Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is there such a gap between the ZLRs and SLRs?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:40:36 PM

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

I've got an FZ-20 and I'm mostly happy with it. The only real
disappoinment is its low-light performance due to the small
sensor. But I wasn't really in the market for an SLR: they're out of
my budget and more complicated/involved than I wanted.

The FZ-30 fixes some of the FZ-20's weaknesses, but not the major one,
which is the small sensor.

Why don't the manufacturers produce a higher-end ZLR with an SLR-sized
sensor and a real through-the-lens viewfinder, but no interchangeable
lenses? It could easily slot in pricewise between the current ZLRs and
SLRs, and the lack of interchangeable lenses would distinguish it from
the SLRs.

More about : gap zlrs slrs

Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:02:32 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:40:36 -0400, Dave Sill <dave@sill.org> wrote:

>I've got an FZ-20 and I'm mostly happy with it. The only real
>disappoinment is its low-light performance due to the small
>sensor. But I wasn't really in the market for an SLR: they're out of
>my budget and more complicated/involved than I wanted.
>
>The FZ-30 fixes some of the FZ-20's weaknesses, but not the major one,
>which is the small sensor.
>
>Why don't the manufacturers produce a higher-end ZLR with an SLR-sized
>sensor and a real through-the-lens viewfinder, but no interchangeable
>lenses? It could easily slot in pricewise between the current ZLRs and
>SLRs, and the lack of interchangeable lenses would distinguish it from
>the SLRs.

I doubt you would be happy with the monstrous size of the lens on such
a hypothetical camera (assuming you would still want a fast lens with
1:10 or 1:12 zoom ratio).

Far better to improve the sensitivity of the sensor.

K.S.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:04:43 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:40:36 -0400, Dave Sill <dave@sill.org> wrote:
> I've got an FZ-20 and I'm mostly happy with it. The only real
> disappoinment is its low-light performance due to the small
> sensor. But I wasn't really in the market for an SLR: they're out of
> my budget and more complicated/involved than I wanted.
>
> The FZ-30 fixes some of the FZ-20's weaknesses, but not the major one,
> which is the small sensor.
>
> Why don't the manufacturers produce a higher-end ZLR with an SLR-sized
> sensor and a real through-the-lens viewfinder, but no interchangeable
> lenses? It could easily slot in pricewise between the current ZLRs and
> SLRs, and the lack of interchangeable lenses would distinguish it from
> the SLRs.

I think price is the problem. If you require an SLR-sized sensor, that
means a bigger lens to get the same sort of zoom range that the ZLR
market is aimed at. A bigger lens means higher cost, and your
hypothetical fixed-lens camera will end up costing as much as a Canon
350 and a couple of lens covering the same total range of focal lengths.

There also isn't that much room. The FZ30 is supposedly listing for
$700, or about what a low-end SLR body costs. Jacking up the sensor size
and hence the lens diameter and length will probably add a couple
hundred dollars to the price. Include 17-85 and 100-300 lenses, and the
SLR will cost about $1000-$1200 or thereabouts.

-dms
Related resources
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:07:00 PM

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

"Dave Sill" <dave@sill.org> skrev i meddelandet
news:wx0ll2ssdi3.fsf@sws5.ornl.gov...
> I've got an FZ-20 and I'm mostly happy with it. The only real
> disappoinment is its low-light performance due to the small
> sensor. But I wasn't really in the market for an SLR: they're out of
> my budget and more complicated/involved than I wanted.
>
> The FZ-30 fixes some of the FZ-20's weaknesses, but not the major one,
> which is the small sensor.
>
> Why don't the manufacturers produce a higher-end ZLR with an SLR-sized
> sensor and a real through-the-lens viewfinder, but no interchangeable
> lenses? It could easily slot in pricewise between the current ZLRs and
> SLRs, and the lack of interchangeable lenses would distinguish it from
> the SLRs.

They have done this already. These are called the Olympus E-10 and E-20
resp.

Regards,

Per Nordenberg


--
Jag använder gratisversionen av SPAMfighter
642 spam har blivit blockerade hittills.
Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin e-post.
Hämta gratis på www.spamfighter.com idag!
August 24, 2005 4:16:26 AM

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

First, the FZ30 do have a bigger sensor than the FZ20. It's 1/8" against
1/2,5".
Sensors with 1/1.8" and 7 Mpixels have been successfully implemented with
much much less noise than the 8 Mpixel that the FZ30 show. This is a real
pity that the did not settle for proven and useful 7 Mpixel.
Look at the Canon G6 or SD 500 and the Sony P200 or W7, even though they
cannot compare with the SLR's at high ISO's but at normal ISO's they are so
much smoother than the Z30.
I can tolerate when high ISO settings gets a little grainy, but not when its
totally visible on 50 ISO.

Real through the lens viewfinder means; SLR including a mirror, and the
space it ockupies.
The mirror itself is a trade off when it comes to optical quality, because
the rearmost lens must be placed "too" far from the sensor for an ideal lens
design. Such very compact super zoom lenses from Panasonic Z and Canon S2IS
would not be possible with a mirror either.
A super quality electronic viewfinder is very much needed to improve on ZLR
and prosumer cameras.
The Minolta A2 had a high resolution viewer, don't know why the skipped it
for the A200?
/per
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:25:42 AM

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

per skrev:

> Real through the lens viewfinder means; SLR including a mirror, and
> the space it ockupies.
> The mirror itself is a trade off when it comes to optical quality,
> because the rearmost lens must be placed "too" far from the sensor
> for an ideal lens design.

Also, if you have no mirror, you get no vibrations from mirror slap,
which also affects image quality in some circumstances. (Can be
circumvented by using mirror lockup, but this is a) a cumbersome extra
step, and b) not all otherwise excellent dSLR:s allow mirror lockup for
taking pictures.)

On a more general level, a mirror is also is a tradeoff for
discreetnes. After all, it's the mirror, not the shutter, that makes
almost all of that freaking noise every time on takes a picture with an
SLR.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 4:58:40 PM

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

Per Nordenberg wrote:
> "Dave Sill" <dave@sill.org> skrev i meddelandet
> news:wx0ll2ssdi3.fsf@sws5.ornl.gov...
>> I've got an FZ-20 and I'm mostly happy with it. The only real
>> disappoinment is its low-light performance due to the small
>> sensor. But I wasn't really in the market for an SLR: they're out of
>> my budget and more complicated/involved than I wanted.
>>
>> The FZ-30 fixes some of the FZ-20's weaknesses, but not the major
>> one, which is the small sensor.
>>
>> Why don't the manufacturers produce a higher-end ZLR with an
>> SLR-sized sensor and a real through-the-lens viewfinder, but no
>> interchangeable lenses? It could easily slot in pricewise between
>> the current ZLRs and SLRs, and the lack of interchangeable lenses
>> would distinguish it from the SLRs.
>
> They have done this already. These are called the Olympus E-10 and
> E-20 resp.

Are you sure? dpreview reports E-10's sensor is 8.80 x 6.60 mm while
EOS-300D's is 22.7 x 15.1 mm. Also, ISO up to 320 suggests a small
sensor (compared to 1600 for the 300D). Also, Zoom is just 35~140 which
isn't really near what the FZ-30 (35~420)does. The only thing that
matches seems to be the TTL viewfinder.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_e10.a...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos30...

Kind regards

robert
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 6:13:53 PM

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

per wrote:
[]> The Minolta A2 had a high resolution viewer, don't know why the
> skipped it for the A200?

Cost? Everyone seems to want to save a few pennies! It was indeed an
excellent finder and a step on the road to a good resolution EVF, even
though it was "only" VGA resolution.

David
!