«

Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:

-- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a
sensitivity);
-- A very good resolution of the lens;
-- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4);
-- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x;
-- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps;
-- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot.
-- Reasonably priced;
-- Reasonably small.

A Sony DSC-R1 or a dSLR fit the bill mostly. All of the said cameras
have such a big sensor (i.e., APS-C). Sony R1 has a high-resolution
lens. dSLR's with the premium lenses provide high resolution, too.
However, the problem with Sony R1 is that it has a zoom of only 5x. I
heard that one can attach a 1.7x teleconverter (US$400) to Sony R1, but
I am not sure about the quality and practicality of it. None of the
dSLR cameras, to my best knowledge, have a flippable "live" LCD screen.


Or, there is a camera which fits the bill ?

Thanks.

"minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:
>
> -- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a
> sensitivity);
> -- A very good resolution of the lens;
> -- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4);
> -- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x;
> -- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps;
> -- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot.
> -- Reasonably priced;
> -- Reasonably small.
>
> A Sony DSC-R1 or a dSLR fit the bill mostly. All of the said cameras
> have such a big sensor (i.e., APS-C). Sony R1 has a high-resolution
> lens. dSLR's with the premium lenses provide high resolution, too.
> However, the problem with Sony R1 is that it has a zoom of only 5x. I
> heard that one can attach a 1.7x teleconverter (US$400) to Sony R1, but
> I am not sure about the quality and practicality of it. None of the
> dSLR cameras, to my best knowledge, have a flippable "live" LCD screen.
>
>
> Or, there is a camera which fits the bill ?
>
> Thanks.


Don't know and don't care.

Roy G

"Roy G" <> wrote in message
news:9_Uah.60338$...
> "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>> Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:

>
>
> Don't know and don't care.
>
> Roy G

Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that
state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick".

They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and
then always, always add reasonable cost.

The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose
NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation.

Roy G

Roy G wrote:
> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
> news:9_Uah.60338$...
> > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
> > news: oups.com...
> >> Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:
>
> >
> >
> > Don't know and don't care.
> >
> > Roy G
>
> Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that
> state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick".
>
> They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and
> then always, always add reasonable cost.
>
> The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose
> NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation.

There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a
Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen.
This'll be what I am looking for !

I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I
hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some
camera which I overlooked.

"minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...

Roy G wrote:
> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
> news:9_Uah.60338$...
> > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
> > news: oups.com...
> >> Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:
>
> >
> >
> > Don't know and don't care.
> >
> > Roy G
>
> Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that
> state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick".
>
> They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and
> then always, always add reasonable cost.
>
> The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose
> NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation.

<<There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a
<<Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen.
<<This'll be what I am looking for !

<<I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I
<<hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some
<<camera which I overlooked.

Minnesøtti,
You are in effect pointing that Roy is right in stating that "ideal gimmicks
.... always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features". Your
examples of the Pentax D100K or the Nikon D80 with "twistable LCD" do just
that. These cameras DO NOT have a twistable LCD, nor are they likely to have
any. What possible use would a Nikon D80 have of such an LCD? You only use
the LCD to see the result ))) It's akin to wishing a Volkswagen to have
the bumper of a Jeep Cherokee....
Marcel

"minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:
>
> -- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a
> sensitivity);
> -- A very good resolution of the lens;
> -- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4);
> -- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x;
> -- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps;
> -- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot.
> -- Reasonably priced;
> -- Reasonably small.
>
> A Sony DSC-R1 or a dSLR fit the bill mostly. All of the said cameras
> have such a big sensor (i.e., APS-C). Sony R1 has a high-resolution
> lens. dSLR's with the premium lenses provide high resolution, too.
> However, the problem with Sony R1 is that it has a zoom of only 5x. I
> heard that one can attach a 1.7x teleconverter (US$400) to Sony R1, but
> I am not sure about the quality and practicality of it. None of the
> dSLR cameras, to my best knowledge, have a flippable "live" LCD screen.
>
>
> Or, there is a camera which fits the bill ?
>
> Thanks.
>
There are no 10X zooms that will provide the resolution you require let
alone anything close to f/1.4. Let's say it were even possible to make a
good 18-180mm f/1.4 lens. Do you have any idea how big the front element
would have to be? It would have to be at least 128mm across. That's larger
than the front element of many huge super telephoto lenses.

Outside of the lens requirements the camera could be implemented.
-S

On 28 Nov 2006 04:11:56 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "minnesøtti"
<> wrote:

>There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a
>Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen.
>This'll be what I am looking for !

You just contradicted yourself, as the 18-200 is no where near close
to f/1.8.
-
Ed Ruf ()
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

"minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...

Roy G wrote:
> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
> news:9_Uah.60338$...
> > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
> > news: oups.com...
> >> Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:
>
> >
> >
> > Don't know and don't care.
> >
> > Roy G
>
> Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that
> state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick".
>
> They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and
> then always, always add reasonable cost.
>
> The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose
> NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation.

There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a
Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen.
This'll be what I am looking for !

I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I
hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some
camera which I overlooked.

Well, since there are no zooms with an aperture larger than f2, and no
constant aperture zooms with a 10x factor, I'm not sure that "reasonable" is
an applicable term...
Now, if you don't want both features in one lens, and the f1.4 isn't
necessary in a zoom, that's another thing. In that case, be patient, since
Oly introduced a live LCD on a camera, I'm sure improvements are in the
pipeline...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Skip wrote:
> "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>
> Roy G wrote:
> > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
> > news:9_Uah.60338$...
> > > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
> > > news: oups.com...
> > >> Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know and don't care.
> > >
> > > Roy G
> >
> > Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that
> > state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick".
> >
> > They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and
> > then always, always add reasonable cost.
> >
> > The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose
> > NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation.
>
> There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a
> Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen.
> This'll be what I am looking for !
>
> I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I
> hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some
> camera which I overlooked.
>
> Well, since there are no zooms with an aperture larger than f2, and no
> constant aperture zooms with a 10x factor, I'm not sure that "reasonable" is
> an applicable term...
> Now, if you don't want both features in one lens, and the f1.4 isn't
> necessary in a zoom, that's another thing. In that case, be patient, since
> Oly introduced a live LCD on a camera, I'm sure improvements are in the
> pipeline...

That was the idea. I agree to have a fast lens (1.4 diaphragm) of a
fixed focal length. I need a fast lens so that I could snap shots in
dark. If it is a dSLR, I could swap the lens for a zoom lens. I want to
snap pictures (e.g. flower or a person) at the tele end, so that the
depth of field would be most pronounced. I know that Oly E330, Sony
A100 and Canon 20Da have the 'live' LCD. I think one should expect that
the twistable LCD screens are not far away.

An example of the camera which is close to my requirements is Sony R1.
The only problem which I have with it is that its zoom is only 5x (I
want at least 10x). One can attach a 1.7 x teleconverter, but it is
awkward and expensive at that. I am not sure how it works out. I hope d
that the knowledgeable people would be able to advise me :"Definetely
take Sony R1" or: "Do not take it !".

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:11:56 -0800, minnesøtti
wrote:

> Roy G wrote:
>> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
>> news:9_Uah.60338$...
>> > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
>> > news: oups.com...
>> >> Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Don't know and don't care.
>> >
>> > Roy G
>>
>> Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that
>> state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick".
>>
>> They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and
>> then always, always add reasonable cost.
>>
>> The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose
>> NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation.
>
> There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a
> Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen.
> This'll be what I am looking for !
>
> I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I
> hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some
> camera which I overlooked.

The one that comes closest I think is an Olympus E-330.

A "live" LCD on an SLR is difficult--it sounds like what you want is
something like a Sony DSC-R1 with interchangeable lenses. Sony could do
this and if they did it might be a marketing coup, but I wouldn't hold my
breath.

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