«

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3767
>
Bythom reports the Nikon D90 does video! That's the second horseman of the
Apocalypse ...

No Spam wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
> news: ...
>> http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3767
>>
> Bythom reports the Nikon D90 does video! That's the second horseman of the
> Apocalypse ...

I think video on a D-SLR is a great idea. There are times when I'd love
to be able to do a short video clip without carrying a video camera or a
point and shoot camera.

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
[]
> Now you're getting the idea. Video cameras have been made with live
> view, full color EVFs forever. You can compose, adjust exposure and
> white balance, and see exactly what is going onto tape before you
> shoot. Think of the convergence of still and video cameras. No more
> mirror slap. No more frozen moments in time. We'll shoot one or two
> or three second clips instead of just one frame. Or, if memory gets
> favorable enough, full video, from which stills can be grabbed as
> desired.
> GAry Eickmeier

.... but the resolution is much less - 720 x 576 pixels for PAL video.
0.4MP. With a modern still camera we're talking 15 times the resolution,
call it 4 times linear, needing a /much/ better viewfinder.

David

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
<snip>
>> ... but the resolution is much less - 720 x 576 pixels for PAL video.
>> 0.4MP. With a modern still camera we're talking 15 times the resolution,
>> call it 4 times linear, needing a /much/ better viewfinder.
>
> I guess you're not able to imagine it getting any better.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Unfortunately, even a VGA resolution EVF isn't good enough (the only
example: Minolta Dimage A2).
Unless you really like 4x "focus zoom", it just isn't good enough for
manual focus.

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-> wrote in
> message newsWxmk.38677$ om...
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> []
>>> Now you're getting the idea. Video cameras have been made with live
>>> view, full color EVFs forever. You can compose, adjust exposure and
>>> white balance, and see exactly what is going onto tape before you
>>> shoot. Think of the convergence of still and video cameras. No more
>>> mirror slap. No more frozen moments in time. We'll shoot one or two
>>> or three second clips instead of just one frame. Or, if memory gets
>>> favorable enough, full video, from which stills can be grabbed as
>>> desired.
>>> GAry Eickmeier
>>
>> ... but the resolution is much less - 720 x 576 pixels for PAL video.
>> 0.4MP. With a modern still camera we're talking 15 times the
>> resolution, call it 4 times linear, needing a /much/ better
>> viewfinder.
>
> I guess you're not able to imagine it getting any better.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

I would love to use better quality EVFs, but the fact remains that the one
manufacturer who offered VGA resolution in an EVF took (less even than PAL
video) it off the market very quickly. Why? Was it too expensive, too
power-hungry, too big, or simply something which the market didn't want?
You might have thought of them as a trail-blazer, but why did the trail
peter out?

David

David J Taylor wrote:

> I would love to use better quality EVFs, but the fact remains that the one
> manufacturer who offered VGA resolution in an EVF took (less even than PAL
> video) it off the market very quickly. Why? Was it too expensive, too
> power-hungry, too big, or simply something which the market didn't want?
> You might have thought of them as a trail-blazer, but why did the trail
> peter out?

They took the road less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

David J Taylor wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-> wrote in
>> message newsWxmk.38677$ om...
>>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> []
>>>> Now you're getting the idea. Video cameras have been made with live
>>>> view, full color EVFs forever. You can compose, adjust exposure and
>>>> white balance, and see exactly what is going onto tape before you
>>>> shoot. Think of the convergence of still and video cameras. No more
>>>> mirror slap. No more frozen moments in time. We'll shoot one or two
>>>> or three second clips instead of just one frame. Or, if memory gets
>>>> favorable enough, full video, from which stills can be grabbed as
>>>> desired.
>>>> GAry Eickmeier
>>> ... but the resolution is much less - 720 x 576 pixels for PAL video.
>>> 0.4MP. With a modern still camera we're talking 15 times the
>>> resolution, call it 4 times linear, needing a /much/ better
>>> viewfinder.
>> I guess you're not able to imagine it getting any better.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> I would love to use better quality EVFs, but the fact remains that the one
> manufacturer who offered VGA resolution in an EVF took (less even than PAL
> video) it off the market very quickly. Why? Was it too expensive, too
> power-hungry, too big, or simply something which the market didn't want?
> You might have thought of them as a trail-blazer, but why did the trail
> peter out?
>
> David

The only reason which I can think of why the Konica-Minolta Dimage A2
wasn't developed with increasingly better EVFs (in an A3 and then maybe
an A4) is that the Canon Digital Rebel (EOS 300D) lurked at the same
price-point.
For around US $1,000 you could either get a DSLR camera with
interchangeable lenses in the form of an EOS 300D, or for slightly more
a Dimage A2 which had a grainy (compared to any DSLR viewfinder) EVF and
a fixed zoom lens.
Which would you buy if they were both sitting side-by-side on the camera
shop shelf?
It's a rhetorical question, the 300D was a massive rip-roaring success
compared to the Dimage A2.
Konica-Minolta probably also struck the dilemma of making the Dimage
A2's successor (the less than stellar A200) less capable or risk
cannibalising sales from their first DSLR camera: the Maxxum 7D.

John McWilliams wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> I would love to use better quality EVFs, but the fact remains that the one
>>> manufacturer who offered VGA resolution in an EVF took (less even than PAL
>>> video) it off the market very quickly. Why? Was it too expensive, too
>>> power-hungry, too big, or simply something which the market didn't want?
>>> You might have thought of them as a trail-blazer, but why did the trail
>>> peter out?
>>
>> They took the road less traveled by,
>> And that has made all the difference.
>
> Ooooh. That'll be about a ten on the whoosh meter.

You deal from the deck you're holding.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

John McWilliams wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would love to use better quality EVFs, but the fact remains that
>>>>> the one manufacturer who offered VGA resolution in an EVF took (less
>>>>> even than PAL video) it off the market very quickly. Why? Was it
>>>>> too expensive, too power-hungry, too big, or simply something which
>>>>> the market didn't want? You might have thought of them as a
>>>>> trail-blazer, but why did the trail peter out?
>>>> They took the road less traveled by,
>>>> And that has made all the difference.
>>> Ooooh. That'll be about a ten on the whoosh meter.
>>
>> You deal from the deck you're holding.
>
> But ya gotta know when ta foldem....!

Know when to walk away and know when to run.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

John McWilliams wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> I would love to use better quality EVFs, but the fact remains that
>>> the one manufacturer who offered VGA resolution in an EVF took (less
>>> even than PAL video) it off the market very quickly. Why? Was it
>>> too expensive, too power-hungry, too big, or simply something which
>>> the market didn't want? You might have thought of them as a
>>> trail-blazer, but why did the trail peter out?
>>
>> They took the road less traveled by,
>> And that has made all the difference.
>
> Ooooh. That'll be about a ten on the whoosh meter.

Robert Frost poem and the title of a self-help psychology/spirituality
book by M. Scott Peck. (yeah I had to google the specifics