Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article
    <47b3d541$0$20224$>, Pete D
    <> wrote:

    > ???Damn you caught me out John but I see that you are stupid and totally
    > clueless as always..........................


    It's his way...
     
    Mr. Strat, Feb 14, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Jufi Guest

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:22:51 GMT, "Jufi" <> wrote in
    > <LcJsj.2597$YL3.2134@trndny05>:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:16:19 GMT, "Jufi" <> wrote in
    >>> <TtGsj.2495$YJ4.1052@trndny01>:

    >
    >>>>And if the EVF ever gets out of the stone age, we might hae something...
    >>>
    >>> Works fine here.

    >>
    >>They work OK, but the best EVF is crude compared to the display in an SLR.
    >>Grainy, ghosting, dull, hard to see in daylight, etc. I've used one
    >>extensively in an FZ50, and compared to the viewfinder in any SLR, it's a
    >>distant second place.

    >
    > My own take is that the FZ50 viewfinder is quite good. I haven't seen
    > such problems as you list. Are you thinking of the rear display instead
    > of the EVF (which isn't a problem in daylight)? Perhaps the one you
    > tried was defective.


    No, it was normal, but compared to the "live" display in an SLR, it's just
    not that good. I'm an eyeglass wearer, and can't fully shield the EVF from
    daylight, which doesn't help at all. And I'm definitely not confusing the
    EVF with the LCD. Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
    opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.
     
    Jufi, Feb 14, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:56:16 -0500, "Jufi" <> wrote in
    <4h%sj.601$>:

    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >> My own take is that the FZ50 viewfinder is quite good. I haven't seen
    >> such problems as you list. Are you thinking of the rear display instead
    >> of the EVF (which isn't a problem in daylight)? Perhaps the one you
    >> tried was defective.

    >
    >No, it was normal, but compared to the "live" display in an SLR, it's just
    >not that good. I'm an eyeglass wearer, and can't fully shield the EVF from
    >daylight, which doesn't help at all.


    Likewise an optical viewfinder.

    >And I'm definitely not confusing the
    >EVF with the LCD. Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
    >opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.


    Most users I talk to find them more than satisfactory.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 14, 2008
    #23
  4. RichA

    Jufi Guest

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:56:16 -0500, "Jufi" <> wrote in
    > <4h%sj.601$>:
    >
    >>"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...

    >
    >>> My own take is that the FZ50 viewfinder is quite good. I haven't seen
    >>> such problems as you list. Are you thinking of the rear display instead
    >>> of the EVF (which isn't a problem in daylight)? Perhaps the one you
    >>> tried was defective.

    >>
    >>No, it was normal, but compared to the "live" display in an SLR, it's just
    >>not that good. I'm an eyeglass wearer, and can't fully shield the EVF from
    >>daylight, which doesn't help at all.

    >
    > Likewise an optical viewfinder.


    I see the optical viewfinder just fine, corner to corner in all lighting
    conditions. Not the same for EVF from any manufacturer I've tried. Use what
    you like, but for me they just aren't that good. Useable, yes, but nowhere
    near as clear as an optical viewfinder.

    >
    >>And I'm definitely not confusing the
    >>EVF with the LCD. Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
    >>opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.

    >
    > Most users I talk to find them more than satisfactory.


    I guess when I see the shooters along the sidelines of a football game using
    an EVF camera, I'll change my mind. Nearly worthless for action shooting.
    But for many out there, agree that they are satisfactory. Just not for me.
     
    Jufi, Feb 14, 2008
    #24
  5. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:24:05 GMT, "Jufi" <> wrote in
    <p44tj.4350$%x3.1322@trndny06>:

    >>>Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
    >>>opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.

    >>
    >> Most users I talk to find them more than satisfactory.

    >
    >I guess when I see the shooters along the sidelines of a football game using
    >an EVF camera, I'll change my mind.


    If that was my profession (and my gear was all paid for), I might well
    too, but that's not the kind of photography I do.

    >Nearly worthless for action shooting.


    My FZ8 is terrific for action shooting.

    >But for many out there, agree that they are satisfactory. Just not for me.


    Fair enough. "Different strokes for different folks."

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 15, 2008
    #25
  6. RichA

    SMS Guest

    Jufi wrote:
    >
    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:20:02 -0800, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>> Near identical, rotten little silver boxes should be left to the
    >>> marketing companies like what's left of Vivitar and GE to produce.
    >>> Camera phones will replace the P&S at some point as well. If this story
    >>> is true, Pentax is doing the right thing. The evolution of this will be
    >>> mirrorless DSLRs.

    >>
    >> Already have them - they're called EVF.

    >
    >
    > And if the EVF ever gets out of the stone age, we might hae something...


    The manufacturers choose to include lousy EVFs, because it's cheaper to
    do so. EVFs left the stone age long ago, now it's a question of
    manufacturers not believing that consumers will value a decent EVF and
    be willing to pay for it.

    Konica-Minolta had a very good EVF on the A2, with a resolution of an
    amazing 922000 pixels. You can see how much that helped them in a market
    that buys on megapixels and telephoto range. Now most of these crappy
    EVFs are sub 250K pixels. Reviewers and end-users complain continuously
    about the EVFs, but it seems to have no effect on manufacturers. I.e.
    look at a camera like the Panasonic FZ-50. Generally decent reviews, at
    least for ISO 100 and 200, until you get to the EVF, where you get
    comments like 'a disconcerting low resolution EVF,' and 'the 235K pixel
    EVF has a higher resolution than the LCD screen but suffers in color and
    sharpness.' Of course even the best EVF is inferior to a real optical
    viewfinder, but it's cheaper, and in reality do you really need a high
    resolution EVF to frame the picture?

    As to Pentax leaving the P&S market, it's a good move for them. The
    margins suck, it's extremely competitive, and the development costs will
    destroy you if you can't sell mass quantities of each design. Of course
    they've been pretty unsuccessful in D-SLRs as well. They do have great
    binoculars, but so did Konica-Minolta.
     
    SMS, Feb 15, 2008
    #26
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <47b5c042$0$36368$>, SMS
    <> wrote:

    > Konica-Minolta had a very good EVF on the A2, with a resolution of an
    > amazing 922000 pixels.


    it had 922k *dots*, not pixels.

    > As to Pentax leaving the P&S market, it's a good move for them. The
    > margins suck, it's extremely competitive, and the development costs will
    > destroy you if you can't sell mass quantities of each design. Of course
    > they've been pretty unsuccessful in D-SLRs as well.


    actually, they've been fairly successful with their dslrs.
     
    nospam, Feb 15, 2008
    #27
  8. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:42:24 -0800, SMS <>
    wrote in <47b5c042$0$36368$>:

    >... Reviewers and end-users complain continuously
    >about the EVFs,


    Actually not. If end-users did care about better EVF, then the market
    would respond to that demand. That it hasn't makes it clear that
    end-users are quite satisfied with existing EVF.

    >but it seems to have no effect on manufacturers. I.e.
    >look at a camera like the Panasonic FZ-50. Generally decent reviews, at
    >least for ISO 100 and 200, until you get to the EVF, where you get
    >comments like 'a disconcerting low resolution EVF,' and 'the 235K pixel
    >EVF has a higher resolution than the LCD screen but suffers in color and
    >sharpness.'


    Spend a good deal of time to find those comments? Most reviewers were
    quite high on the FZ50; e.g., Highly Recommended by DPReview:

    Conclusion - Pros
    * Very usable EVF

    And so, to sum up; for the serious user the FZ50 is without doubt the
    best equipped, best specified and best handling 'bridge camera' on
    the market today, and under the right conditions it produces superb
    output. It is a rewarding and enjoyable photographic tool ...

    >Of course even the best EVF is inferior to a real optical
    >viewfinder, but it's cheaper, and in reality do you really need a high
    >resolution EVF to frame the picture?


    It's not a matter of cost -- it's a matter of practicality -- too much
    would have to be given up that end-users want. Citing the review of the
    FZ50 again: "And not actually being an SLR you get the advantages of
    live preview on a tilting screen, movie mode, no dust on the sensor and
    so on."

    >As to Pentax leaving the P&S market, it's a good move for them.


    It's actually an admission of defeat.

    >The
    >margins suck, it's extremely competitive, and the development costs will
    >destroy you if you can't sell mass quantities of each design.


    The major players are actually doing quite well.

    >Of course
    >they've been pretty unsuccessful in D-SLRs as well.


    The real reason at last.

    >They do have great
    >binoculars, but so did Konica-Minolta.


    No better than so-so. Canon dominates, including image-stabilized
    models that are simply awesome.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 15, 2008
    #28
  9. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:48:24 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <150220080848243822%>:

    >In article <47b5c042$0$36368$>, SMS
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Konica-Minolta had a very good EVF on the A2, with a resolution of an
    >> amazing 922000 pixels.

    >
    >it had 922k *dots*, not pixels.


    The correct term is "subpixel", and the subpixel resolution can matter
    if the display is capable of subpixel rendering, which can produce a
    better image than pixel rendering.

    >> As to Pentax leaving the P&S market, it's a good move for them. The
    >> margins suck, it's extremely competitive, and the development costs will
    >> destroy you if you can't sell mass quantities of each design. Of course
    >> they've been pretty unsuccessful in D-SLRs as well.

    >
    >actually, they've been fairly successful with their dslrs.


    Pentax has a tiny fraction of the market, only 5.8% even in Japan
    according to <http://en.j-cast.com/2008/01/25015807.html>.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 15, 2008
    #29
  10. RichA

    SMS Guest

    SMS wrote:

    > Konica-Minolta had a very good EVF on the A2, with a resolution of an
    > amazing 922000 pixels. You can see how much that helped them in a market
    > that buys on megapixels and telephoto range. Now most of these crappy
    > EVFs are sub 250K pixels. Reviewers and end-users complain continuously
    > about the EVFs, but it seems to have no effect on manufacturers. I.e.
    > look at a camera like the Panasonic FZ-50. Generally decent reviews, at
    > least for ISO 100 and 200, until you get to the EVF, where you get
    > comments like 'a disconcerting low resolution EVF,' and 'the 235K pixel
    > EVF has a higher resolution than the LCD screen but suffers in color and
    > sharpness.' Of course even the best EVF is inferior to a real optical
    > viewfinder, but it's cheaper, and in reality do you really need a high
    > resolution EVF to frame the picture?


    I should have pointed out that the time you _do_ need a high resolution
    EVF, is when you're trying to do manual focusing. There it has an
    advantage in a P&S, over an optical viewfinder. Of course the number of
    users that buy these EVF equipped cameras, and ever attempt to manual
    focus, is very small since anyone serious about manual focusing has long
    since gone to a D-SLR. So while the reviewers all dismiss EVFs as being
    lousy, the manufacturers probably, correctly, figure that there's no
    point is spending money on a good one.

    The reviewers loved the Konica-Minolta A2 because it was one of the only
    P&S models that actually could be properly manually focused using the EVF.

    Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF like
    the A2?
     
    SMS, Feb 15, 2008
    #30
  11. RichA

    irwell Guest

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:12:32 -0800, SMS <>
    wrote:

    >SMS wrote:
    >
    >> Konica-Minolta had a very good EVF on the A2, with a resolution of an
    >> amazing 922000 pixels. You can see how much that helped them in a market
    >> that buys on megapixels and telephoto range. Now most of these crappy
    >> EVFs are sub 250K pixels. Reviewers and end-users complain continuously
    >> about the EVFs, but it seems to have no effect on manufacturers. I.e.
    >> look at a camera like the Panasonic FZ-50. Generally decent reviews, at
    >> least for ISO 100 and 200, until you get to the EVF, where you get
    >> comments like 'a disconcerting low resolution EVF,' and 'the 235K pixel
    >> EVF has a higher resolution than the LCD screen but suffers in color and
    >> sharpness.' Of course even the best EVF is inferior to a real optical
    >> viewfinder, but it's cheaper, and in reality do you really need a high
    >> resolution EVF to frame the picture?

    >
    >I should have pointed out that the time you _do_ need a high resolution
    >EVF, is when you're trying to do manual focusing. There it has an
    >advantage in a P&S, over an optical viewfinder. Of course the number of
    >users that buy these EVF equipped cameras, and ever attempt to manual
    >focus, is very small since anyone serious about manual focusing has long
    >since gone to a D-SLR. So while the reviewers all dismiss EVFs as being
    >lousy, the manufacturers probably, correctly, figure that there's no
    >point is spending money on a good one.
    >
    >The reviewers loved the Konica-Minolta A2 because it was one of the only
    >P&S models that actually could be properly manually focused using the EVF.
    >
    >Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF like
    >the A2?


    The new Nikon P60 has this spec for the EVF.

    Viewfinder
    0.2-in., approx. 201k-dot, equivalent

    What resolution was the A2?
     
    irwell, Feb 15, 2008
    #31
  12. SMS wrote:
    []
    > Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF
    > like the A2?


    Sadly, not as far as I know.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 15, 2008
    #32
  13. RichA

    SMS Guest

    irwell wrote:

    >> Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF like
    >> the A2?

    >
    > The new Nikon P60 has this spec for the EVF.
    >
    > Viewfinder
    > 0.2-in., approx. 201k-dot, equivalent
    >
    > What resolution was the A2?


    922,000 pixels (or dots).
     
    SMS, Feb 15, 2008
    #33
  14. RichA

    SMS Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > SMS wrote:
    > []
    >> Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF
    >> like the A2?

    >
    > Sadly, not as far as I know.
    >
    > David


    With D-SLRs taking over the high to mid-range, I'm not surprised. Few
    users of point and shoot cameras ever manual focus, and even a low-res
    EVF is sufficient for framing the shot. No point in putting in an
    expensive EVF for the few buyers that understand the benefit.
     
    SMS, Feb 15, 2008
    #34
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >it had 922k *dots*, not pixels.

    >
    > The correct term is "subpixel", and the subpixel resolution can matter
    > if the display is capable of subpixel rendering, which can produce a
    > better image than pixel rendering.


    that may be, but it's called 'dots' by the manufacturers. of course,
    people end up calling it pixels anyway, adding to the confusion.

    > Pentax has a tiny fraction of the market, only 5.8% even in Japan
    > according to <http://en.j-cast.com/2008/01/25015807.html>.


    so what? the pentax k10d was a strong seller as was the k100d. pentax
    isnt' about to overtake nikon or canon, but they have some very
    competitive cameras.
     
    nospam, Feb 16, 2008
    #35
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <47b62113$0$36387$>, SMS
    <> wrote:

    > > What resolution was the A2?

    >
    > 922,000 pixels (or dots).


    pixels and dots are not the same. the a2 had 922k dots or 300k pixels
    or a 640x480 screen.
     
    nospam, Feb 16, 2008
    #36
  17. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:05:05 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <150220081605055907%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >it had 922k *dots*, not pixels.

    >>
    >> The correct term is "subpixel", and the subpixel resolution can matter
    >> if the display is capable of subpixel rendering, which can produce a
    >> better image than pixel rendering.

    >
    >that may be, but it's called 'dots' by the manufacturers. of course,
    >people end up calling it pixels anyway, adding to the confusion.


    Where are manufacturers calling it "dots"?
    Where are people calling it pixels?

    >> Pentax has a tiny fraction of the market, only 5.8% even in Japan
    >> according to <http://en.j-cast.com/2008/01/25015807.html>.

    >
    >so what? the pentax k10d was a strong seller as was the k100d. pentax
    >isnt' about to overtake nikon or canon, but they have some very
    >competitive cameras.


    That's not enough market share to survive in the long term. Generally
    speaking, it takes about 10% market share to be viable in a competitive
    market over the long term.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 16, 2008
    #37
  18. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:12:32 -0800, SMS <>
    wrote in <47b5f182$0$36378$>:

    >SMS wrote:
    >
    >> Konica-Minolta had a very good EVF on the A2, with a resolution of an
    >> amazing 922000 pixels. You can see how much that helped them in a market
    >> that buys on megapixels and telephoto range. Now most of these crappy
    >> EVFs are sub 250K pixels. Reviewers and end-users complain continuously
    >> about the EVFs, but it seems to have no effect on manufacturers. I.e.
    >> look at a camera like the Panasonic FZ-50. Generally decent reviews, at
    >> least for ISO 100 and 200, until you get to the EVF, where you get
    >> comments like 'a disconcerting low resolution EVF,' and 'the 235K pixel
    >> EVF has a higher resolution than the LCD screen but suffers in color and
    >> sharpness.' Of course even the best EVF is inferior to a real optical
    >> viewfinder, but it's cheaper, and in reality do you really need a high
    >> resolution EVF to frame the picture?

    >
    >I should have pointed out that the time you _do_ need a high resolution
    >EVF, is when you're trying to do manual focusing.


    Just the opposite -- good EVF with auto zoom while manual focusing beats
    an optical viewfinder hands down.

    >There it has an
    >advantage in a P&S, over an optical viewfinder. Of course the number of
    >users that buy these EVF equipped cameras, and ever attempt to manual
    >focus, is very small since anyone serious about manual focusing has long
    >since gone to a D-SLR.


    Total nonsense. There are a great many of us using manual focus on
    compact digital cameras.

    >So while the reviewers all dismiss EVFs as being
    >lousy, the manufacturers probably, correctly, figure that there's no
    >point is spending money on a good one.


    The manufacturers actually respond to the market. If demand was there,
    they would fill it.

    >The reviewers loved the Konica-Minolta A2 because it was one of the only
    >P&S models that actually could be properly manually focused using the EVF.


    DPReview only gave it a recommended, as compared to Highly Recommended
    for Panasonic FZ50. To avoid embarrassment you should actually read
    reviews instead of just making them up.

    >Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF like
    >the A2?


    Lots of compact cameras have quite usable EVF. To avoid embarrassment
    you should actually try them instead of just making stuff up. You're
    been wildly wrong over and over.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 16, 2008
    #38
  19. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:35:30 -0800, SMS <>
    wrote in <47b62113$0$36387$>:

    >irwell wrote:
    >
    >>> Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF like
    >>> the A2?

    >>
    >> The new Nikon P60 has this spec for the EVF.
    >>
    >> Viewfinder
    >> 0.2-in., approx. 201k-dot, equivalent
    >>
    >> What resolution was the A2?

    >
    >922,000 pixels (or dots).


    Wrong again: 307K pixels (922K subpixels).

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 16, 2008
    #39
  20. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:56:40 -0800, SMS <>
    wrote in <47b6260a$0$36408$>:

    >David J Taylor wrote:
    >> SMS wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF
    >>> like the A2?

    >>
    >> Sadly, not as far as I know.

    >
    >With D-SLRs taking over the high to mid-range, I'm not surprised. Few
    >users of point and shoot cameras ever manual focus, and even a low-res
    >EVF is sufficient for framing the shot. No point in putting in an
    >expensive EVF for the few buyers that understand the benefit.


    No truth to any of that.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 16, 2008
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    916
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    996
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. Charles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    509
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 29, 2010
  4. LOL!
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    614
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 30, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    479
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page