" aperture.
And, it continues to piss me off that a Nikon is *so* much
worse than my previous Fuji 4900 even with its puny on-
board flash.

> The flash I do use is restricted to objects at a
> fairly constant distance, i.e. not with great range
> between front and back like a car close-up. The fall
> off of light with distance is rather rapid - although
> you can use bounce flash if the ceiling is low enough.

Yep, light falls off as the square of the distance so
shooting a car picture at an angle, for example a front
3/4 view, creates problems. And, the foreground and
background get killed as well. Highlights often blow out
and shadows turn to ink.

So, I almost always have to spend a fair amount of time in
PSP selecting various parts of the picture and fixing the
underexposure areas individually. I'm still trying to
learn how to put a gradient fill on a layer at the angle
the car is and use that to linearly brighten the image,
knowing that the light fall-off isn't really linear.

> I have found that you need to keep the front of the
camera
> clear of obstructions. If the flash sensor or the lamp
> itself is obstructed you can get odd exposures.

Right on, David! My fat fingers often get in the way. What
Nikon Service did was clean the camera, guess they thought
the sensor was dirty or maybe something inside the camera
was dirty. I sent those guys 30+ pictures on a CD with
documentation of things like shotting conditions and focus
distance. Of course, they could examine the EXIF data to
find out quite a bit (but distance isn't in EXIF but
aperture is).

While on the subject of "fat fingers", I'm *always*
accidently putting my finger on the litte button on the
side of the camera that controls the JPEG compression.
Sometimes I don't spot that I've accidently switched from
"fine" to "normal" or "basic" until I've taken a bunch of
ruined shots, so I have to scurry back and try again. I
wish that this feature was either in Setup or needed a 2nd
button to make it work. Bad ergonomic design IMHO.

Thanks for your help. If you have any other suggestions
for me after reading my clarification, I'd be
appreciative.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:36:45 PM

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

> [Ken:]
> I own a Panasonic DMC FZ-20 5mp 12x zoom
> digital ZLR camera and because of that I
> can post to this group and talk about it
> as much as I like.

Of course. It is the inalienable right of every idiot to display his
idiocy for everyone to see, and this newsgroup is here to provide you with
a space to do so.

> I really enjoy using this type of ZLR camera.

I'm sure you do, some people have strange habits indeed. They cannot see a
Zooming-Long-Retroflex device without almost fainting in bliss.

> It's the best in its class.

It is the longest, it is the thickest and it zooms in and out very fastly
and forcefully. What else someone in love with retroflex devices might
wish?

> What type of ZLR camera do you own?

Sorry, but since my natural inclination is for penian rather than anal
pleasure I have never owned any retroflex device!

The best,

Julio
February 5, 2005 7:16:58 PM

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

In article <opslqi7jvvlw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br>, J.S.Pitanga
<jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote:

> Of course. It is the inalienable right of every idiot to display his
> idiocy for everyone to see

And you sure are doing a fine job of displaying it!!!

--
Charles
February 5, 2005 9:44:45 PM

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

> "J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message news:o pslqi7jvvlw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br...

I own a Panasonic DMC FZ-20 5mp 12x zoom digital ZLR camera and because of that I can post
to this group and talk about it as much as I like. I really enjoy using this type of ZLR camera. It's the
best in its class. I should also mention that it takes pretty pictures and I can display them on my
computer monitor. I can also print those pretty pictures with my Canon printer so I can share them
with my friends. My friends really like to see the pretty pictures I take. I won't share them with
you though. I don't think you want to be my friend. I can't imagine that you have any friends and if
you did they are probably not very nice people. It must miserable being you.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 9:52:34 PM

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

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
> While on the subject of "fat fingers", I'm *always*
> accidently putting my finger on the litte button on the
> side of the camera that controls the JPEG compression.
> Sometimes I don't spot that I've accidently switched from
> "fine" to "normal" or "basic" until I've taken a bunch of
> ruined shots, so I have to scurry back and try again. I
> wish that this feature was either in Setup or needed a 2nd
> button to make it work. Bad ergonomic design IMHO.
>
> Thanks for your help. If you have any other suggestions
> for me after reading my clarification, I'd be
> appreciative.

I wish I did, Jerry, but I think I'm at the limit of my knowledge.
Perhaps if you can get a loaner of another camera to compare, you could
consider selling the 5700. Not a very positive thing to say, but if the
design is faulty (and as your Fuji 4900 proved) then you aren't going to
get very far.

You'll know that whilst I've kept the 5700 for now, I've tried the 8400,
and if you can manage with 85mm maximum focal length that may be a
possibility (there are no easy to press compression level buttons, I know
just what you mean!). I know it's a bit late to ask now, but why did you
move from the Fuji 4900?

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:40:33 PM

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

"Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote in message
news:%sXMd.897$ZZ.639@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > "J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message
news:o pslo9zwn1lw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br...
>
> What type of ZLR camera do you own?

I would suspect he doesn't Ken, at least not by his definition. All he is
intent on is destroying this NG.
The ZLR I own is a Nikon CP8800 and BTW it also has an EVF.
Kind regards,
Leo
February 5, 2005 11:40:34 PM

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

"Leo R." <lsrolfeFAKED@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:cu1srs$qai$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> "Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote in message
> news:%sXMd.897$ZZ.639@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > > "J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message
> news:o pslo9zwn1lw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br...
> >
> > What type of ZLR camera do you own?
>
> I would suspect he doesn't Ken, at least not by his definition. All he is
> intent on is destroying this NG.

His definition does not count and he is not smart enough to destroy this group.

> The ZLR I own is a Nikon CP8800 and BTW it also has an EVF.

I was looking at one last night at the camera store. Nice camera!
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:28:30 PM

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

"Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote in
news:%sXMd.897$ZZ.639@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

>> "J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message
>> news:o pslo9zwn1lw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br...
>
> I own a Panasonic DMC FZ-20 5mp 12x zoom digital ZLR camera and
> because of that I can post to this group and talk about it as much as
> I like. I really enjoy using this type of ZLR camera. It's the best in
> its class. What type of ZLR camera do you own?
>

Personally I own a Canon G2. I also own a computer and have
a news account. And I can post in any group I wish. As long
I stay within the charter of the group I am also more than
welcome to do so.

The meaning of the acronym ZLR is within the charter of this
group with a broad margin as this group is called ZLR. The
fact that the charter for this group discribes cameras that
shall really not be called ZLR is a valid topic.

The making of this group was a mistake as it is spreading
misinformation. I understand that you that post here need
a group to discuss your somewhat more advanced compact digital
cameras. But I don't understand why you insist that your cameras
are called ZLR. They are mostly EVF and sometimes only
normal digital cameras with more zoom.


/Roland
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 11:13:16 PM

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

Roland Karlsson wrote:
[]
> The making of this group was a mistake as it is spreading
> misinformation. I understand that you that post here need
> a group to discuss your somewhat more advanced compact digital
> cameras. But I don't understand why you insist that your cameras
> are called ZLR. They are mostly EVF and sometimes only
> normal digital cameras with more zoom.

No, a majority people voted /for/ rather than /against/ this group - as a
place for discussing high-end SLR-like cameras. "ZLR" was the best name
that anyone could come up with, so now let's get on and talk about the
cameras!

Thanks,
David
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 1:04:01 AM

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
news:wPNQd.16346$8B3.15232@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> No, a majority people voted /for/ rather than /against/ this group -
> as a place for discussing high-end SLR-like cameras. "ZLR" was the
> best name that anyone could come up with, so now let's get on and talk
> about the cameras!

Ye - I know the history behind it. And - of course -
you can discuss higher ended low end digital cameras
here or whatever how much you like.

But - I don't think it is OK to jump at anyone
that comes here and is surprised over the faulty
name.

You have to get over that a mistake was made and that
it will repeatedely be questioned why this group is
called ZLR. It will happen over and over again as long
as this group is active.

It is wrong - and you know it. And some here gets very edgy
when someone says so.



/Roland
February 17, 2005 1:04:02 AM

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

In article <Xns95FFEAA4E3111klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com says...
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> news:wPNQd.16346$8B3.15232@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> > No, a majority people voted /for/ rather than /against/ this group -
> > as a place for discussing high-end SLR-like cameras. "ZLR" was the
> > best name that anyone could come up with, so now let's get on and talk
> > about the cameras!
>
> Ye - I know the history behind it. And - of course -
> you can discuss higher ended low end digital cameras
> here or whatever how much you like.
>
> But - I don't think it is OK to jump at anyone
> that comes here and is surprised over the faulty
> name.
>
> You have to get over that a mistake was made and that
> it will repeatedely be questioned why this group is
> called ZLR. It will happen over and over again as long
> as this group is active.
>
> It is wrong - and you know it. And some here gets very edgy
> when someone says so.
>
>
>
> /Roland
>


What makes people EDGY is BEATING ON A DEAD FRIGGIN" HORSE !


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 3:30:24 AM

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

Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1c7d9e42b406dfe59896a7@news.individual.NET:

> In article <Xns95FFEAA4E3111klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
> roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com says...
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote
>> in news:wPNQd.16346$8B3.15232@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>> > No, a majority people voted /for/ rather than /against/ this
>> > group - as a place for discussing high-end SLR-like cameras.
>> > "ZLR" was the best name that anyone could come up with, so now
>> > let's get on and talk about the cameras!
>>
>> Ye - I know the history behind it. And - of course -
>> you can discuss higher ended low end digital cameras
>> here or whatever how much you like.
>>
>> But - I don't think it is OK to jump at anyone
>> that comes here and is surprised over the faulty
>> name.
>>
>> You have to get over that a mistake was made and that
>> it will repeatedely be questioned why this group is
>> called ZLR. It will happen over and over again as long
>> as this group is active.
>>
>> It is wrong - and you know it. And some here gets very edgy
>> when someone says so.
>>
>>
>>
>> /Roland
>>
>
>
> What makes people EDGY is BEATING ON A DEAD FRIGGIN" HORSE !
>
>

Exactly. Roland, we have heard your opinion on this many, many, many
times. Please stop stirring up trouble. "ZLR" is not to be taken
literally, and the regs in this group accept that. Consider it a
nickname, and please leave it at that.

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:09:37 PM

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

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95FFC6A22E5A5WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:

> Exactly. Roland, we have heard your opinion on this many, many, many
> times. Please stop stirring up trouble. "ZLR" is not to be taken
> literally, and the regs in this group accept that. Consider it a
> nickname, and please leave it at that.

Hmmm ... maybe I was unclear. My point ws not that you should stop
posting here. You can do whatever you like of course.

My point was that you should stop and defend the name when someone
comes here and is surprised over it. And absolutely not attack the
poor guy (or doll).

My advice is that if someone says that the name is wrong, you simply
say - we know - but we don't care. Because it is wrong - and defending
the name is just going to get you inte long and fruitless threads.

If I (for some resaon) gets involved in a similar discussion in the
future I shall try to be more precise what I mean.


BTW - I think I have written 3 replies this time - all trying to
tell someone to stop bugging someone else that asks about the name.
I don't really think it is fair of you to say that I am "stirring
up trouble".


/Roland
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:53:23 PM

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9600CD18C9D70klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> BTW - I think I have written 3 replies this time - all trying to
> tell someone to stop bugging someone else that asks about the name.
> I don't really think it is fair of you to say that I am "stirring
> up trouble".
>

Fair enough. <apology> :-)

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 1:18:24 AM

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

Leo R. commented courteously ...

[snip]
> Unfortunatelly I've just returned my Nikon CP8800...
so I guess I don't qualify
[snip]

What happened, Leo? Anything I should know about? I'm
getting ready to go buy an 8800 and the SB-800 early next
week, now that the big camera show is over and nothing
came out to replace it.

I assume its you problem with high shutter speeds ? ...

Thanks.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:49:01 PM

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

Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in news:MPG.1c7ee8d43313d8659896b2
@news.individual.NET:

> Roland, we GET YOUR POINT..
>
> We got it the FIRST time, and the second and the THIRD..

Why so hostile?

Please calm down and behave.



/Roland
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:40:56 PM

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

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9600ED161254BReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Leo R. commented courteously ...
>
> [snip]
> > Unfortunatelly I've just returned my Nikon CP8800...
> so I guess I don't qualify
> [snip]
>
> What happened, Leo? Anything I should know about? I'm
> getting ready to go buy an 8800 and the SB-800 early next
> week, now that the big camera show is over and nothing
> came out to replace it.
>
> I assume its you problem with high shutter speeds ? ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry

Hi again Jerry,
Yes the high shutter speed problem is it. I would miss out on too much of
the challenging type of photography I enjoy. The camera specs provide for it
to take a properly exposed photo at high speeds but it simply won't do it.
It appears to be a problem common to all CP8800s so although Nikon wouldn't
admit to that, they did take the camera back rather than replace it. It
wasn't an easy decision for me, because apart from that it is a fabulous
camera. IMHO none of the other 8Mp digicams come close to the 8800 so I'm
looking at a D70. BTW the audio is out of sync with the video too but I
knew that before I bought it.
Unless you wish to capture pics at very high shutter speeds I'm sure you'll
enjoy the 8800.
Regards.
Leo
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:42:28 PM

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

Roland Karlsson schreef:
> "Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote in
> news:%sXMd.897$ZZ.639@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>>>"J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o pslo9zwn1lw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br...
>>
>>I own a Panasonic DMC FZ-20 5mp 12x zoom digital ZLR camera and
>>because of that I can post to this group and talk about it as much as
>>I like. I really enjoy using this type of ZLR camera. It's the best in
>>its class. What type of ZLR camera do you own?
>>
>
>
> Personally I own a Canon G2. I also own a computer and have
> a news account. And I can post in any group I wish. As long
> I stay within the charter of the group I am also more than
> welcome to do so.
>
> The meaning of the acronym ZLR is within the charter of this
> group with a broad margin as this group is called ZLR. The
> fact that the charter for this group discribes cameras that
> shall really not be called ZLR is a valid topic.
>
> The making of this group was a mistake as it is spreading
> misinformation. I understand that you that post here need
> a group to discuss your somewhat more advanced compact digital
> cameras. But I don't understand why you insist that your cameras
> are called ZLR. They are mostly EVF and sometimes only
> normal digital cameras with more zoom.
>
>
> /Roland


I'm thinking about the KM A200.
Not shure yet
I like the 28-200 mm (not so many do have such a lens)
Rather nice video (for a photo camera !)
8 megapixels
RAW
Not too heavy camera an rather small
Manual zoom

But I've been made a little bit afraid af all the postings on the
several FORUM about "dull" images.

Anyone can help me out ??
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:42:29 PM

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

Rob <"r.weekhout"@" < wrote:
[]
> I'm thinking about the KM A200.
> Not shure yet
> I like the 28-200 mm (not so many do have such a lens)
> Rather nice video (for a photo camera !)
> 8 megapixels
> RAW
> Not too heavy camera an rather small
> Manual zoom
>
> But I've been made a little bit afraid af all the postings on the
> several FORUM about "dull" images.
>
> Anyone can help me out ??

You might be best to try one out for yourself. I tried the KM A2 and
rejected it for various reasons, but not "dull" images. The manual zoom
was nice, as was the resolution of the viewfinder (EVF).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:19:41 AM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:caMRd.18518$8B3.18230@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Rob <"r.weekhout"@" < wrote:
> []
>> I'm thinking about the KM A200.
>> Not shure yet
>> I like the 28-200 mm (not so many do have such a lens)
>> Rather nice video (for a photo camera !)
>> 8 megapixels
>> RAW
>> Not too heavy camera an rather small
>> Manual zoom
>>
>> But I've been made a little bit afraid af all the postings on the
>> several FORUM about "dull" images.
>>
>> Anyone can help me out ??
>
> You might be best to try one out for yourself. I tried the KM A2 and
> rejected it for various reasons, but not "dull" images. The manual zoom
> was nice, as was the resolution of the viewfinder (EVF).


I'm coming to this thread late, but would you mind posting the reasons you
rejected this camera?

Thanks,
Hark




> Cheers,
> David
>
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:10:48 PM

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

Harkhof wrote:
[]
> I'm coming to this thread late, but would you mind posting the
> reasons you rejected this camera?
>
> Thanks,
> Hark

I've written about this before but:

- the images did not deliver the quality I expected

- the images were no better than the Nikon 5700 the Minolta A2 was due to
replace

- in-camera JPEG mode had nasty artefacts, requiring that you shoot RAW.
(The software supplied RAW to JPEG convertor didn't have these artefacts).

- there were faults in the Minolta A1 which were not fixed in the A2

- the image stabilisation indicated that it didn't work at lower shutter
speeds (e.g. 1/10s)

- the viewfinder was of "tinny" construction and did not articulate fully

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:16:14 AM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:sqfVd.26707$8B3.3919@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Harkhof wrote:
> []
>> I'm coming to this thread late, but would you mind posting the
>> reasons you rejected this camera?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hark
>
> I've written about this before but:
>
> - the images did not deliver the quality I expected
>
> - the images were no better than the Nikon 5700 the Minolta A2 was due to
> replace
>
> - in-camera JPEG mode had nasty artefacts, requiring that you shoot RAW.
> (The software supplied RAW to JPEG convertor didn't have these artefacts).
>
> - there were faults in the Minolta A1 which were not fixed in the A2
>
> - the image stabilisation indicated that it didn't work at lower shutter
> speeds (e.g. 1/10s)
>
> - the viewfinder was of "tinny" construction and did not articulate fully
>
> Cheers,
> David


Thanks, David!
!