Death knell for prosumers?

M-M writes:
Oh, that's appropriate for this discussion. A 7 pound video camera
costing $17,500.

It shows the way things are going. A Kodak DCS DSLR cost that much
not all that long ago.

"Skip" writes:
EVF's work fine in bright light as long as there's an eyecup. They
are realtime or sufficiently close in camcorders, though I guess
camcorders usually don't use frame transfer CCD's. And most everybody
uses AF these days, on equipment that supports it.

Re-read. I said "LCD" not EVF. And I don't know what AF has to do with the
discussion. Are you implying that AF obviates the need for accuracy in a
viewfinder?

Oh you mean the LCD on the back of the camera, not the one in the EVF.
That affects DSLR's and non-DSLR's alike, and they are usable in
sunlight if you shield them a bit.

Yes, AF usually (maybe not 100% of the time) obviates the need for
critical focusing in the viewfinder. That's why no DSLR that I know
of comes with a split-image focusing screen, even though I wish they
did since I still have some MF lenses.

I don't know what kind of viewfinders are used in $100,000 digital
movie cameras but I'm quite confident that the film studios who use
those things are every bit as demanding about accurate focusing as any
DSLR user.

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:05:25 -0800, Skip wrote:

"Rick Sciacca" wrote in message
...
On 12/8/06 11:27 AM, "Tony Belding" wrote:
My theory. . . In the long run, it's the DSLR that's going to
disappear.

I think the DSLR will eventually be replaced by a new camera design
that has interchangeable lenses but doesn't share much else with the
DSLR design as we know it. The new lenses won't be legacy designs from
35mm format. There won't be an optical viewfinder or a reflex mirror.
It will have both a live LCD display and an electronic viewfinder.

Think outside the box. This new camera won't have interchangeable lenses
because it won't need them. You can use one lens and change the settings
for
it to act like many different lenses. THAT is the future. Think about it.

It may sound impossible now, but so did flying, camera, and movie cameras
too. And instant communication? Impossible, why it takes months to send a
letter around the world.



Actually it doesn't sound as impossible as you think. Some researchers
(Stanford?) released a preliminary paper last year about a lens that used
liquid/magnetic technology to do exactly what you suggest.

They've actually figured out a way to make the oil lenses from Dune?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:05:25 -0800, Skip wrote:

: Actually it doesn't sound as impossible as you think. Some researchers
: (Stanford?) released a preliminary paper last year about a lens that used
: liquid/magnetic technology to do exactly what you suggest.

: They've actually figured out a way to make the oil lenses from Dune?

Or another way to go. It has been found that a holographic lens works just
like the lens that was holographed. So it might be possible to make a lens
that has the physical dimensions of a thin film on a substrate (something
resembling a polarizing filter) that would have all the characteristics of
a big, thick, heavy glass lens. Such a thing could make a super zoom
covering the range from super-extreme wide angle to super-extreme
telephoto (maybe 8mm to 12000mm) in a compact, light weight package. And
consider this, a screw on focal length multiplier lens that is the size
and weight of a UV filter. Of course some problems have to be cleared up
first as the grain of the film that holds the hologram would effect the
resolution of the virtual lens. So there are possibilities but not yet.


Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote:
The difference between a still camera and a video camera is exactly what?

Even relatively cheap P&S cameras provied 10 Mpixel images. I'm aware of
any consumer video cameras that offer the same resolution.


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

In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:
If sensors were cheap, one idea would be a lens + sensor integrated unit
that would be interchangeable. This would fix the dust on the sensor issue
and still give you interchangeable lenses.

I doubt that reducing dust would be worth giving up an SLR viewfinder.
At the moment sensors are not cheap, at least in the 1Ds probably isn't.

But want I want in the short run is interchangeble sensors in a dSLR.

Which is at odds with integrating the sensor with the lens.

An
8MP, full-frame, monochrome sensor with no IR block filter would be a blast.
For low-light work, there's often almost no blue and only a tiny amount of
green, so those pixels are wasted. Of course, you'd want to borrow the M8
users' IR block filters for normal B&W work.

My guess is that Nikon and Canon move back to system cameras (removably
finder, backs, etc.) when people no longer upgrade as fast as they do
today.

Another thing I want in the short run is a 55-110/2.0 zoom that is compact
enough to take 67mm filters. (Since 110 divided by 2.0 is 55mm, it should be
possible; the enormous front elements on normal zooms are, I suspect,
required due to the need to cover the wide angle end as well.)

This covers low-light concert work, shallow DOF portraiture, and medium tele
landscape work. And with a 2x converter, turns into a 110 to 220/4.0 tele.

Fortunately, there are some nice primes in that range. And they take just
52mm filers. :-)


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

In article .com,
Rich wrote:
Just as with the best prosumers, the optics on the R1 lens are FAR
better than kit lenses for DSLRs. If you want an equivalent to the
R1's lens for a DSLR, look at the Leica the Panasonic DMC-L1 DSLR has.
$1300.00.
The R-1 really was a terrific idea with some shortcomings, namely P&S
slowness and a plastic body.

Yes, but with the R1 you are stuck with whatever they put on the camera.


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

"Tony Belding" wrote in message
news:2006120810270516807-zobeid@techiecom...
On 2006-12-02 14:48:13 -0600, "Rich" said:

Real prosumer cams are long gone. The magnesium-bodied Olympus and
Nikons have been replaced by plastic so the "bridge camera" quality
aspect is gone.

My theory. . . In the long run, it's the DSLR that's going to
disappear.

I think the DSLR will eventually be replaced by a new camera design that
has interchangeable lenses but doesn't share much else with the DSLR
design as we know it. The new lenses won't be legacy designs from 35mm
format. There won't be an optical viewfinder or a reflex mirror. It will
have both a live LCD display and an electronic viewfinder.

The optical viewfinder and reflex mirror have outlived their usefulness.

As a professional video cameraman and still photographer I can assure you
that it is not going to happen soon. There is no active viewfinder with
enough resolution to focus accurately and quickly. Professional video
cameras still use black and white CRT viewfinders because LCD screens are
too crappy, and now there are big focus problems with HD cams because the
viewfinders are not adequate for critical focusing of 1080 pixel pictures.
In addition an active screen in a digital still camera would eat power,
requiring more and larger batteries to be carried--not exactly a welcome
thought. I don't know what you mean by an "electronic" viewfinder, but if
you are talking LCD you are in the same mess. The optical viewfinder with
mirror is a perfect solution to the problems of resolution and power drain
of LCDs.

Toby

J. Clarke wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:27:05 -0600, Tony Belding wrote:
The optical viewfinder and reflex mirror have outlived their usefulness.

At what resolution and framerate does an EVF become a viable substitute
for a ground-glass under all circumstances?
At the same time an optical finder becomes a viable substitute for
a movable lcd screen.

Volker

M-M writes:
The difference between a still camera and a video camera is exactly what?
Resolution.

Nah, I posted the link earlier of the Red Digital Cinema camera, 12
megapixel video. That's higher than almost any of the still cameras
we usually discuss in this group.