Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > I don't want a DSLR

Reply
Thread Tools

I don't want a DSLR

 
 
AT
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
for me too. the other guy may be more fortunate though.

)))


"Charlie Dilks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> In article <zpkFb.2080$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> " AT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > or wait and see what the new leica does.
> > if it produces leica quality, then we are lucky.

>
> You may be lucky, not me.
> Adorama has it for pre-order for 1850.00 USD.
> http://www.adorama.com/REFBY.TPL?&SKU=ILCD2
>
> Too rich for me.
> --
> Charlie Dilks
> Newark, DE USA



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
The great majority of people who buy SLRs never buy a second lens.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
> I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
> lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
> "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
> all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
> spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
> the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
> something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
> stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?
> Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
> detachable lenses?



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
Todd Walker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>There is nothing wrong with not wanting to tote around a DSLR and bag
>full of lenses, although I would highly recommend trying it before
>making that assertion. I think that you will find that the image quality
>and flexibility are well worth the extra size, weight, and lack of
>"convenience." But I digress...


I'd say that's probably not true. That's a lot to lug around. You can
get good photos from a 5MP digicam. And you can carry it in a palm
sized case. It's convenient.

That's comparing the photos I've taken with those I've seen posted on
various sites shot with 10D and D60s. Again, maybe those photographers
didn't do the cameras any justice. That's possible. But at the pixel
level, I see little advantage for many photos in a dSLR. You're
talking RAW files. So you're not going to use most of the gimics and
features of your dSLR. Same for your digicam. The disadvantage is the
literal bulk of the thing, lugging it around, pointing it at people,
heavy tripod, massive lenses, and so on. I've had SLRs. These are just
SLRs with CCDs. For all that weight, bulk, and massive amounts of your
own money, there really has to be an huge advantage over current 5MP
digicams, rather than just go back to your film SLR for your 'problem'
shots, supposedly better glass, and so on. I'll probably try the 10D
or D60 used, next year, at trailing edge discount. So, maybe I'll find
even more reasons to favor a dSLR, rather than dislike the bulkiness
and inconvenience of that. We'll see. But I still have my old SLR and
lenses and the big genuine leather camera bag. I just don't use them,
now.


>There is no reason that a manufacturer such as Canon or Nikon couldn't
>make a fixed lens version of the 10D/D100, etc.


But the bodies are probably too big, particularly the 10D. Might as
well just keep it dSLR. They could sell a metal case with the foam
cutouts to carry it around - like a suitcase. Suitcase cam.


>would they? If you put a DSLR sized sensor in the camera, that's where
>the majority of the camera's cost comes from.


The CCD can be expensive. Think about what it would cost if they put a
premium scientific sensor on there, instead of a commercial CCD. What
if Canon figures out a good foveon model? People _are_ amazed that a
Bayer technique can even produce a photo, much less the brilliant
photos you get from digicams.


>So in the instance of Canon, you would probably want an L quality lens
>on it. The 24-70 f/2.8L is a great lens for day-to-day use and it's
>$1200. Let's say they could make the body for $1000, so you have a $2200
>camera that doesn't have interchangeable lenses. NO ONE would buy it.


Not right away. Only after it was discontinued.

You know, there seems to be a lot of - markup - in this stuff, as
well. They may have a lot more flexibility in price than we might
imagine, except for the 300 which Canon has been expensively
advertizing on television.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Whitaker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):
> I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
> lenses, then have to lug them all around. ...
> Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
> detachable lenses?


There's no law REQUIRING you to purchase more than 1 lens. You could always
buy a single lens, attach it, and then pretend like it can't be removed.
Here's one that comes close to matching the 38-380mm lens of your camera:
http://tinyurl.com/2sp9w
Tokina 24-200mm for only $229.00 after rebate. On the Digital Rebel, that
would be a 38-320mm. Isn't that close enough?





--
To email me, type my 1st name before my last.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
"Stanley Krute" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I imagine one could price it at the $1000 300D price point
>and make an excellent value/convenience argument.


That's way too expensive. Very few people can afford $1000 for a
digicam. And that doesn't even include flash and lenses.

What you mean by 'price point' is generally thought, as least as far
as I get the sense, to be around $400. If at that price, in a few
years, you can get a pro/scientific grade sensor, 10MP, in a small
pocket cam, maybe like C5050 size, with built-in 10x stabilized zoom,
manual focus ring option, manual speed and shutter ring option, low
noise and high sensitivity, no shutter/focus lag and rapid multiple
shot to buffer and/or bracketing even in RAW mode, 1024x768 (or
whatever) video and stereo sound limited only by the card size, etc.
then it would be seller.

But people would complain, it's _only_ 10MP. So. And besides, maybe
digital camcorders will become that capable and displace still
digicams entirely? Perhaps the technological gap between 8-track and
CD will seem a lot closer by comparison than the present crop of
digicams and what might be available in even just two years time?


>Its buyers would come at the expense of Nikon 5700,
>Sony 828, et al buyers.


Doesn't the 828 have a problem with noise?


>Hmm. Canon's just announced they're bringing out a
>flood of cameras in 2004. Wonder if they're clever
>enough to have something like this in the mix ?


They've had a good run, so far. Might be interesting to see if they
flounder in 'shirt-pocket' digicams, or really come up with something
both convenient, and a real step ahead. I wonder if 2005 isn't the
year for the real development to kick in. But how could anyone say?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Schnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
A friend of mine is happy with his "Fujifilm FinePix S5000 Zoom" he bought
with these thoughts in mind. Same has a 1:10 Zoom optic. Though regarding
Fuji does the "FinePix S7000 Zoom" with supposedly much better image quality
with only 1:6 Zoom optic, it's obvious that such a huge zoom can't be
manufactured with decent quality in a small housing.

-Michael




 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
Michael Schnell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>A friend of mine is happy with his "Fujifilm FinePix S5000 Zoom" he bought
>with these thoughts in mind. Same has a 1:10 Zoom optic. Though regarding
>Fuji does the "FinePix S7000 Zoom" with supposedly much better image quality
>with only 1:6 Zoom optic, it's obvious that such a huge zoom can't be
>manufactured with decent quality in a small housing.


It's not THAT obvious. I just finished some photos with a e-100rs I
just got. And it has a stablized 10x zoom. Now, admittedly, it's got a
large CCD, and few pixels. But it's also a good, quiet, sharp, bright
zoom lens.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy Nixon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Who says it has to be an SLR? How about a Digital Rebel-like camera,
> with a fixed lens like the C2100 has. I'm talking all the features, etc
> of the Rebel, with it's low noise sensor and speed. OK by me if the
> viewfinder is an EVF. I don't even need manual focus or zoom. Just
> mimic the kind of focus system an SLR has so it is faster and more
> accurate than the run of the mill consumer cam. Also, whatever makes
> the DSLR so fast for shutter lag, add that in to the camera. If it's
> manual focus that makes a DSLR fast, then I'll take the hit using auto,
> as long as the focus system is as fast as a DSLR automatic mode.


It's primarily the lack of an electronic viewfinder that makes a DSLR able
to be so much faster. The sensor only needs to handle the exposure, not
"switch gears" into live-preview mode, which is also part of the reason
the sensors can deliver higher picture quality. So yes, you really do
want a DSLR, you just don't want expensive lenses and features you're
never going to care about.

> Maybe the whole question is put wrong. Basically, I'm boiling it down
> to wanting:
> No interchangeable lens hassles (hassle for me anyway)


You could just put an all-purpose lens on a DSLR and never buy another
one. Lots of people have been doing that since way back in the film era.

> Put a camera out there that can perform as well as a DSLR (or almost, if
> the permanent lens has to be just a *smidge* less quality than the
> expensive interchangeable ones)


A wide-range all-purpose zoom lens is going to be a bit lower in quality
than the more specialized lenses that you can't use all the time. No big
deal; if that's what you want, my suggestion would be to buy one such
lens (wide to tele zoom) and stick with it. The extra quality of the
expensive specialty lenses is useful mainly to pros anyway.

Seriously. Why not look at a Digital Rebel or a D100 and just one lens?
No one is going to make fun of you for not having lots of lenses.

--
Jeremy | http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 

Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
In article <Xns9458AA5FEE4E1lettonyin@207.69.154.202>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
>  <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
> > I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
> > lenses, then have to lug them all around. ...
> > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
> > detachable lenses?

>
> There's no law REQUIRING you to purchase more than 1 lens. You could always
> buy a single lens, attach it, and then pretend like it can't be removed.
> Here's one that comes close to matching the 38-380mm lens of your camera:
> http://tinyurl.com/2sp9w
> Tokina 24-200mm for only $229.00 after rebate. On the Digital Rebel, that
> would be a 38-320mm. Isn't that close enough?
>
>
>
>
>
>


OK that sounds a little better. Just how good is a $229 lens that spans
that kind of zoom range, though? I said I don't necessarily need the
quality of the multi $ hundred lenses (just consumer pics for me), but I
was thinking interchangeable lenses only spanned a relatively small zoom
range, and one had to own several to cover a 10X zoom range. That would
cost too much.
 
Reply With Quote
 
y_p_w
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2003
Chris Brown <(E-Mail Removed)_uce_please.com> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
> >I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
> >lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
> >"I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
> >all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
> >spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
> >the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
> >something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
> >stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?

>
> You could get a 300D kit and a tube of superglue...


I wouldn't trust superglue to do the job. Maybe JB-Weld.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which P&S to complement a dSLR (follows "Hamstrung by a dSLR") Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 17 07-10-2005 03:31 AM
[DSLR] rpd.slr-systems is _the_ place for DSLR discussion Alan Browne Digital Photography 41 04-14-2005 06:33 AM
Nikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!!) ?? Digital Photography 61 03-18-2005 07:41 AM
Advice please: DSLR or DSLR-style? JB Digital Photography 10 10-21-2004 10:07 AM
If you want great pics ...don't buy a DSLR Jim Waggener Digital Photography 72 02-10-2004 11:43 AM



Advertisments