Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr)

Reply
Thread Tools

2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr)

 
 
Jeremy Nixon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-07-2004
edward ohare <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> But it provides the same advantage as a reflex concerning the viewing
> of the image for composition. It seems to me its the feature and the
> benefit it provides that matters, not how its done.


Matters to what? Technical classification, or discussion? Do you really
think any Canon G3 owners are going to find anything useful in the proposed
group just because their electronic viewfinder works through the lens?

--
Jeremy | http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-07-2004

"Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsLo%c.13262$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Lionel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Deletions<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>

> I didn't look in any books, there is no need to. I know what the
> hell an SLR is in todays context. The only book I have handy
> that looks at various camera systems and their general
> description is that which I quoted.
>
>


Sorry Alan, that sounds like the classical line, "I can't define
pornography but I know it when I see it"

Jim.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
edward ohare
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004
On 6 Sep 2004 19:13:45 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>edward ohare <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> I'm not trying to be fair or unfair to anyone. I'm just observing
>> that some people believe this is fact.

>
>The fact is that there are different types of "real cameras". My Coolpix is
>a real camera, and so is your Camedia. But they are not dSLRs. I would
>rather see a group for my camera than see it in a group where it clearly
>doesn't belong.



Why, I think you've missed an indication of whether a product is real
or not, the one provided by the manufacturer. "Cute" names mean the
manufacturer doesn't consider the product real.

For example, Chevy Chevette. A cute name, and it was always referred
to as "Chevy" not the formal "Chevrolet" in the advertising. But, no,
the Chevette was not a real car, and Chevrolet saw it that way. Kraft
Miracle Whip. Its not real mayonaise, so they came up with a cute
name that implied supernatural intervention. Less cute but entirely
practical is Big K Cola. No doubt its not The Real Thing (tm).

Then there's the deal about overstating the situation, which means the
product isn't even average. An example here is the Estate line by
Whirlpool. No one with an estate is going to buy an Estate. They're
relatively cheap. Or Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. The best? Nope,
not even in the size class. You had to buy a Supreme Brougham or
Supreme International, depending on the year.

So, obviously, the manufacturers don't consider our cameras real.
Yours could easily have followed the Kraft example and been called the
MiraclePix. My could been called the Supreme Zoom. It makes no
difference, as long as the coding is there for the perceptive: This
Is Not A Real Camera.

So I think what Thad needs to do here is forget the futile attempts to
dodge the issue that he wants a group for real cameras by trying to
define the technical aspects of a real camera while denying that's
what he's trying to do. Discussion of techical features is
irrelevant. Hey, Thad, just do it this way. "This group is for real
cameras. If your camera has a cute name, then its not a real camera."

Now, Thad, see how simple that would be?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004
edward ohare wrote:

>
> But it provides the same advantage as a reflex concerning the viewing
> of the image for composition. It seems to me its the feature and the
> benefit it provides that matters, not how its done.
>
> It is most curious you're attacking this on a design issue while the
> feature/benefit remains the same, while including rangefinders which
> do not have the benefit of the SLR design that the G3 has.


We've stomped all over these issues already. The G3 as wonderful
as it is, cannot cover what can be covered with a DSLR.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 
Reply With Quote
 
edward ohare
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:17:46 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>edward ohare wrote:
>
>>
>> But it provides the same advantage as a reflex concerning the viewing
>> of the image for composition. It seems to me its the feature and the
>> benefit it provides that matters, not how its done.
>>
>> It is most curious you're attacking this on a design issue while the
>> feature/benefit remains the same, while including rangefinders which
>> do not have the benefit of the SLR design that the G3 has.

>
>We've stomped all over these issues already. The G3 as wonderful
>as it is, cannot cover what can be covered with a DSLR.




Years ago, the 35mm SLR crowd hauled around mutiple non-zoom lenses
because zooms weren't very good. Zooms got better. Oh, but they were
variable aperature, and that wasn't good enough. Finally, years
later, guess what? SLR people are hauling around multiple zooms.
Often with variable aperature. And now the argument is anything with
single zoom isn't good enough. Since the community has eventually
adopted what it once claimed was intolerable, wouldn't it be expected
to eventually figure a single zoom was OK? (Well, no, of course not,
history is no predictor of the future, eh?)


Occasionally man will stumble over the truth. Usually, he will pick
himself up and carry on. -- Winston Churchill
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004
edward ohare wrote:

> Years ago, the 35mm SLR crowd hauled around mutiple non-zoom lenses
> because zooms weren't very good. Zooms got better. Oh, but they were
> variable aperature, and that wasn't good enough. Finally, years
> later, guess what? SLR people are hauling around multiple zooms.
> Often with variable aperature. And now the argument is anything with
> single zoom isn't good enough. Since the community has eventually
> adopted what it once claimed was intolerable, wouldn't it be expected
> to eventually figure a single zoom was OK? (Well, no, of course not,
> history is no predictor of the future, eh?)


Hmm. There is some truth there, but certainly not the whole
truth. I would never use my zooms for portraits, macro, most
sport and landscape work. I use primes (or: fixed focal length
lenses if you prefer). I do use my two high quality,
non-variable-aperture zooms for some sports, for hiking, fairs,
parties and other less structured work. There's no hard line
here, but usually the right lenses for the job.

Having said that, when Minolta come out with their D7D, I will
consider ordering it with the 28-105 (var aperture) lens as it is
very good as zooms go, and very appropriate to the camera.
However, there are another lenses with higher priorities on my
list, inlcuding at least 2 primes and one (non-var aperture) zoom.

There remain in the SLR world people who swear by fixed-focal and
those who accept the quality limitations of zooms. One point is
that as the optics have improved for the zooms, they have
likewise improved for the better primes as well... so the primes
always come out ahead if that is important to the photog.

The "high quality" zooms rarely have a zoom ratio of more than
about 2.8:1 at that, most exhibit some quality limitations at
wide angle, fully open.

17-35 f/2.8, 28-80 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are the three
"professional" zooms you are likely to see carted around by pj's
and other folks with narrow time constraints on their work.
There is no "super zoom" that is regarded as having sufficient
optical quality for most professional work.

Could a pj use a super zoom? Probably, except for the limitation
in aperture (although the realtively noiseless high ISO help),
the mtf quality he's expected to deliver for a newspaper is not
exceedingly high... but I've seen no pj's to date with less than
the top end glass ... as recently as a few weeks ago at a sports
event.

Will there one day be a 28-300 f/2.8? Or better? I don't know.
One way is to make the sensor even smaller than on cameras like
the G3, but with higher res ---and--- lower noise. Quite an
objective <g>. In fact this is part of Olympus' approach with
the E-1... smaller sensor means smaller lens systems, and fast
apertures for the same FOV as a larger sensor... lower costs for
the best lenses. But are they breaking the zoom ratio wider?
Well so far ...almost, but all are var-aperture (ref: Oly site).

Back to the G3 (or other SLR-like cameras) ... are they any good?
Certainly. Do they meet the needs of people who are trying to
achieve specific results? Only if the specific results are
within the capability of the camera. Hence the G3 is limited.


> Occasionally man will stumble over the truth. Usually, he will pick
> himself up and carry on. -- Winston Churchill


"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read a book of
quotations."
--Winston Churchill



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 
Reply With Quote
 
edward ohare
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:51:23 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>edward ohare wrote:
>
>> Years ago, the 35mm SLR crowd hauled around mutiple non-zoom lenses
>> because zooms weren't very good. Zooms got better. Oh, but they were
>> variable aperature, and that wasn't good enough. Finally, years
>> later, guess what? SLR people are hauling around multiple zooms.
>> Often with variable aperature. And now the argument is anything with
>> single zoom isn't good enough. Since the community has eventually
>> adopted what it once claimed was intolerable, wouldn't it be expected
>> to eventually figure a single zoom was OK? (Well, no, of course not,
>> history is no predictor of the future, eh?)

>
>Hmm. There is some truth there, but certainly not the whole
>truth. I would never use my zooms for portraits, macro, most
>sport and landscape work. I use primes (or: fixed focal length
>lenses if you prefer). I do use my two high quality,
>non-variable-aperture zooms for some sports, for hiking, fairs,
>parties and other less structured work. There's no hard line
>here, but usually the right lenses for the job.



Well, yes, I'm just saying that zooms have gotten better and are more
and more accepted as reasonable choices for more situations. For many
years, I had a job which required me to take photos, and a 28mm lived
on my camera. Well, almost. Sometimes, there was a possiblity that
some photos would end up in court, and if perspective could become an
issue, then then 50mm came out of the bag. I didn't expect, though,
that my opposition would be likely to understand perspective, but I
prepared anyway.



>There remain in the SLR world people who swear by fixed-focal and
>those who accept the quality limitations of zooms. One point is
>that as the optics have improved for the zooms, they have
>likewise improved for the better primes as well... so the primes
>always come out ahead if that is important to the photog.



I recall years ago really looking down at a person who bought one of
the first auto exposure 35s and with a 35-70 zoom as his only lens.


>17-35 f/2.8, 28-80 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are the three
>"professional" zooms you are likely to see carted around by pj's
>and other folks with narrow time constraints on their work.
>There is no "super zoom" that is regarded as having sufficient
>optical quality for most professional work.



Which is probably a rare situation with most pictures taken with the
cameras we're discussing.


>> Occasionally man will stumble over the truth. Usually, he will pick
>> himself up and carry on. -- Winston Churchill

>
>"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read a book of
>quotations."
> --Winston Churchill



LMAO. Cute slam.

"I like a man who grins when he fights." -- Winston Churchill
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004
edward ohare <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Years ago, the 35mm SLR crowd hauled around mutiple non-zoom lenses
> because zooms weren't very good. Zooms got better. Oh, but they
> were variable aperature, and that wasn't good enough. Finally,
> years later, guess what? SLR people are hauling around multiple
> zooms. Often with variable aperature. And now the argument is
> anything with single zoom isn't good enough. Since the community
> has eventually adopted what it once claimed was intolerable,
> wouldn't it be expected to eventually figure a single zoom was OK?
> (Well, no, of course not, history is no predictor of the future,
> eh?)


I've got 17mm through 500mm lenses for my 35mm cameras (film and
digital). I've got a 300mm f2.8. I've got a 135mm f2.
Better-financed photographers than me have 600 f4 lenses and things,
and 6mm fisheyes, and on and on.

In theory, I have no objection to a "single zoom". In practice, no
such lens is available that covers what I have and use frequently.
And if there were such a lens, it would weigh about a ton. The laws
of optics seem pretty firm on that last point.

The early objection to zooms was largely practical -- they weren't, in
fact, good enough. Some people objected to variable aperture, but it
never bothered me (my first zoom was from shortly before that era, but
after that I happily bought variable aperture zooms if they fit my
needs). And, if you're using studio flash say, a variable aperture
zoom *is* a problem -- the exposure isn't being controlled by
through-the-lens measurements.

So I think your examples aren't a good analogy to the concept of using
one lens for everything.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
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
2nd Call for Papers | Extended deadline: April 07 |CENTERIS'2009 - Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems | 2nd Callfor Papers CENTERIS'2009 - Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems Python 0 03-16-2009 01:59 PM
Review: Icemat 2nd Edition Silverstrand Reviews & How-To's 37 10-19-2005 08:08 AM
Ultra Products 2nd Generation 500W X-Finity PSU Silverstrand Front Page News 0 10-11-2005 01:48 PM
Help, 2nd computer connected, can't access internet =?Utf-8?B?YmlnZG9ncw==?= Wireless Networking 1 04-10-2005 11:47 PM
2nd network computer can't see 100% of files in certain folders on 1st computer R. D. Silvester Wireless Networking 0 03-15-2005 02:52 PM



Advertisments