Re: The end of the DSLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by No Spam, Aug 6, 2008.

  1. No Spam

    No Spam Guest

    No Spam, Aug 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. No Spam

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Aug 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 7, 2008
    #3
  4. No Spam

    dj_nme Guest

    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.
     
    dj_nme, Aug 8, 2008
    #4
  5. Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    > message news:eek:Wxmk.38677$...
    >> 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, Aug 8, 2008
    #5
  6. 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
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 8, 2008
    #6
  7. No Spam

    dj_nme Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >> "David J Taylor"
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    >> message news:eek:Wxmk.38677$...
    >>> 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.
     
    dj_nme, Aug 8, 2008
    #7
  8. 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
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 8, 2008
    #8
  9. 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
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 8, 2008
    #9
  10. No Spam

    Paul Furman Guest

    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 ;-)
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 9, 2008
    #10
  11. No Spam

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    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.

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


    It's *from* Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken". The two lines above
    are the last two lines in that poem. Almost. It's "I took", not
    "They took".
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 9, 2008
    #11
  12. No Spam

    dj_nme Guest

    Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > "dj_nme" <> wrote in message
    > news:489c67c2$0$24187$...
    >> David J Taylor wrote:
    >>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    >>>> "David J Taylor"
    >>>> <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    >>>> message news:eek:Wxmk.38677$...
    >>>>> 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.

    >
    > Did any of you people read a word I said?
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    I replied to David J Taylor's message, not yours.

    If the Dimage A2 existed in a "commercial vacuum"**, then I could easily
    imagine that Konica-Minolta would have used an improved EVF in future
    Dimage A series EVF cameras.
    There were obviously reason why they didn't, and wrote some of my
    guesses in my response to David.

    **(IE: no competition of any sort, from another manufacturers cameras or
    internal competition from a new Konica-Minolta camera)
     
    dj_nme, Aug 9, 2008
    #12
  13. tony cooper wrote:

    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    > 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.

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

    >
    > It's *from* Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken". The two lines above are
    > the last two lines in that poem. Almost. It's "I took", not "They
    > took".


    Well, sure. I hadda make it make sense in context. :)

    In fact, the careful reader will note that I also replaced "one" with
    "road". Roadness wasn't present in the context of David's comment
    to which I was responding, so I had to provide it.


    --
    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
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 9, 2008
    #13
  14. Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    []
    > I said that perhaps some day in the future the convergence of still
    > and video cameras will mean hi res EVFs and hi res video clips rather
    > than still photos. If we had a 1, 2, or 3 second clip of a subject
    > instead of just a moment frozen in time, we could pick and choose the
    > best expression, fewest blinks, or precise moment of action that we
    > wanted. You guys come back with the Dimage A2.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    Gary,

    One of the reasons I still take my compact as well as my DSLR is to
    capture short video clips (5 - 30 seconds), as I feel that the movement
    can add a lot to certain subjects.

    I'm not sure I'd have the time to process each "still" image if it
    included having to select from a set from a high-res video clip, but I
    like the idea in principle.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 10, 2008
    #14
  15. No Spam

    dj_nme Guest

    Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    <snip>
    >>> Did any of you people read a word I said?
    >>>
    >>> Gary Eickmeier

    >> I replied to David J Taylor's message, not yours.

    >
    > Well, since you quoted all of us in your reply, I am talking to "any of you
    > people," not you.


    Well good for you, Mr Snide Comment.

    > I said that perhaps some day in the future the convergence of still and
    > video cameras will mean hi res EVFs and hi res video clips rather than still
    > photos.


    That's one possibility, but the marketplace wasn't kind to the Dimage A2.
    Unless this hypothetical digicam (presumably a Mu-4/3 camera,
    considering the recent Olympus press releases) with a hi-res EVF is
    actually cheaper than an entry-level DSLR camera, it will fail.

    > If we had a 1, 2, or 3 second clip of a subject instead of just a
    > moment frozen in time, we could pick and choose the best expression, fewest
    > blinks, or precise moment of action that we wanted.


    Then go and buy a HD video camera and you can pretty much do that now.
    You will just have to put up with the sort of low-res EVF that's on a
    camcorder, won't be able to judge or control focus accurately due to the
    limitations of the EVF and be limited to 1080P resolution (2 megapixel)
    images.

    > You guys come back with
    > the Dimage A2.


    Simply because it was the only digicam ever released with an EVF that is
    high enough resolution to be even vaguely close to being useful for
    judging focus.
    It didn't survive beyond one iteration: in fact the company
    (Konica-Minolta) which released it folded and then sold all of it's
    intellectual property to Sony.
     
    dj_nme, Aug 11, 2008
    #15
  16. No Spam

    Paul Furman Guest

    Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    > message news:_xEnk.40337$...
    >
    >> Gary,
    >>
    >> One of the reasons I still take my compact as well as my DSLR is to
    >> capture short video clips (5 - 30 seconds), as I feel that the movement
    >> can add a lot to certain subjects.
    >>
    >> I'm not sure I'd have the time to process each "still" image if it
    >> included having to select from a set from a high-res video clip, but I
    >> like the idea in principle.

    >
    > Well, the Canon DSLRs are already shooting hi res images at 10fps. Now it's
    > just the EVF that needs work, and I can't figure out why video cameras have
    > no problem but still cameras do. I can easily accept a lower res viewfinder
    > image that is still adequate for focusing and exposure actions. As for
    > editing, you would use a program in which you can scrub thru the clip just
    > like video editing. You don't download them one at a time or something.
    >
    > Some thought needs to be devoted to such concepts. Just a suggestion from an
    > old industrial designer.


    It's all fun but I think the limitation is writing those big files to
    the disk.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 11, 2008
    #16
  17. Alfred wrote on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:42:32 +0200:

    > In article <489f90b7$0$8652$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    > 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...
    >> Unless this hypothetical digicam (presumably a Mu-4/3 camera,
    >> considering the recent Olympus press releases) with a hi-res
    >> EVF is actually cheaper than an entry-level DSLR camera, it
    >> will fail.


    > A camera without swinging mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror
    > should be cheaper to make than one with swinging mirror and
    > pentaprism/pentamirror.


    Perhaps Olympus (?) should reintroduce its partially reflecting mirror.
    No movement, no time lag if you accept the loss of effective aperture.

    --

    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
     
    James Silverton, Aug 11, 2008
    #17
  18. Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    > A camera without swinging mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror should be
    > cheaper to make than one with swinging mirror and
    > pentaprism/pentamirror.


    Since when has lower manufacturing cost necessarily resulted in a lower
    retail price?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 12, 2008
    #18
  19. In message <7Mbok.41309$>, David J
    Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    writes
    >Alfred Molon wrote:
    >[]
    >> A camera without swinging mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror should be
    >> cheaper to make than one with swinging mirror and
    >> pentaprism/pentamirror.

    >
    >Since when has lower manufacturing cost necessarily resulted in a lower
    >retail price?


    Pretty much every time, assuming there's no other factors keeping the
    price up (fashion, patent lockins etc.) If the exchangeable-lens
    non-reflex cameras being discussed here become popular, other
    manufacturers will move into that market and there will be a price war.
    See the cost of P&S cameras for an example -- a "commodity" 10Mpixel 3x
    optical zoom camera built by a reputable manufacturer (Samsung, Pentax,
    Canon etc) used to cost 400-500 dollars US. Now they're being banged out
    retail for less than 200 bucks.
    --
    To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
     
    Robert Sneddon, Aug 12, 2008
    #19
  20. Robert Sneddon wrote:
    []
    >> Since when has lower manufacturing cost necessarily resulted in a
    >> lower retail price?

    >
    > Pretty much every time, assuming there's no other factors keeping the
    > price up (fashion, patent lockins etc.) If the exchangeable-lens
    > non-reflex cameras being discussed here become popular, other
    > manufacturers will move into that market and there will be a price
    > war. See the cost of P&S cameras for an example -- a "commodity"
    > 10Mpixel 3x optical zoom camera built by a reputable manufacturer
    > (Samsung, Pentax, Canon etc) used to cost 400-500 dollars US. Now
    > they're being banged out retail for less than 200 bucks.


    So the manufacturing price can support a retail price of US $200, but
    earlier US $400-500 was charged. I think that rather proves my point!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 12, 2008
    #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. ike lozada
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    652
    ike lozada
    May 27, 2004
  2. Dave

    Measure delay end-to-end

    Dave, Jul 19, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    614
  3. ec
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,784
    shinobi
    Jul 25, 2006
  4. RedRat
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    748
    Aaron Leonard
    Feb 1, 2006
  5. Georg Schwarz

    SIP and end-to-end

    Georg Schwarz, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    592
    Andrew Zhilenko
    Oct 17, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page