I don't want a DSLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by , Dec 21, 2003.

  1. 

     Guest

    My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
    "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
    all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?
    Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    detachable lenses?
     
    , Dec 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 

    Steven Wandy Guest

    I currently have the 5700 (slightly less zoom range - 8x - than the 2100
    that it replaced). I also just got the E1 because I wanted a better camera
    (actually replaced an E10). We are going away in the spring to Italy and I
    can't decide which camera to take along.
     
    Steven Wandy, Dec 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 

    R2D2 Guest

     <> wrote in
    news::

    > My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    > I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    > lenses, then have to lug them all around.


    Try thousands for decent selection.

    > Please don't come back with
    > "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
    > all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    > spans 38-380mm.



    > My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    > the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?


    Probably, but it would cost thousands. And lenses with a very broad zoom
    range will never be as sharp as prime lenses.

    > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    > detachable lenses?
    >


    Because you want to be able to use either prime lenses, or zooms that cover
    shorter focal ranges.
     
    R2D2, Dec 21, 2003
    #3
  4. 

    Don Coon Guest

    "" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    > I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    > lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
    > "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
    > all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    > spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    > the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?
    > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    > detachable lenses?


    Well, you could always purchase a digital rebel and stick a Tamron 28-300
    zoom on it. That will give you an effective 45-480mm zoom with 3072x2048
    images. I would never recommend a long zoom to anyone, but that's what you
    want.

    Having owned a Canon Pro90IS which has the exact same lens as the C2100, I
    can day you'd be thrilled with the DRebel --- much faster, much better ISO
    range (800 is better than 200 on the 2100), and a ton of other features.
    But..... don't go this route because you'll inevitably catch the DSLR bug
    and end up buying all those lenses you don't want to be bothered by : )

    Cheers
     
    Don Coon, Dec 21, 2003
    #4
  5. 

    Lionel Guest

    X-Original-Message-ID: <>
    X-Agent-Group: rec.photo.digital
    X-Agent-Format: 1 1 0 1 1 56700 0 0 1 0 "*" 0
    X-Intro: "Kibo informs me that
    <> stated that:\n"

    Kibo informs me that <> stated that:

    If you don't want one, then don't buy one. Pretty simple.

    >Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    >detachable lenses?


    If you only want reasonable quality photos over a fairly small range of
    focal lengths, a permanent lens may well suit you just fine. There's no
    shortage of good digicams on the market that fit that description. I'd
    recommend the Canon Powershots, for starters, and there are plenty of
    others too.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Dec 21, 2003
    #5
  6. 

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    >I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    >lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
    >"I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
    >all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    >spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    >the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    >something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    >stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?


    You could get a 300D kit and a tube of superglue...
     
    Chris Brown, Dec 21, 2003
    #6
  7. 

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    > I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    > lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
    > "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
    > all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    > spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    > the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?
    > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    > detachable lenses?
    >


    There is nothing wrong with not wanting to tote around a DSLR and bag
    full of lenses, although I would highly recommend trying it before
    making that assertion. I think that you will find that the image quality
    and flexibility are well worth the extra size, weight, and lack of
    "convenience." But I digress...

    There is no reason that a manufacturer such as Canon or Nikon couldn't
    make a fixed lens version of the 10D/D100, etc. But the question is, why
    would they? If you put a DSLR sized sensor in the camera, that's where
    the majority of the camera's cost comes from. If it was a fixed lens,
    you would want it to be a high quality lens to take advantage of the
    large sensor as well as to match the quality of output of the 10D/D100.
    So in the instance of Canon, you would probably want an L quality lens
    on it. The 24-70 f/2.8L is a great lens for day-to-day use and it's
    $1200. Let's say they could make the body for $1000, so you have a $2200
    camera that doesn't have interchangeable lenses. NO ONE would buy it.

    You are asking for an answer to a question that not many people are
    asking...

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Dec 21, 2003
    #7
  8. 

    Jim Townsend Guest

     wrote:

    > My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    > I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    > lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
    > "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
    > all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    > spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    > the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?
    > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    > detachable lenses?


    I hear ya..

    I don't know why the big guns don't build a consumer digicam based on something
    like the Minolta Freedom Zoom 15 camera. (The link below shows what this
    camera looks like)
    http://focuscamera.com/prods/727646010.asp

    Give it the same quick autofocus system and an APS sized sensor and tweak the
    lens slightly to reduce the crop factor. A camera like this would perform
    like a traditional compact 35mm. These are by far the most popular in the
    35mm lineup.

    If Canon can market a full blown SLR with an APS sized sensor and a lens for
    under $1000, I don't know why they couldn't make a larger sensor digicam out
    of a 35mm compact camera body for around $500.00

    They seem to persist in making cameras with tiny high megapixel 1/1.8 sensors..
    That have noticeable shutter lag and noisy pictures at high ISO settings..

    Oh well.. We'll have to see what the new year brings :)
     
    Jim Townsend, Dec 21, 2003
    #8
  9. 

    Don Coon Guest

    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    > >My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    > >I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    > >lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
    > >"I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
    > >all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    > >spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    > >the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > >something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > >stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?

    >
    > You could get a 300D kit and a tube of superglue...


    I like that. Super glue a Tamron 28-300 to a 300D and you've got a
    "permanently attached" 11X 45-480mm lens on a DSLR. Great idea!
     
    Don Coon, Dec 21, 2003
    #9
  10. In article <zpkFb.2080$>,
    " AT" <> wrote:

    > or wait and see what the new leica does.
    > if it produces leica quality, then we are lucky.


    You may be lucky, not me.
    Adorama has it for pre-order for 1850.00 USD.
    http://www.adorama.com/REFBY.TPL?&SKU=ILCD2

    Too rich for me.
    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie Dilks, Dec 21, 2003
    #10
  11. 

    Samuel Paik Guest

    <> wrote:
    > Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    > spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    > the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?
    > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    > detachable lenses?


    This is primarily a matter of market segmentation. Probably most of
    the camera manufacturers don't perceive much of a market for a fixed
    lens SLR. Olympus probably has the most experience with this in both
    film and digital--they had the iS and Centurion series of fixed lens
    SLR film cameras and the E-10 and E-20 digital cameras. The E-10 and
    E-20 have larger than average sensors, but not as large as the film
    camera based DSLR cameras.

    There has been a trickle of long zoom w/image stabilization cameras
    introduced in the past year, so there are some choices now.

    Sam

    p.s. I've had a lot of fun with my E-100RS!
     
    Samuel Paik, Dec 21, 2003
    #11
  12. Howdy  aka janetmark

    > Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?


    Yep, they could. Put a nice 6 MP Canon CMOS sensor behind
    a great fast f2.x 24-200 mm fixed lens, and lotsa people would
    come buying.

    Key issue would be the pricing.

    I imagine one could price it at the $1000 300D price point
    and make an excellent value/convenience argument.

    At that price point, I don't think it'd cut into 300D sales.
    Those folks WANT to be able to buy/fantasize fancy L glass.
    Its buyers would come at the expense of Nikon 5700,
    Sony 828, et al buyers.

    Hmm. Canon's just announced they're bringing out a
    flood of cameras in 2004. Wonder if they're clever
    enough to have something like this in the mix ?

    Thanks for triggering thoughts.

    Regards,

    Stan
     
    Stanley Krute, Dec 21, 2003
    #12
  13. Whoops.

    I writ:

    > a great fast f2.x 24-200 mm fixed lens


    meant that to be a 24-120 range. Dang
    those pesky 1's and 0's.

    -- stan
     
    Stanley Krute, Dec 21, 2003
    #13
  14. Imagine the wet pants at Sony if
    Canon brought out a camera that
    put its 6-MP CMOS sensor into
    an 828-ish body and sold it for $1000.

     aka janetmark represents a large
    group, I think, of folks who want one unit
    that fully fits in a medium-size camera bag
    and gives great quality images.

    Canon's sensor lead has powerful
    multiplicative force in the marketplace.
    It can bring out all sorts of interesting
    cameras with its line of DSLR sensors,
    which get cheaper over time and can
    thus show up in products further down
    the consumer-pricepoint curve.

    Hopefully Nikon's LBCAST team
    is getting all the internal headcount/resources
    support it needs. It's the most important
    division in the company right now.

    Fuji is a great dark-horse in this race.
    One imagines that a film company doesn't
    have a lot of psychological blockages to
    clear to realize that sensor development
    is the company's power center. Lotsa synergy
    available with classic camera makers who
    aren't aggressive enough in sensor development,
    selling sensors to andor buying bodies from
    folks like Minolta and Leica.

    Kodak seems the once-mighty-sadly-fallen-
    village-idjit. Memo to Rochester: sensors
    = film. Going outside for the 14n sensor pleased
    the bean-counters and MBA's at greenlighting time,
    but proved to be not only a technical and
    marketing error, but a major strategic
    disaster. There's a learning curve that
    they're missing out on. Oh, well ....

    -- stan
     
    Stanley Krute, Dec 21, 2003
    #14
  15. 

     Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > <> wrote:
    > > Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    > > spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    > > the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?
    > > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    > > detachable lenses?

    >
    > This is primarily a matter of market segmentation. Probably most of
    > the camera manufacturers don't perceive much of a market for a fixed
    > lens SLR. Olympus probably has the most experience with this in both
    > film and digital--they had the iS and Centurion series of fixed lens
    > SLR film cameras and the E-10 and E-20 digital cameras. The E-10 and
    > E-20 have larger than average sensors, but not as large as the film
    > camera based DSLR cameras.
    >
    > There has been a trickle of long zoom w/image stabilization cameras
    > introduced in the past year, so there are some choices now.
    >
    > Sam
    >
    > p.s. I've had a lot of fun with my E-100RS!
    >


    Who says it has to be an SLR? How about a Digital Rebel-like camera,
    with a fixed lens like the C2100 has. I'm talking all the features, etc
    of the Rebel, with it's low noise sensor and speed. OK by me if the
    viewfinder is an EVF. I don't even need manual focus or zoom. Just
    mimic the kind of focus system an SLR has so it is faster and more
    accurate than the run of the mill consumer cam. Also, whatever makes
    the DSLR so fast for shutter lag, add that in to the camera. If it's
    manual focus that makes a DSLR fast, then I'll take the hit using auto,
    as long as the focus system is as fast as a DSLR automatic mode.

    Maybe the whole question is put wrong. Basically, I'm boiling it down
    to wanting:
    No interchangeable lens hassles (hassle for me anyway)
    **Fast** response (focus, shutter lag)
    Noise free at higher ISOs
    Good zoom range

    Put a camera out there that can perform as well as a DSLR (or almost, if
    the permanent lens has to be just a *smidge* less quality than the
    expensive interchangeable ones) and the great unwashed among us (those
    not a pro, but still wanting semi-pro level images, if we can learn to
    shoot 'em) will snap it up in droves. We may not have the $ to spend a
    pro has, but there are alot more of us. A company can make a very good
    profit supplying this to us.

    As for the current crop of image-stabilized long zoom camera's out
    there, they are all still noisier and slower than the DSLR's (even in
    auto mode?).
     
    , Dec 21, 2003
    #15
  16. A good friend has a Nikon 5700.

    He loves it.

    However, as he starts to make large prints,
    and crops, and learns about noise, he's
    wanting to get rid of the noise.

    And he hates shutter-lag. He talks a lot
    of pix of animals. Give him something
    halfway to D2H-machine-gun-nirvana
    and he'd be quite satisfied.

    He'd be an instant buyer of the kind of camera
     aka janetmark is talking about if it came
    in at the $1000 magic price point.

    -- stan
     
    Stanley Krute, Dec 21, 2003
    #16
  17.  wrote:
    > My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    > I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    > lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
    > "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to
    > lug all that around.


    A valid reason in my opinion

    > Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens
    > that spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low
    > pixels and the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR
    > bodies or something close to it, with the great image qualities and
    > low noise and stick a permanently attached lens on there with a
    > decent zoom range? Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well
    > or better than detachable lenses?


    But why a permanently attached lens? It would seem there is nothing
    inconsistent with your desired camera and an interchangable lens system.

    I might suggest one reason your requested camera may not be practical.
    As the pixel count goes up, the quality of the lens becomes a bigger issue.
    A high quality, fast, wide range zoom lens is going to be very expensive. I
    am not sure there is much of a market for the product you want. The fact
    that there does not seem to be much in the 35 mm film market like it would
    tend to support that idea.

    For now with the technology changing as fast as it is now, I suspect
    that high end equipment, like you seem to want, is going to continue to be
    very expensive and will be outdated the fastest. That is one reason I am
    holding off on buying any high end quipment at this time.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Dec 21, 2003
    #17
  18. 

    Matt Austern Guest

     <> writes:

    > Who says it has to be an SLR? How about a Digital Rebel-like camera,
    > with a fixed lens like the C2100 has. I'm talking all the features, etc
    > of the Rebel, with it's low noise sensor and speed. OK by me if the
    > viewfinder is an EVF. I don't even need manual focus or zoom. Just
    > mimic the kind of focus system an SLR has so it is faster and more
    > accurate than the run of the mill consumer cam. Also, whatever makes
    > the DSLR so fast for shutter lag, add that in to the camera.


    My understanding is that one of the reasons DSLRs can have lower
    shutter lag and lower noise is that they don't have electronic
    viewfinders. So I think you probably want is a camera where the light
    is only hitting the sensor when you take a picture.

    Actually, what I think you're really looking for is an SLR that
    doesn't have interchangeable lenses. Cameras like that exist, and
    some of them are getting good reviews.
     
    Matt Austern, Dec 21, 2003
    #18
  19. On 2003-12-21,  <> wrote:
    > My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so good.
    > I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of detachable
    > lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back with
    > "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want to lug
    > all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens that
    > spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low pixels and
    > the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies or
    > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low noise and
    > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom range?
    > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    > detachable lenses?


    Buy 16 copies of the cheapest camera you can get. That will give
    you 4x640 times 4x480 in resolution. that is 2560x1920 which is
    around 5 Mpixels.

    The thing is, CMOS takes more room to get the low-noise pictures
    and sensitivity of the SLRs, and if the sensor is larger, so must
    the optics.

    Minolta A1 is an attempt to give you what you want, BUT, they
    went cheap on size and space, and took a CCD - which gives a
    high noise level.

    What is wrong with the 300D ? You just put the lens on it you
    want, and never change it.
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Dec 21, 2003
    #19
  20. 

    AT Guest

    or wait and see what the new leica does.

    if it produces leica quality, then we are lucky.


    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >  wrote:
    >
    > > My main problem with them is what alot of other people say is so

    good.
    > > I don't want to have to spend $hundreds+ for all kinds of

    detachable
    > > lenses, then have to lug them all around. Please don't come back

    with
    > > "I guess you don't want quality images". I do, I just don't want

    to lug
    > > all that around. Right now I have a C2100UZ with a great lens

    that
    > > spans 38-380mm. My only problem with the C2100UZ is the low

    pixels and
    > > the noise. Couldn't Canon or someone else take their DSLR bodies

    or
    > > something close to it, with the great image qualities and low

    noise and
    > > stick a permanently attached lens on there with a decent zoom

    range?
    > > Why couldn't a permanent lens serve just as well or better than
    > > detachable lenses?

    >
    > I hear ya..
    >
    > I don't know why the big guns don't build a consumer digicam based

    on something
    > like the Minolta Freedom Zoom 15 camera. (The link below shows what

    this
    > camera looks like)
    > http://focuscamera.com/prods/727646010.asp
    >
    > Give it the same quick autofocus system and an APS sized sensor and

    tweak the
    > lens slightly to reduce the crop factor. A camera like this would

    perform
    > like a traditional compact 35mm. These are by far the most popular

    in the
    > 35mm lineup.
    >
    > If Canon can market a full blown SLR with an APS sized sensor and a

    lens for
    > under $1000, I don't know why they couldn't make a larger sensor

    digicam out
    > of a 35mm compact camera body for around $500.00
    >
    > They seem to persist in making cameras with tiny high megapixel

    1/1.8 sensors..
    > That have noticeable shutter lag and noisy pictures at high ISO

    settings..
    >
    > Oh well.. We'll have to see what the new year brings :)
    >
    >
    >
     
    AT, Dec 21, 2003
    #20
    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. Jim Waggener

    If you want great pics ...don't buy a DSLR

    Jim Waggener, Jan 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,326
    Azzz1588
    Feb 10, 2004
  2. JB

    Advice please: DSLR or DSLR-style?

    JB, Oct 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    618
    Siddhartha Jain
    Oct 21, 2004
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,469
    Patrick Boch
    Mar 18, 2005
  4. AnthonyL

    I don't want a DSLR

    AnthonyL, Nov 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    92
    Views:
    1,418
    David Littlewood
    Dec 14, 2005
  5. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,580
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page