Re: Is the 8 mp Sony DSC-F828 about the Best Digital Camera out now?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gerard McGovern, Aug 19, 2003.

  1. > What do you all think about it?

    Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best digital camera
    out now.

    G
    Gerard McGovern, Aug 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gerard McGovern

    Paul Cordes Guest

    "Gerard McGovern" <> wrote in message
    news:bhs03s$2k2cn$-berlin.de...
    > > What do you all think about it?

    >
    > Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best digital

    camera
    > out now.
    >
    > G


    Best is such a subjective term........but we won't go into that
    now......will we?
    Paul Cordes, Aug 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Unless your lenses are designed to fit your CCD size
    specifically, what good are they? :)

    SLR's are over-rated. <GRIN>

    >> What do you all think about it?

    >
    > Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best
    > digital camera out now.
    >
    > G
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #3
  4. Gerard McGovern

    reg-john Guest

    "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:xQf0b.11273$...
    > Unless your lenses are designed to fit your CCD size
    > specifically, what good are they? :)


    less light falloff. cheaper telephoto.

    >
    > SLR's are over-rated. <GRIN>
    >
    > >> What do you all think about it?

    > >
    > > Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best
    > > digital camera out now.
    > >
    > > G

    >
    >
    reg-john, Aug 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Still, optimally you would want a lens specifically designed to
    produce an image almost precisely the size of your CCD, no?

    That is why Olympus and Kodak and others have this "Four Thirds"
    thing, right?

    http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index_01.htm



    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    > news:xQf0b.11273$...
    >> Unless your lenses are designed to fit your CCD size
    >> specifically, what good are they? :)

    >
    > less light falloff. cheaper telephoto.
    >
    >>
    >> SLR's are over-rated. <GRIN>
    >>
    >>>> What do you all think about it?
    >>>
    >>> Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best
    >>> digital camera out now.
    >>>
    >>> G
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #5
  6. Ooops - here is a quote from the four-thirds.org web site:

    Lens Mount Standardisation

    By establishing an open standard for camera body lens mounts, the
    new system will make it possible to standardise lens mounting
    systems, something that has been impossible to achieve with
    digital SLR cameras that are based on existing 35 mm film SLR
    lens systems. At the same time, the new system standard will set
    a rule for both the image circle size (the diameter of the area
    in which the subject is resolved) and the back focus distance
    (the distance from the lens mount to the image sensor).


    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    > news:xQf0b.11273$...
    >> Unless your lenses are designed to fit your CCD size
    >> specifically, what good are they? :)

    >
    > less light falloff. cheaper telephoto.
    >
    >>
    >> SLR's are over-rated. <GRIN>
    >>
    >>>> What do you all think about it?
    >>>
    >>> Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best
    >>> digital camera out now.
    >>>
    >>> G
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #6
  7. In article <aqj0b.12099$>,
    Paul D. Sullivan <> wrote:
    >Still, optimally you would want a lens specifically designed to
    >produce an image almost precisely the size of your CCD, no?


    You mean like the Nikon DX series lenses or the Canon 1Ds camera?

    >That is why Olympus and Kodak and others have this "Four Thirds"
    >thing, right?


    So I have to dump all my glass because a couple of small players invented
    some kind of standard?



    Philip Homburg
    Philip Homburg, Aug 19, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <frj0b.12104$>,
    Paul D. Sullivan <> wrote:
    >By establishing an open standard for camera body lens mounts, the
    >new system will make it possible to standardise lens mounting
    >systems, something that has been impossible to achieve with
    >digital SLR cameras that are based on existing 35 mm film SLR
    >lens systems. At the same time, the new system standard will set
    >a rule for both the image circle size (the diameter of the area
    >in which the subject is resolved) and the back focus distance
    >(the distance from the lens mount to the image sensor).


    Effectively, there was no standard lens mount for 35 mm or for APS. What
    is changed in the digital world that makes it a good idea for Nikon,
    Canon, etc. to adopt such a standard?



    Philip Homburg
    Philip Homburg, Aug 19, 2003
    #8
  9. CCD's seem to be less forgiving that 35mm film, particularly
    since their size varies from maker to maker.

    > In article <frj0b.12104$>,
    > Paul D. Sullivan <> wrote:
    >> By establishing an open standard for camera body lens mounts,
    >> the
    >> new system will make it possible to standardise lens mounting
    >> systems, something that has been impossible to achieve with
    >> digital SLR cameras that are based on existing 35 mm film SLR
    >> lens systems. At the same time, the new system standard will
    >> set
    >> a rule for both the image circle size (the diameter of the
    >> area
    >> in which the subject is resolved) and the back focus distance
    >> (the distance from the lens mount to the image sensor).

    >
    > Effectively, there was no standard lens mount for 35 mm or for
    > APS. What is changed in the digital world that makes it a good
    > idea for Nikon, Canon, etc. to adopt such a standard?
    >
    >
    >
    > Philip Homburg
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #9
  10. What is so great about SLR'S?

    >> What do you all think about it?

    >
    > Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best
    > digital camera out now.
    >
    > G
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #10
  11. > So I have to dump all my glass because a couple of small
    > players invented some kind of standard?


    Certainly not. I would not advocate that at all.

    However, for those who are going to invest in the future, a
    standard would certainly be nice, would it not?
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <0Rk0b.12236$>,
    Paul D. Sullivan <> wrote:
    >> So I have to dump all my glass because a couple of small
    >> players invented some kind of standard?

    >
    >Certainly not. I would not advocate that at all.
    >
    >However, for those who are going to invest in the future, a
    >standard would certainly be nice, would it not?


    You there will be Canon, Nikon, Leica, (probably Pentax), and standard.




    Philip Homburg
    Philip Homburg, Aug 19, 2003
    #12
  13. In article <7Ok0b.12233$>,
    Paul D. Sullivan <> wrote:
    >CCD's seem to be less forgiving that 35mm film,


    Why does that make any difference on whether to standardize or not?

    >particularly
    >since their size varies from maker to maker.


    That suggests that there is even less reason to standardize. At least
    with 35mm everbody was using the same frame size.




    Philip Homburg
    Philip Homburg, Aug 19, 2003
    #13
  14. With varying CCD sizes, replaceable lenses could get very
    complicated, what with different areas of exposure and what not.

    You are right about the 35mm. 24mm x 36mm is a standard size, so
    it is easier to get lenses from various MFG's and have the images
    fit the frame.

    If they could just standardize on one CCD size, it would be much
    easier.

    > In article <7Ok0b.12233$>,
    > Paul D. Sullivan <> wrote:
    >> CCD's seem to be less forgiving that 35mm film,

    >
    > Why does that make any difference on whether to standardize or
    > not?
    >
    >> particularly
    >> since their size varies from maker to maker.

    >
    > That suggests that there is even less reason to standardize.
    > At least with 35mm everbody was using the same frame size.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Philip Homburg
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003
    #14
  15. Gerard McGovern

    reg-john Guest

    they take the best pictures. simple.


    "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:UPk0b.12235$...
    > What is so great about SLR'S?
    >
    > >> What do you all think about it?

    > >
    > > Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best
    > > digital camera out now.
    > >
    > > G

    >
    >
    reg-john, Aug 19, 2003
    #15
  16. Gerard McGovern

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <aqj0b.12099$>,
    says...
    > Still, optimally you would want a lens specifically designed to
    > produce an image almost precisely the size of your CCD, no?
    >


    Actually by using lenses designed for 35mm SLRs, a digital SLR uses only
    the center portion of the lens, which is where it's the sharpest. No
    concerns about vignetting, corner softness, or distortion because the
    outside edges of the lens, which is where the quality falls off, isn't
    used. The only disadvantage is that the focal length multiplier causes a
    loss of wide angle coverage. Of course if you shoot telephoto more than
    wide, this is a blessing because you can use smaller and less expensive
    lenses to achieve the same focal length as a 35mm film camera.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Aug 19, 2003
    #16
  17. Gerard McGovern

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <UPk0b.12235$>,
    says...
    > What is so great about SLR'S?
    >


    * Interchangeable lenses allow for a huge range of focal lengths,
    apertures, etc.

    * Larger CCDs have much less noise than consumer grade cameras

    * Much faster at autofocus

    * True TTL viewfinder, not an LCD

    * Larger CCD means you can much more effectively control depth of field

    Those are just a few. The list goes on.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Aug 19, 2003
    #17
  18. Gerard McGovern

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <bhs03s$2k2cn$-berlin.de>,
    says...
    > > What do you all think about it?

    >
    > Can I change lenses? Is it a SLR? No? Then it's not the best digital camera
    > out now.


    With a 28-200mm F2-2.8 lens there is no need to change lenses, unless
    you are into wildlife photography or are a professional sports
    photographer.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Alfred Molon, Aug 19, 2003
    #18
  19. He may have a clue - just not the same one as you. :)

    >> With a 28-200mm F2-2.8 lens there is no need to change
    >> lenses, unless you are into wildlife photography or are a
    >> professional sports photographer.

    >
    > Hmmmmm, you really don't have a clue, do you?
    >
    > G
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 20, 2003
    #19
  20. On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:43:16 +0100, "Gerard McGovern" <>
    wrote:

    >> With a 28-200mm F2-2.8 lens there is no need to change lenses, unless
    >> you are into wildlife photography or are a professional sports
    >> photographer.

    >
    >Hmmmmm, you really don't have a clue, do you?
    >
    >G
    >



    Do you..?
    Robert Mathews, Aug 20, 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. BUNTOVNIK
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    573
  2. Michael Meissner
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
    Bernhard Mayer
    Aug 20, 2003
  3. Petzl
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    420
    Paul D. Sullivan
    Aug 23, 2003
  4. -Gene-

    Sony DSC F828 vs. DSC F848

    -Gene-, Oct 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,212
    Bob Niland
    Oct 28, 2003
  5. luke

    Sony DSC P10 (or the DSC P5, DSC P9 or DSC P12)

    luke, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    560
Loading...

Share This Page