Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Voice memo in SLR:s

Reply
Thread Tools

Voice memo in SLR:s

 
 
Lars Forslin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2007
Yes, too much so. It's on cheap cameras so why not just add it routinely to
more expensive ones?
/Lars

"Skip" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:qBkyh.31182$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Lars Forslin" <lars.privat_nospamdevice@monarda_nospamdevice.s e> wrote in
> message news:eqc3be$7ce$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I am looking into the DSLR market to find something suitable. However it
>>seems like almost none of the newer SLR:s have a voice-memo function. How
>>come? It's not fair that the manufacturers first lures us into a habit of
>>using voice-memo, then when we want to upgrade, they remove that nice
>>feature. Do they think we want to carry a notebook around? Come on, we
>>live in the electronic age.
>>

> Well, if it's really important to you, the Canon 1 series has that option,
> but it's gonna cost you...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> www.pbase.com/skipm
>> --
>> Lars Forslin
>>
>> "Doing time on earth"
>>
>> **************************
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
Lars Forslin wrote:
> Yes, too much so. It's on cheap cameras so why not just add it
> routinely to more expensive ones?
> /Lars


... to "distinguish" the more expensive ones from the others... i.e.
marketing.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lars Forslin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
Well, I supposed so, but it's a funny way of marketing: "pay more for less".
/Lars

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
skrev i meddelandet newsUAyh.7667$(E-Mail Removed) k...
> Lars Forslin wrote:
>> Yes, too much so. It's on cheap cameras so why not just add it
>> routinely to more expensive ones?
>> /Lars

>
> .. to "distinguish" the more expensive ones from the others... i.e.
> marketing.
>
> David
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
Lars Forslin wrote:
> Well, I supposed so, but it's a funny way of marketing: "pay more for
> less". /Lars


Well, you can look at it like this:

- you give up live preview on a swivel LCD, you give up bright viewfinders
in dark conditions, you give up movie mode, sound recording, you increase
the likelihood of getting dust problems, you need more memory etc.

or like this:

- you get a superbly crafted instrument dedicated to getting the best
possible image in any circumstances, with a high-resolution viewfinder,
the ability to shoot raw images, and the chance to use the lens which
exactly matches your photographic needs.

Of course, the DSLR will need to progress from simply being a copy of last
century's 35mm film camera, and we are already seeing at least some models
with live preview. When the time for marketing is right, I expect that
voice memos will become the standard as well.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2007
In article <y7Lyh.8120$(E-Mail Removed)>, David J
Taylor says...
> Lars Forslin wrote:
> > Well, I supposed so, but it's a funny way of marketing: "pay more for
> > less". /Lars

>
> Well, you can look at it like this:
>
> - you give up live preview on a swivel LCD, you give up bright viewfinders
> in dark conditions, you give up movie mode, sound recording, you increase
> the likelihood of getting dust problems, you need more memory etc.
>
> or like this:
>
> - you get a superbly crafted instrument dedicated to getting the best
> possible image in any circumstances, with a high-resolution viewfinder,
> the ability to shoot raw images, and the chance to use the lens which
> exactly matches your photographic needs.


Well... most DSLRs nowadays have plastic bodies. Compare that with the
Olympus 8080 which came with a magnesium body, built like a tank (just
to make an example). And many compact cameras have RAW as well. The
optical viewfinder, the interchangeable lenses and lower noise levels
are the main advantages of DSLR.

--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2007
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:54:25 +0100, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <y7Lyh.8120$(E-Mail Removed)>, David J
>Taylor says...
>> Lars Forslin wrote:
>> > Well, I supposed so, but it's a funny way of marketing: "pay more for
>> > less". /Lars

>>
>> Well, you can look at it like this:
>>
>> - you give up live preview on a swivel LCD, you give up bright viewfinders
>> in dark conditions, you give up movie mode, sound recording, you increase
>> the likelihood of getting dust problems, you need more memory etc.
>>
>> or like this:
>>
>> - you get a superbly crafted instrument dedicated to getting the best
>> possible image in any circumstances, with a high-resolution viewfinder,
>> the ability to shoot raw images, and the chance to use the lens which
>> exactly matches your photographic needs.

>
>Well... most DSLRs nowadays have plastic bodies. Compare that with the
>Olympus 8080 which came with a magnesium body, built like a tank (just
>to make an example).


Speaking as an engineer, "solid magnesium" and "built like a tank" are
mutually exclusive. Built like a glider maybe. Magnesium has one
thing going for it, it's light. It's not strong, it's not tough,
light it and it's almost impossible to put out (burns merrily with a
brilliant white flame under water), its corrosion resistance isn't all
that good. If tanks were made out of magnesium anybody with a
cigarette lighter could make one go up, assuming he didn't just beat a
hole in it with a hammer.

>And many compact cameras have RAW as well. The
>optical viewfinder, the interchangeable lenses and lower noise levels
>are the main advantages of DSLR.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Haley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2007
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
> Lars Forslin wrote:
>> Yes, too much so. It's on cheap cameras so why not just add it
>> routinely to more expensive ones?
>> /Lars


> .. to "distinguish" the more expensive ones from the others... i.e.
> marketing.


The Nikon D2 series has this feature. It's very useful to profession
photojournos, which is why it's included.

Andrew.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Meissner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007
Randall Ainsworth <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)-meissners.org>, Michael
> Meissner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > I can imagine people wanting to record extra equipment used, or if you are
> > photographing people, the subject's name. In the days of film, many
> > photographers carried notebooks with them to write down the information. It
> > can be handy if you are trying various things, and want to know what worked
> > best afterwards. Unlike a separate voice recorder one advantage that the
> > cameras with a voice memo function have is the .WAV file has the same name as
> > the photo, so it is easy to associate which memo is with which photo.

>
> In film days, I never wrote down camera settings. What useful purpose
> does it serve? Unless you were standing right next to me when I created
> the image, the information would have no value (and even then, it would
> be questionable). I don't even look at EXIF info...I don't care what
> shutter speed I used. It's useless information.


Some photographers want to know what settings they use. Particularly if you
are trying new things out, and want to know what works later when you review
the prints, such as finding a lens soft spot.

--
Michael Meissner
email: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.the-meissners.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Meissner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007
"Lars Forslin" <lars.privat_nospamdevice@monarda_nospamdevice.s e> writes:

> Mostly when I shoot plants, garden plants. There are thousands of different
> varieties. Very convenient to get a .mpg file with the same name as the
> photo.
> /Lars


If you are shooting at a botanical garden or the like, I find it useful to
first shoot the sign saying what the plant is for better identification. I
then delete the sign in my album.

--
Michael Meissner
email: (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.the-meissners.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007
On 11 Feb 2007 00:47:05 -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:

>> In film days, I never wrote down camera settings. What useful purpose
>> does it serve? Unless you were standing right next to me when I created
>> the image, the information would have no value (and even then, it would
>> be questionable). I don't even look at EXIF info...I don't care what
>> shutter speed I used. It's useless information.

>
> Some photographers want to know what settings they use. Particularly if you
> are trying new things out, and want to know what works later when you review
> the prints, such as finding a lens soft spot.


The key here is "trying new things out". I'm not trying to demean
Randall by implying that he's a dog, but the last new trick he was
taught was at the feet of Eadweard Muybridge, helping with his
animal motion studies and the occasional pot of tea.

 
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
voice T1 card & voice codec stevesj Cisco 1 05-05-2004 12:17 PM
Voice memo is very useful... Don Szenina Digital Photography 5 10-23-2003 04:02 PM
voice chat under win2k: voice pitch wrong, deep voice (3) Sven Holm VOIP 5 09-12-2003 10:26 AM
voice chat under win2k: voice pitch wrong, deep voice (2) Sven Holm VOIP 0 09-09-2003 02:00 PM
voice chat under win2k: voice pitch wrong, deep voice Sven Holm VOIP 0 09-07-2003 03:23 PM



Advertisments