ideal camera for me

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=, Nov 28, 2006.

  1. 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.
    =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=, Nov 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    Roy G Guest

    "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, Nov 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    Roy G Guest

    "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    news:9_Uah.60338$...
    > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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, Nov 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Roy G wrote:
    > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > news:9_Uah.60338$...
    > > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> 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.
    =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=, Nov 28, 2006
    #4
  5. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    Celcius Guest

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

    Roy G wrote:
    > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > news:9_Uah.60338$...
    > > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> 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
    Celcius, Nov 28, 2006
    #5
  6. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    SimonLW Guest

    "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    SimonLW, Nov 28, 2006
    #6
  7. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    Ed Ruf Guest

    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_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf, Nov 28, 2006
    #7
  8. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    Skip Guest

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

    Roy G wrote:
    > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > news:9_Uah.60338$...
    > > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> 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, Nov 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Skip wrote:
    > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > Roy G wrote:
    > > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > > news:9_Uah.60338$...
    > > > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > >> 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 !".
    =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=, Nov 28, 2006
    #9
  10. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    J. Clarke Guest

    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:...
    >> >> 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)
    J. Clarke, Nov 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Roy G <> wrote:
    > The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose
    > NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation.
    >


    According to rumor (John Shaw), Hasselblad is suffering financial difficulty,
    so we shall see ;-)

    As far as NASA ... they live on tax dollars, which just about promises
    inefficiency and/or corruption, however, they are clearly getting better on
    the efficiency front.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 28, 2006
    #11
  12. minnes?tti <> 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 !
    >


    Since the fast majority of photographers out there believe they can take a
    better picture looking through the viewfinder rather than using a "live LCD",
    you are unlikely to find what you are looking for.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 28, 2006
    #12
  13. On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:05:09 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse <> wrote:
    > minnes?tti <> 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 !
    >>

    >
    > Since the fast majority of photographers out there believe they can take a
    > better picture looking through the viewfinder rather than using a "live LCD",
    > you are unlikely to find what you are looking for.


    Well, Olympus and Panasonic both are selling DSLRs with a live-preview
    option, so the technology does exist.

    That would be the solution to the original request. Get the Olympus DSLR
    (since it has a tilt/swivel LCD; the Panasonic has a fixed display), a
    couple of zoom lenses to cover the focal length range, plus a fast
    fixed-focal-length lens for the low-light stuff, and you're good to go.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Nov 28, 2006
    #13
  14. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    Bill K Guest

    Roy G wrote:
    > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > news:9_Uah.60338$...
    > > "minnesøtti" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> 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


    You're always a bit snappy and nasty. That's what we've all come to
    love about you--you old haggiss eater
    --
    Gator Bait
    Bill K, Nov 28, 2006
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    J. Clarke <> wrote:
    >A "live" LCD on an SLR is difficult--


    I don't see any problem. Just use the interline CCD type as is used
    in P&S cameras.

    With the mirror down the camera works like a SLR, with the mirror up
    (and shutter open) you get a live preview.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Nov 28, 2006
    #15
  16. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:27:30 +0100, Philip Homburg wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > J. Clarke <> wrote:
    >>A "live" LCD on an SLR is difficult--

    >
    > I don't see any problem. Just use the interline CCD type as is used
    > in P&S cameras.
    >
    > With the mirror down the camera works like a SLR, with the mirror up
    > (and shutter open) you get a live preview.


    So where do you put the meter?


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Nov 28, 2006
    #16
  17. On 28 Nov 2006 20:00:14 GMT, J. Clarke <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:27:30 +0100, Philip Homburg wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> J. Clarke <> wrote:
    >>>A "live" LCD on an SLR is difficult--

    >>
    >> I don't see any problem. Just use the interline CCD type as is used
    >> in P&S cameras.
    >>
    >> With the mirror down the camera works like a SLR, with the mirror up
    >> (and shutter open) you get a live preview.

    >
    > So where do you put the meter?


    Two options:

    1: On shutter half-press, drop the mirror to expose the meter/focus
    sensors. Meter&focus, then raise the mirror and expose.

    2: Do what P&S cameras do, and use the main sensor for metering and
    focusing information. Not as good as dedicated sensors, but it does
    work.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Nov 28, 2006
    #17
  18. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    ASAAR Guest

    On 28 Nov 2006 05:34:46 -0800, minnesøtti wrote:

    > 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 !".


    Definitely take the Sony R1 . . . if you don't want to wait
    several years for something to appear that more closely resembles
    your probably unattainable dream camera.

    Where it meets your wishes:
    > -- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a sensitivity);
    > -- A very good resolution of the lens;


    Where it doesn't:
    > -- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4);

    It's several stops slower, f/2.8 to f/4.8

    > -- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x;

    It only has a 5x lens

    > -- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps;

    It can take up to 3 continuous shots at 3 fps, and only for jpg
    images, as the R1 doesn't allow continuous shooting in RAW mode.
    After that quick burst you won't be able to take any more shots for
    nearly 8 seconds if an 80x card is used. The delay can be shorter
    if a faster card is used.

    > -- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot.

    It has one, but it's not attached in the usual position

    > -- Reasonably priced;

    It's probably dropped in price from its initial lofty $1000, but
    if you want to add the expensive lens adapters to broaden its 5x
    range, bring lots of cash, as either of them will push the price
    back up above $1000.

    > -- Reasonably small.

    Even without the lens adapters, it's big and heavy for anyone
    used to even large P&S cameras. At only a slightly greater height
    and width than Canon's 350D it wouldn't be seen as a big camera by
    most DSLR users, but it's far from small, and at 2.2 pounds is no
    lightweight. The telephoto conversion lens adds another 2 pounds.
    It's reasonably small if your frame of reference is cameras that
    resemble bowling balls.
    ASAAR, Nov 28, 2006
    #18
  19. ASAAR wrote:

    > Definitely take the Sony R1 . . . if you don't want to wait
    > several years for something to appear that more closely resembles
    > your probably unattainable dream camera.


    Why? The Panasonic LX2 has far superior image quality and is much cheaper
    and smaller.







    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Nov 28, 2006
    #19
  20. =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=

    Celcius Guest

    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <> wrote in message
    news:FeYah.2998$...
    > minnes?tti <> 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 !
    >>

    >
    > Since the fast majority of photographers out there believe they can take a
    > better picture looking through the viewfinder rather than using a "live
    > LCD",
    > you are unlikely to find what you are looking for.
    >
    > --
    > Thomas T. Veldhouse
    > Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
    >
    >

    Why not, Thomas?
    After all, one can see much better and judge of the results from a vewfinder
    than a LCD, especially in the sun. When I had the Canon Pro1 and found out I
    could use the viewfinder rather than the LCD, this was my choice.
    Marcel
    Celcius, Nov 28, 2006
    #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. rapskat

    Re: Why Linux is ideal in a business environment

    rapskat, Jan 19, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    390
  2. John Russell

    Ideal resolution to scan slides?

    John Russell, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    602
    Savidge4
    Jul 24, 2003
  3. Nightdrive

    My ideal camera (based on Canon)

    Nightdrive, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    536
    Gymmy Bob
    Jun 18, 2004
  4. AKT

    Ideal travel camera...

    AKT, Nov 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    282
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤
    Nov 18, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    875
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page