If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1021
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
sgtdisturbed wrote:
[] If any of you see wild comparisons about how "a DSLR kicks the sh*t out of all P&S cameras", just ignore it. We all know what's really going on with today's cameras, so let the idiots just throw their tantrums and they will tire out. Except these days there is more likelihood of a false posting the other way round. The posters go quiet when the image defects are pointed out. Let people compare the images for themselves. Cheers, David |
#1022
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Neil Harrington wrote:
"William Graham" wrote in message . .. "Chris Malcolm" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.digital.zlr William Graham wrote: But the way you talk about digital Point & Shoots, one would think they are more sophisticated electronically, and I can't understand why this would be the case......Why couldn't you take a digital Point & Shoot, add a mirror and a rangefinder to it, and give it the ability to interchange lenses and have a better camera? Of course, it wouldn't be smaller or lighter or cheaper, and therefore as capable of being smuggled into opera houses and night clubs, but for general photography, why wouldn't it be a better (more versatile) machine? IOW, why would leaving off a mirror provide the machine with any better electronics than not leaving off a mirror? It doesn't necessarily provide the machine with more sophisticated electronics, but having a mirror in front of the sensor prevents you from using those extra sophistications, because they depend on having the lens focussing the image on the sensor instead of through the viewfinder. In other words, the mirror literally gets in the way. The few very expensive DSLRs which do offer such facilities do so either by offering a dual mode of operation, such as mirror up and mirror down, with mirror up losing you the valued optical viewfinder, or they compromise on optical efficiency by using a half silvered mirror, etc.. In other words, if you want a mirror *and* those facilities, getting round the mirror problem involves further costly engineering and compromises. The SLR mirror is a carry over from clockwork film camera technology some of whose advantages haven't yet quite been duplicated by purely digital technology. In fact digital technology can do it, just not yet at an marketable price. We won't have to wait long. In other words the SLR design concept is already obsolescent. There are huge investments in the technology which will prevent it from becoming obsolete for a long time yet, however. OK. I understand that the mirror can be a pain. the same thing is/was true for film cameras. but the alternative is the electronic viewfinder, and I haven't seen any that measure up to the "real" image view that you get with a mirror yet. These tiny screens on the back of the cameras just won't cut it. Maybe a combination....You look in the hole just like an optical viewfinder, but instead of a mirror, you see a huge view of an electronic image that is as spectacular as the one you will eventually see on your desktop 20 inch monitor..... Which would mean an EVF resolution of more than a megapixel, maybe two megapixels. I don't expect to see anything like that marketed for a long time, if ever. Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it shouldn't be long in coming. But apart from the difference in viewfinder clarity, the DSLR has other advantages over anything with an EVF. My Coolpix 8800 for example is a great camera, but doesn't have all the flash capabilities of my D80 or even D40, or even any of the Nikon DSLRs being made when the 8800 was introduced. It accepts the same flash units but can't do the same things with them. Only because someone in marketing decided not to offer those features. The camera doesn't have to have a mirror in order to conrol a flash. For whatever reasons, the DSLR is able to do easily some things the EVF camera cannot do at all. Since the converse is also true, the reasons are rather important. We're not talking about what you can easily find in a High St camera shop today, we're discussing what may be offered in the near future. -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#1023
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Chris Malcolm wrote:
Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. Surely that cannot be right? The review of this camera on the Steve's Digicams web site suggests that the EVF has only VGA resolution: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2.html VGA implies 640x480 resolution, or 0.3 MP, which is a very long way from the 9.2 MP you suggested. |
#1024
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Tony Polson wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote: Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. Surely that cannot be right? The review of this camera on the Steve's Digicams web site suggests that the EVF has only VGA resolution: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2.html VGA implies 640x480 resolution, or 0.3 MP, which is a very long way from the 9.2 MP you suggested. .... although the Luminous Landscape review of the same model suggests it is 1.0 MP: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...nolta-a2.shtml The reviewer states: The A2 has the highest resolution electronic viewfinder (EVF) of any camera currently (March, 2004) on the market, at nearly 1 Megapixel. Four times that of anything else. |
#1025
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:
Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it shouldn't be long in coming. You are off by a factor of 30. First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP. Still 0.92 would be very impressive, if it were true, but they counted the red green and blue pixels separately, in reality it was a vga display with 640x480 pixels. Scott |
#1026
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
... In rec.photo.digital.zlr Neil Harrington wrote: "William Graham" wrote in message . .. "Chris Malcolm" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.digital.zlr William Graham wrote: But the way you talk about digital Point & Shoots, one would think they are more sophisticated electronically, and I can't understand why this would be the case......Why couldn't you take a digital Point & Shoot, add a mirror and a rangefinder to it, and give it the ability to interchange lenses and have a better camera? Of course, it wouldn't be smaller or lighter or cheaper, and therefore as capable of being smuggled into opera houses and night clubs, but for general photography, why wouldn't it be a better (more versatile) machine? IOW, why would leaving off a mirror provide the machine with any better electronics than not leaving off a mirror? It doesn't necessarily provide the machine with more sophisticated electronics, but having a mirror in front of the sensor prevents you from using those extra sophistications, because they depend on having the lens focussing the image on the sensor instead of through the viewfinder. In other words, the mirror literally gets in the way. The few very expensive DSLRs which do offer such facilities do so either by offering a dual mode of operation, such as mirror up and mirror down, with mirror up losing you the valued optical viewfinder, or they compromise on optical efficiency by using a half silvered mirror, etc.. In other words, if you want a mirror *and* those facilities, getting round the mirror problem involves further costly engineering and compromises. The SLR mirror is a carry over from clockwork film camera technology some of whose advantages haven't yet quite been duplicated by purely digital technology. In fact digital technology can do it, just not yet at an marketable price. We won't have to wait long. In other words the SLR design concept is already obsolescent. There are huge investments in the technology which will prevent it from becoming obsolete for a long time yet, however. OK. I understand that the mirror can be a pain. the same thing is/was true for film cameras. but the alternative is the electronic viewfinder, and I haven't seen any that measure up to the "real" image view that you get with a mirror yet. These tiny screens on the back of the cameras just won't cut it. Maybe a combination....You look in the hole just like an optical viewfinder, but instead of a mirror, you see a huge view of an electronic image that is as spectacular as the one you will eventually see on your desktop 20 inch monitor..... Which would mean an EVF resolution of more than a megapixel, maybe two megapixels. I don't expect to see anything like that marketed for a long time, if ever. Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it shouldn't be long in coming. 9.2M pixel? Get real. |
#1027
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article , Tony Polson
wrote: Chris Malcolm wrote: Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. Surely that cannot be right? The review of this camera on the Steve's Digicams web site suggests that the EVF has only VGA resolution: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2.html VGA implies 640x480 resolution, or 0.3 MP, which is a very long way from the 9.2 MP you suggested. apparently, konica/minolta is using the sigma method of how to count pixels. it's a 640 x 480 pixel display and they are counting each component as a full pixel, for a total of '922,000 pixels.' it may be higher than other cameras, but even with the inflated count, he's still off by a factor of 10. http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products...era/dimage/dim age-a2/specifications.html 11 mm / 0.44 inch TFT liquid crystal microdisplay, VGA size, Equivalent visual resolution: 922,000 pixels, Field of view: approx. 100%, Diagonal view angle: approx. 32° dpreview, however, at least makes it clear in the counting: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/page2.asp 0.44" Type TFT, 922,000 pixels (640 x 480 x 3 primary colors) imaging resource gets it right: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A2/A2A.HTM There's also a new electronic viewfinder which can either provide a whopping 640 x 480 pixels of resolution, or trade half of that resolution off for an impressive 60 frames per second refresh rate at 640 x 240 pixels. |
#1028
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"nospam" wrote: In article , Tony Polson wrote: Chris Malcolm wrote: Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. Surely that cannot be right? The review of this camera on the Steve's Digicams web site suggests that the EVF has only VGA resolution: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2.html VGA implies 640x480 resolution, or 0.3 MP, which is a very long way from the 9.2 MP you suggested. apparently, konica/minolta is using the sigma method of how to count pixels. it's a 640 x 480 pixel display and they are counting each component as a full pixel, for a total of '922,000 pixels.' it may be higher than other cameras, but even with the inflated count, he's still off by a factor of 10. Actually, it's the Minolta method. They pioneered it years before Sigma with the Dimage 7. (Which happens to be one of the crappiest viewfinders I've ever put my eye to.) dpreview, however, at least makes it clear in the counting: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/page2.asp 0.44" Type TFT, 922,000 pixels (640 x 480 x 3 primary colors) Interestingly, at least some of the camera companies use "dots" instead of "pixels" in their Japanese advertizing for this, and so the dishonesty comes in in the English documentation. But the bottom line is that if you A/B compare the best EVF to the worst dSLR, the EVF looks sick. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#1029
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Dec 5, 8:49 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: sgtdisturbed wrote: [] If any of you see wild comparisons about how "a DSLR kicks the sh*t out of all P&S cameras", just ignore it. We all know what's really going on with today's cameras, so let the idiots just throw their tantrums and they will tire out. Except these days there is more likelihood of a false posting the other way round. The posters go quiet when the image defects are pointed out. Let people compare the images for themselves. Cheers, David Well, in two of the cases I did observe before I worked out what was going on, when defects were pointed out (eg "this is heavily noise reduced and grossly oversharpened"), the reply was, one time, "no it's not" and the other "it is sad that some dslr owners etc". That's not going quiet, is it? |
#1030
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
acl wrote:
[] Well, in two of the cases I did observe before I worked out what was going on, when defects were pointed out (eg "this is heavily noise reduced and grossly oversharpened"), the reply was, one time, "no it's not" and the other "it is sad that some dslr owners etc". That's not going quiet, is it? G David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Film lenses on dslr | quess who | Digital Photography | 4 | September 22nd 06 10:07 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels | arifi | Digital Photography | 11 | May 25th 06 09:21 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |