Re: What's the Point of an Digital SLR ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JPS@no.komm, Aug 25, 2003.

  1. Guest

    In message <>,
    leah (Charlie Self) wrote:

    >but right now, every EVF I've seen is a POS.


    But if someone made one that zoomed to the sensel level in a center
    square, you could manually focus much better than an SLR.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Charlie Self Guest

    JPS responds:

    >
    >>but right now, every EVF I've seen is a POS.

    >
    >But if someone made one that zoomed to the sensel level in a center
    >square, you could manually focus much better than an SLR.


    JAYSUS! No one makes such an EVF. No one!

    Charlie Self

    "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
    Sir Winston Churchill
     
    Charlie Self, Aug 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bryan Olson Guest

    Charlie Self wrote:

    > JPS responds:
    >
    >>>but right now, every EVF I've seen is a POS.

    >>
    >>But if someone made one that zoomed to the sensel level in a center
    >>square, you could manually focus much better than an SLR.

    >
    > JAYSUS! No one makes such an EVF. No one!


    First, try to follow the point. We're not comparing cameras
    currently on the market; we're looking at the potential.

    Second, Sony's TTL/EVF digicams do have that mode.


    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Aug 25, 2003
    #3
  4. Charlie Self Guest

    Bryan Olson responds:

    > >>>but right now, every EVF I've seen is a POS.
    > >>
    > >>But if someone made one that zoomed to the sensel level in a center
    > >>square, you could manually focus much better than an SLR.

    > >
    > > JAYSUS! No one makes such an EVF. No one!

    >
    >First, try to follow the point. We're not comparing cameras
    >currently on the market; we're looking at the potential.
    >
    >Second, Sony's TTL/EVF digicams do have that mode.
    >


    The point is a simple one, so I guess that escapes you. This guy came in saying
    SLRs are not worth having. Now. No one was discussing futures except him. No
    one argued with the possibilities. He stated the SLRs were basically shit,
    wouldn't be around long, and didn't do well anyway. We may see great EVFs in
    the future. But "may" is the operative word. Until it happens, don't expect
    people to send money.

    Sony, one company, makes a semi-decent EVF, you say. I haven't used one. The
    EVFs I have used suck. I haven't heard any great reports on the Sony either.

    Charlie Self

    "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
    Sir Winston Churchill
     
    Charlie Self, Aug 25, 2003
    #4
  5. Bryan Olson Guest

    Charlie Self wrote:

    > Bryan Olson responds:


    [JSP had written:]
    >>>>But if someone made one that zoomed to the sensel level in a center
    >>>>square, you could manually focus much better than an SLR.
    >>>
    >>>JAYSUS! No one makes such an EVF. No one!

    >>
    >>First, try to follow the point. We're not comparing cameras
    >>currently on the market; we're looking at the potential.
    >>
    >>Second, Sony's TTL/EVF digicams do have that mode.

    >
    > The point is a simple one, so I guess that escapes you. This guy came

    in saying
    > SLRs are not worth having. Now.


    Hmmm, must have missed that post.

    > No one was discussing futures except him.


    Maybe my news server is getting posts yours doesn't.

    > No one argued with the possibilities.


    Uh, you want quotes?


    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Aug 26, 2003
    #5
  6. Bryan Olson Guest

    Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

    > Ummm...care to re-read this thread?


    Done. Well, at least the path down this one strand.


    > Here's the orginal question, cut-and-pasted from the top of the thread:

    [...]

    We're a ways down from the original thread. In particular, see
    eddie.m's post.

    > Where does that even hint about *potential*? The question asks why
    > people should bother with SLRs when you can preview directly with a
    > sensor chip.
    >
    > That's, like.....ummm....today. Not tommorow -- when EVFs fulfill
    > their potential -- now.


    Follow the thread. JSP and eddie discussed serious considerations,
    and another follows with "JAYSUS! No one makes...".

    > Why bother with SLRs as of 25 August, 2003: that's the question under
    > discussion.


    Not in this strand.



    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Aug 26, 2003
    #6
  7. eddie.m Guest

    wrote:
    >In message <>,
    > (Charlie Self) wrote:
    >
    >>but right now, every EVF I've seen is a POS.

    >
    >But if someone made one that zoomed to the sensel level in a center
    >square, you could manually focus much better than an SLR.
    >--

    The G2 et al do enlarge the center - I doubt it is to the sensor level. I
    haven't it to be very good. It really helps to have a proper focusing ring to.
    For close-up work I've found it easier to move the camera to obtain best focus.

    I've stuck longer version of my rant at
    http://www.eddiem.com/camera/rant/slrrant.htm
    Eddie.M
     
    eddie.m, Aug 26, 2003
    #7
  8. eddie.m Guest

    leah (Charlie Self) wrote:
    >Bryan Olson responds:
    >
    >> >>>but right now, every EVF I've seen is a POS.
    >> >>
    >> >>But if someone made one that zoomed to the sensel level in a center
    >> >>square, you could manually focus much better than an SLR.
    >> >
    >> > JAYSUS! No one makes such an EVF. No one!

    >>
    >>First, try to follow the point. We're not comparing cameras
    >>currently on the market; we're looking at the potential.
    >>
    >>Second, Sony's TTL/EVF digicams do have that mode.
    >>

    >
    >The point is a simple one, so I guess that escapes you. This guy came in saying
    >SLRs are not worth having. Now. No one was discussing futures except him. No
    >one argued with the possibilities. He stated the SLRs were basically shit,
    >wouldn't be around long, and didn't do well anyway. We may see great EVFs in
    >the future. But "may" is the operative word. Until it happens, don't expect
    >people to send money.
    >

    If you are refering to me learn to read.
    >Sony, one company, makes a semi-decent EVF, you say. I haven't used one. The
    >EVFs I have used suck. I haven't heard any great reports on the Sony either.
    >
    >Charlie Self
    >
    >"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
    >Sir Winston Churchill
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    eddie.m, Aug 26, 2003
    #8
  9. Bryan Olson Guest

    Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

    > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:54:56 GMT, Bryan Olson wrote
    >
    > -snip-
    >
    >>So you know how your newsreader works. That's not a substitute
    >>for reading the content.

    >
    > I have read the content. From the start.
    >
    > You've made it clear that you haven't read the content. From the
    > start.


    Harvey Van Sickle, who do you think you're kidding?

    Sure you can snip the bulk of my post, which accurately detailed
    who said what -- with quotes. You can snip anything you want,
    but when you snip I can just re-include:

    I, Bryan Olson wrote:
    | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
    | > Bryan Olson wrote
    | >
    | >>Follow the thread. JSP and eddie discussed serious
    | >>considerations, and another follows with "JAYSUS! No one
    | >>makes...".
    | >
    | > I did follow the thread. JPS's post threads as a reply to Charlie
    | > Self, to which Charlie Self replied with the JAYSUS comment. The
    | > "strand" as you call it is part of a thread, which is about:
    | >
    | >>>Why bother with SLRs as of 25 August, 2003: that's the question
    | >>>under discussion.
    |
    | And on that issue 'eddie.m' wrote, "I hope DSLR is a passing
    | phase, right now it is the weapon of choice [...]". The
    | potential of EVF's to replace SLR's is absolutely relevant to
    | topic. If someone doesn't want to discuss that, there's a
    | much better way to not discuss it than the sarcastic comments
    | and belligerent dismissals that followed.
    |
    | The that post I criticizes had shouted at it's predecessor for
    | even trying to make a point beside that of the shouter.
    |
    | >>Not in this strand.
    | >
    | > If I use Ctrl+backspace to retrieve the previous articles, I go from
    | > your post, to mine, to yours, to Charlie's, and so on back to the top
    | > post. That's the "strand" I'm reading.
    |
    | So you know how your newsreader works. That's not a substitute
    | for reading the content.


    > End of disussion; 'byeeee.


    Yeah, 'byeeee.


    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Aug 26, 2003
    #9
  10. Guest

    In message <>,
    leah (Charlie Self) wrote:

    >JPS responds:
    >
    >>
    >>>but right now, every EVF I've seen is a POS.

    >>
    >>But if someone made one that zoomed to the sensel level in a center
    >>square, you could manually focus much better than an SLR.

    >
    >JAYSUS! No one makes such an EVF. No one!


    It has nothing to do with the EVF, per se. It's a matter of firmware,
    and what it renders to the EVF.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 27, 2003
    #10
  11. Guest

    In message <Xns93E2E2D477DBEwhhvans@62.253.162.114>,
    Harvey Van Sickle <> wrote:

    >Why bother with SLRs as of 25 August, 2003: that's the question under
    >discussion.


    No, the question was why DSLR, not why the 10D, S2, 100D, etc.

    Lots of people are equating SLR with quality, without qualification.
    Very few people are saying "DSLR is an artifact of current technology,
    with no long-term value", which is much more accurate.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 27, 2003
    #11
  12. Charlie Self Guest

    JPS writes:

    >Harvey Van Sickle <> wrote:
    >
    >>Why bother with SLRs as of 25 August, 2003: that's the question under
    >>discussion.

    >
    >No, the question was why DSLR, not why the 10D, S2, 100D, etc.
    >
    >Lots of people are equating SLR with quality, without qualification.
    >Very few people are saying "DSLR is an artifact of current technology,
    >with no long-term value", which is much more accurate.


    Your first response makes no sense to me.

    Currently, SLR is the quality set up. The fact that no one is apologizing for
    it seems to really bug you. The long term value is something you may guess, but
    your predictions and those from Nostradamus have the same value at this point:
    entertainment.

    Charlie Self

    "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
    Dan Quayle, 11/30/88
     
    Charlie Self, Aug 27, 2003
    #12
  13. Bryan Olson <> wrote in
    news:4py2b.5473$:

    > Not in this strand.


    Well - gee - I'll just start another "strand".

    How do you think the Redskins will do this year? Do you think Spurrier's
    offense will work in the NFL?

    --
    To email me, type my 1st name before my last.
     
    Tony Whitaker, Aug 28, 2003
    #13
  14. Guest

    In message <>,
    leah (Charlie Self) wrote:

    >JPS writes:


    >>Harvey Van Sickle <> wrote:


    >>>Why bother with SLRs as of 25 August, 2003: that's the question under
    >>>discussion.


    >>No, the question was why DSLR, not why the 10D, S2, 100D, etc.


    >>Lots of people are equating SLR with quality, without qualification.
    >>Very few people are saying "DSLR is an artifact of current technology,
    >>with no long-term value", which is much more accurate.


    >Your first response makes no sense to me.


    How's this?: No, the question was "why digital SLRs?"; not "Why the 10D,
    or S2, or 100D, etc?".

    >Currently, SLR is the quality set up. The fact that no one is apologizing for
    >it seems to really bug you. The long term value is something you may guess, but
    >your predictions and those from Nostradamus have the same value at this point:
    >entertainment.


    Slapping mirrors force you to use higher shutter speeds in low light.
    They make lots of noise. They don't allow you to compose when the
    camera isn't pressed against your eye. These are all "problems",
    whether you admit it or not.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 28, 2003
    #14
  15. Chris Hoopes Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <>,
    > leah (Charlie Self) wrote:
    >
    > >JPS writes:

    >
    > >>Harvey Van Sickle <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>Why bother with SLRs as of 25 August, 2003: that's the question under
    > >>>discussion.

    >
    > >>No, the question was why DSLR, not why the 10D, S2, 100D, etc.

    >
    > >>Lots of people are equating SLR with quality, without qualification.
    > >>Very few people are saying "DSLR is an artifact of current technology,
    > >>with no long-term value", which is much more accurate.

    >
    > >Your first response makes no sense to me.

    >
    > How's this?: No, the question was "why digital SLRs?"; not "Why the 10D,
    > or S2, or 100D, etc?".
    >
    > >Currently, SLR is the quality set up. The fact that no one is apologizing

    for
    > >it seems to really bug you. The long term value is something you may

    guess, but
    > >your predictions and those from Nostradamus have the same value at this

    point:
    > >entertainment.

    >
    > Slapping mirrors force you to use higher shutter speeds in low light.
    > They make lots of noise. They don't allow you to compose when the
    > camera isn't pressed against your eye. These are all "problems",
    > whether you admit it or not.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


    You make it sound like there is a lot of torque in the mirror when it
    moves. I have never had an SLR/DSLR that ruined a shot for me due to the
    mirror movement. I've had more shots ruined by a digital P&S because I did
    not have the camera up to my face and only using my hands to hold the
    camera. A camera (P&S, Film, SLR...) is more stable when put up to your face
    than being held with just your hands. Even the P&S digital camera manuals
    tell you that it is better to have the camera to your face - I've owned a
    few and all of the manuals state this.

    Plus, the shutter lag of digital P&S can affect your shots as well. Push
    the button, then wait for the picture to be taken. With SLR/DSLR, the
    shutter movement is almost instantaneous - definitely much better if you are
    looking to capture action shots. I've seen great shots back when I just had
    my digital P&S camera with me that were ruined because the people moved from
    the pose by the time the camera actually to the picture.
     
    Chris Hoopes, Aug 31, 2003
    #15
  16. Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    "Chris Hoopes" <> wrote:

    > <> wrote in message
    > > Slapping mirrors force you to use higher shutter speeds in low light.
    > > They make lots of noise. They don't allow you to compose when the
    > > camera isn't pressed against your eye. These are all "problems",
    > > whether you admit it or not.


    > You make it sound like there is a lot of torque in the mirror when it
    > moves. I have never had an SLR/DSLR that ruined a shot for me due to the
    > mirror movement. I've had more shots ruined by a digital P&S because I did
    > not have the camera up to my face and only using my hands to hold the
    > camera.


    JPS doesn't understand mirror slap.
    It only has an effect when very high magnification is used and when the
    camera is firmly mounted on a tripod. Even then it only affects shots at
    around 1 - 1/30 sec.; mostly at around 1/15.

    Any other time mirror slap effect is so small compared to other movements
    that it's negligible.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Aug 31, 2003
    #16
    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. Stephen G. Giannoni

    What's the Point of a Digital SLR ?

    Stephen G. Giannoni, Aug 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    333
    Stephen G. Giannoni
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. David Sudjiman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,287
    David Sudjiman
    Jun 8, 2006
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    806
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    477
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  5. alex

    Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible?

    alex, Jun 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,050
Loading...

Share This Page