Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the lasttwo years

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 14, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
    the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
    have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
    constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
    the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
    the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
    has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
    decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
    (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
    they are stuck with another curiosity.

    http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx1
    RichA, May 14, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Nick Fotis Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    Personally, I am fascinated by this camera.

    It could be called the direct descendant of the medium format Fuji GW690
    which I own.

    And that Zeiss lens nearly touches the sensor, as far as I know.

    N.F.
    Nick Fotis, May 14, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    philo  Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On 05/14/2013 12:54 AM, RichA wrote:
    > No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
    > the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
    > have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
    > constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
    > the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
    > the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
    > has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
    > decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
    > (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
    > they are stuck with another curiosity.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx1
    >





    The camera got very good reviews but I cannot believe the camera is
    really worth that kind of money. Having Carl Zeiss on the lens may
    justify it for some...but not me.


    With my Canon 50D and a "modest" 28-105mm lens I can get a 24" x 36"
    (approx) print so razor sharp that it beat my medium format camera which
    I then retired for good.


    Possibly a good camera for those with money to burn...one of the
    reviewers mentioned that he used the camera to take "snapshots".
    philo , May 14, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    Nick Fotis Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On 14/05/2013 15:38, philo wrote:
    >
    > The camera got very good reviews but I cannot believe the camera is
    > really worth that kind of money. Having Carl Zeiss on the lens may
    > justify it for some...but not me.


    The only troublesome part I could identify from the reviews is the slow
    AF, and the difficulty of focusing in low light. Maybe the small battery
    is a limit.

    > With my Canon 50D and a "modest" 28-105mm lens I can get a 24" x 36"
    > (approx) print so razor sharp that it beat my medium format camera which
    > I then retired for good.


    The 28-105 lens is adequate (not great), usually I prefer using the
    24-70/2.8L on my 5D, despite the weight (having this lens hanging on my
    neckstrap together with a 5D-class body, can be very tiring).

    > Possibly a good camera for those with money to burn...one of the
    > reviewers mentioned that he used the camera to take "snapshots".


    I admit this is a specialized camera, for people wanting image quality
    at a very compact size.
    If I was to buy a fixed-lens compact camera, I think I would go for the
    Fuji X100S instead, or the Olympus OM-D if I wanted interchangeable lenses.

    The truth is, I am 'married' to Canon due to the relatively large
    investment in lenses accumulated over 15+ years.

    N.F.
    Nick Fotis, May 14, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    philo  Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On 05/14/2013 08:12 AM, Nick Fotis wrote:

    <snipped for brevity>


    >
    > The 28-105 lens is adequate (not great),


    Correct...it's a good lens but not top-of-the line by any means.
    I bought it with my 35mm Rebel and have kept it all along.
    It's now on it's 3rd camera.

    Some day I hope to buy a top-line lens for the camera...but the shots I
    get with this lens are so good, I am in no rush to get another lens.


    usually I prefer using the
    > 24-70/2.8L on my 5D, despite the weight (having this lens hanging on my
    > neckstrap together with a 5D-class body, can be very tiring).
    >
    >> Possibly a good camera for those with money to burn...one of the
    >> reviewers mentioned that he used the camera to take "snapshots".

    >
    > I admit this is a specialized camera, for people wanting image quality
    > at a very compact size.
    > If I was to buy a fixed-lens compact camera, I think I would go for the
    > Fuji X100S instead, or the Olympus OM-D if I wanted interchangeable lenses.
    >
    > The truth is, I am 'married' to Canon due to the relatively large
    > investment in lenses accumulated over 15+ years.
    >
    > N.F.
    >
    philo , May 14, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    > > No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony.  The more I thought about it,
    > > the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
    > > have had and there was NO reason for it.  There are no design
    > > constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
    > > the sensor, if you need to.  However, Sony blew it big time by being
    > > the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
    > > has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
    > > decision to have a fixed lens.  They could have creamed off lots of
    > > (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800.  Now,
    > > they are stuck with another curiosity.

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx1

    >
    > OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
    > Now what?
    >


    If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
    except (perhaps) as a portable body. However, people who LIKE
    mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens. At least
    Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.
    RichA, May 15, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On May 14, 10:03 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    > On 2013-05-14 18:27:30 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >> On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA <> said:

    >
    > >>> No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
    > >>> the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
    > >>> have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
    > >>> constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
    > >>> the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
    > >>> the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
    > >>> has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
    > >>> decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
    > >>> (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
    > >>> they are stuck with another curiosity.

    >
    > >>>http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx1

    >
    > >> OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
    > >> Now what?

    >
    > > If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
    > > except (perhaps) as a portable body.  However, people who LIKE
    > > mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens.  At least
    > > Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.

    >
    > I come from a 35mm rangefinder/SLR school and for now I am content with
    > a DSLR. However, as much as I would like a Leica M of some sort, I
    > realistically can't afford the body, to provide it with the glass it
    > deserves. There have been several tempting offerings in recent years,
    > but nothing which gets me to take the bait just yet.
    >
    > That Canon M is interesting. I see Amazon has it available with the
    > f/2.0 22mm for $499.
    > ...but I do like to have a VF I can put my old eye-ball up to.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
    conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
    diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
    population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
    focusing.
    RichA, May 16, 2013
    #7
  8. Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On 5/16/2013 5:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:48:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On May 14, 10:03 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>> On 2013-05-14 18:27:30 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> On May 14, 2:52 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>> On 2013-05-13 22:54:50 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>
    >>>>>> No, not the Pentax K-01, but this Sony. The more I thought about it,
    >>>>>> the more I realized the fixed lens was the silliest idea they could
    >>>>>> have had and there was NO reason for it. There are no design
    >>>>>> constraints with mirrorless, you can design lenses that almost touch
    >>>>>> the sensor, if you need to. However, Sony blew it big time by being
    >>>>>> the first out of the blocks with a FF mirrorless (Yes, I know Leica
    >>>>>> has one, but they are MF lenses) and they made the monumentally crazy
    >>>>>> decision to have a fixed lens. They could have creamed off lots of
    >>>>>> (for a mirrorless FF) Nikon and Canon customers, even at $2800. Now,
    >>>>>> they are stuck with another curiosity.
    >>>
    >>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx1
    >>>
    >>>>> OK! I'm not going to be buying one of those.
    >>>>> Now what?
    >>>
    >>>> If you are a died-in-the-wool DSLR'er, you wouldn't buy a mirrorless
    >>>> except (perhaps) as a portable body. However, people who LIKE
    >>>> mirrorless cameras won't buy it because of the fixed lens. At least
    >>>> Canon's "M" which looks superficially similar can change lenses.
    >>>
    >>> I come from a 35mm rangefinder/SLR school and for now I am content with
    >>> a DSLR. However, as much as I would like a Leica M of some sort, I
    >>> realistically can't afford the body, to provide it with the glass it
    >>> deserves. There have been several tempting offerings in recent years,
    >>> but nothing which gets me to take the bait just yet.
    >>>
    >>> That Canon M is interesting. I see Amazon has it available with the
    >>> f/2.0 22mm for $499.
    >>> ...but I do like to have a VF I can put my old eye-ball up to.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Regards,
    >>>
    >>> Savageduck

    >>
    >> Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
    >> conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
    >> diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
    >> population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
    >> focusing.

    >
    > And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
    > view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
    > offer the same certainty.
    >


    I'm glad to see I am not alone in having difficulties with an LCD
    display out of doors. Judging by the lack of optical viewfinders in less
    expensive cameras, I thought I might be handicapped :)

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
    James Silverton, May 16, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
    > view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
    > offer the same certainty.


    oh yes they can, with focus confirmation, focus peaking or just zooming
    into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

    or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.
    nospam, May 16, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

    In article <>, Neil Ellwood
    <> wrote:

    > I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
    > rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
    >
    > Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
    > Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
    > went in centrally first time.
    >
    > I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
    > body of the focusing screen.


    why not use the camera's focus confirmation?
    nospam, May 16, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
    >conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
    >diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
    >population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
    >focusing.


    An LCD viewfinder, like the one that comes standard with the Olympus OM-D
    and can be bought as an accessory for other Olympus u4/3 cameras, has an
    eyecup you can mash against your face to solve this problem, just like a
    DSLR. There is also has a little knurled wheel for diopter correction.
    I'll conceed the manual focusing woes, but there are workarounds, such
    as magnifying a portion of the image while focusing.

    I wonder why, though, since the image is provided via wire rather than
    optical path, they don't make the detatchable viewfinder a separate thing
    like a jeweler's loupe so you don't need to mash the body of the camera
    against your face.

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
    Paul Ciszek, May 16, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
    > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
    > >> offer the same certainty.

    > >
    > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,

    >
    > ... confirming focus on what?


    whatever you want.

    > > focus peaking

    >
    > ... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.


    it's very useful.

    > >or just zooming into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

    >
    > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
    > focus.


    it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
    cases, it will change the focus.

    > >or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.

    >
    > ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be
    > in focus.


    only if you don't know what you're doing.

    > My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and
    > focus points but these all take time.


    depends what tricks you want it to do.

    pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
    confirmation. some cameras even beep.

    it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
    focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
    accurate than had you used focus confirmation.
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
    > >> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
    > >>
    > >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in a
    > >> Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change and
    > >> went in centrally first time.
    > >>
    > >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the main
    > >> body of the focusing screen.

    > >
    > >why not use the camera's focus confirmation?

    >
    > Don't trust it.


    it's more accurate than you are, and in much lower light too.

    > Don't know what it thinks it's confirming focus on.


    whatever is under the selected focus point.
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass

    >
    > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR

    >
    > > >> offer the same certainty.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > ... confirming focus on what?

    >
    >
    >
    > whatever you want.


    I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.



    > > > focus peaking


    > > ... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.

    >
    > it's very useful.
    >
    >
    >
    > > >or just zooming into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as

    >
    > > focus.

    >
    >
    >
    > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
    >
    > cases, it will change the focus.


    Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.


    > > >or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be

    >
    > > in focus.

    >
    > only if you don't know what you're doing.


    Must be why they invented autofocus because peole donl;t know what they want in focus.


    > > My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and

    >
    > > focus points but these all take time.

    >
    >
    >
    > depends what tricks you want it to do.


    I'd just want it to focus on what I wanted in focus.


    > pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
    >
    > confirmation. some cameras even beep.


    By the time that happens the shot over.

    > it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
    >
    > focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
    >
    > accurate than had you used focus confirmation.


    When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.

    I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)
    Whisky-dave, May 17, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

    In article <>, Neil Ellwood
    <> wrote:

    > >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
    > >> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
    > >>
    > >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in
    > >> a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change
    > >> and went in centrally first time.
    > >>
    > >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
    > >> main body of the focusing screen.

    > >
    > > why not use the camera's focus confirmation?

    >
    > You didn't actually read , did you?
    >
    > The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in the
    > camera because of that.


    completely wrong.

    the autofocus system is still active, regardless of which lens. using a
    manual focus lens just means the user has to manually turn the focus
    ring.

    focus confirmation means that when the subject is in focus, an led will
    light and/or the camera will beep, indicating that the user should stop
    turning the focus ring.
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > > In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > >
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass

    > >
    > > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR

    > >
    > > > >> offer the same certainty.

    > >
    > > > >

    > >
    > > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,

    > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > > ... confirming focus on what?

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > whatever you want.

    >
    > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.


    It is currently aimed at a diamond ring. Do you want the focus on the
    front facet of the diamond, the widest point of the stone, the points of
    the setting, or what?

    The benefit of the LCD from my viewpoint is that you can zoom in on the
    point that you want to be in focus and adjust until it's sharp. It
    serves the same function as an eyepiece magnifier but you can move the
    point you are looking at around instead of just being able to look at
    the center of the finder.

    > > > > focus peaking

    >
    > > > ... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.

    > >
    > > it's very useful.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > >or just zooming into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

    > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as

    > >
    > > > focus.

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
    > >
    > > cases, it will change the focus.

    >
    > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.
    >
    >
    > > > >or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.

    > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > > ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be

    > >
    > > > in focus.

    > >
    > > only if you don't know what you're doing.

    >
    > Must be why they invented autofocus because peole donl;t know what they want in focus.
    >
    >
    > > > My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and

    > >
    > > > focus points but these all take time.

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > depends what tricks you want it to do.

    >
    > I'd just want it to focus on what I wanted in focus.
    >
    >
    > > pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
    > >
    > > confirmation. some cameras even beep.

    >
    > By the time that happens the shot over.
    >
    > > it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
    > >
    > > focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
    > >
    > > accurate than had you used focus confirmation.

    >
    > When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.
    >
    > I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)


    I gave up on "focus confirmation"--too many blurry shots that "focus
    confirmation" told me were supposed to be sharp. Might work OK for
    snapshots but not for anything critical.
    J. Clarke, May 17, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

    In article <>, cral.elllwood2
    @btopenworld.com says...
    >
    > On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:52:04 -0400, nospam wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, Neil Ellwood
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I took the plunge about 2 months ago and bought An EOS 60d (my 350d is
    > >> rather old and the batteries are on the blink.
    > >>
    > >> Because the 60d has interchangeable focusing screen I also invested in
    > >> a Katzeye rangefinder screen. Even at my age (80) it was easy to change
    > >> and went in centrally first time.
    > >>
    > >> I have an old 500mm mirror lens and could even focus that using the
    > >> main body of the focusing screen.

    > >
    > > why not use the camera's focus confirmation?

    >
    > You didn't actually read , did you?
    >
    > The lens is OLD and only has manual focusing. No focus confirmation in the
    > camera because of that.


    I can see why there would be no autofocus, but why would there be no
    focus confirmation?
    J. Clarke, May 17, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass
    > > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR
    > > > >> offer the same certainty.

    > >
    > > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,

    > >
    > > > ... confirming focus on what?

    > >
    > > whatever you want.

    >
    > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.


    it's whatever is at the selected focus point(s).

    > > > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as
    > > > focus.

    > >
    > > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some
    > > cases, it will change the focus.

    >
    > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.


    that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
    and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.

    > > pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get
    > > confirmation. some cameras even beep.

    >
    > By the time that happens the shot over.


    depends on the subject, but if the shot is over with that, it certainly
    will be over using any other method of manual focus.

    > > it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a
    > > focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less
    > > accurate than had you used focus confirmation.

    >
    > When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it
    > didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.


    it still does. autofocus doesn't mean continuous focus, unless you want
    that functionality.

    > I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)


    only because there was no other option. now there is.
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #18
  19. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:03:58 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > says...
    >
    > >

    >
    > > On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:46:31 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:

    >
    > > > In article <>, Eric Stevens

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > <> wrote:

    >
    >
    > > > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > >> offer the same certainty.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > ... confirming focus on what?

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > whatever you want.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.

    >
    >
    >
    > It is currently aimed at a diamond ring. Do you want the focus on the
    >
    > front facet of the diamond, the widest point of the stone, the points of
    >
    > the setting, or what?


    That would depend on why I'm taking the photo and I'd know that before picking up the camera.


    > The benefit of the LCD from my viewpoint is that you can zoom in on the
    >
    > point that you want to be in focus and adjust until it's sharp.


    I thought you said the camera focuses ....

    It
    >
    > serves the same function as an eyepiece magnifier but you can move the
    >
    > point you are looking at around instead of just being able to look at
    >
    > the center of the finder.


    I use to move my eyeball, I had the ability of being able to focus on any part of the screen at will.


    > > > > > focus peaking

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > ... that might be useful but I have no experience of it.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > it's very useful.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > >or just zooming into the image 100%, and at lower light levels too.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > focus.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > cases, it will change the focus.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > >or let the camera do the focusing, which can do a better job and faster.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > ... then you are relying on the camera's opinion of what needs to be

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > in focus.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > only if you don't know what you're doing.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Must be why they invented autofocus because peole donl;t know what they want in focus.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > My D300 has the ability to play all kinds of tricks with focus and

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > focus points but these all take time.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > depends what tricks you want it to do.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I'd just want it to focus on what I wanted in focus.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > confirmation. some cameras even beep.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > By the time that happens the shot over.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > accurate than had you used focus confirmation.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)

    >
    >
    >
    > I gave up on "focus confirmation"--too many blurry shots that "focus
    >
    > confirmation" told me were supposed to be sharp. Might work OK for
    >
    > snapshots but not for anything critical.


    Yes I agree nothing confims that somethiung is in focus than it being in focus, a beeb could me my microwave curries ready ;-)
    Whisky-dave, May 17, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Re: Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in thelast two years

    On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:38:18 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > > > >> And no LCD lets you focus with the accuracy of the old ground-glass

    >
    > > > > >> view finders in the SLR of 15 or more years ago. Neither can a DSLR

    >
    > > > > >> offer the same certainty.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > >oh yes they can, with focus confirmation,

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > > ... confirming focus on what?

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > whatever you want.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I thought it was what the camera was currently aimed at.

    >
    >
    >
    > it's whatever is at the selected focus point(s).


    Which isn't always where you want the focus point to be, hopefully it's in the middle, which is where most shots need to be sharp.


    > > > > ... while all the time you are trying to frame the image as well as

    >
    > > > > focus.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > it's hard to focus if you keep moving the camera around, and in some

    >
    > > > cases, it will change the focus.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Which is a pain if your subject actually moves quickely.

    >
    >
    >
    > that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
    >
    > and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.


    it isn;t it's making adjustments faster but if you're follwong a car or sportsperson its handy not to have it re-aadjust.
    One of my fists spoerts was taking photos of power boat racing, I used a 135mm (35mm camera) hand held and adjusted the focus, and as the boat came into focus clicked. If I'd had the focus constantly changing it's put me off.

    But as you say digital is better because now I can set up a 4k camera on video
    and pissed off to the pub in stead of standing there taking photos, come back an hour later with a HD movie that I can take frame from as still.
    The olny thing that'd be blurry would be me :)


    > > > pick one focus point, put it on your subject and focus until you get

    >
    > > > confirmation. some cameras even beep.


    > > By the time that happens the shot over.

    >
    >
    >
    > depends on the subject, but if the shot is over with that, it certainly
    >
    > will be over using any other method of manual focus.


    Didntl; for me, some relied on luck btu pre focussing sorted most of that out, and with manaully turning a ring you soon get a feel for such things, or rather I did.


    > > > it's no different than putting the split-image or microprism part of a

    >
    > > > focusing screen on your target and focusing, except for being less

    >
    > > > accurate than had you used focus confirmation.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > When I did that the lens remained at the same focus until I changed it, it

    >
    > > didn't vary depending on what the camera was pointing at.

    >
    >
    >
    > it still does. autofocus doesn't mean continuous focus, unless you want
    >
    > that functionality.


    True but you need to decide which is best on a shot basis and re-set the camera accordingly. manually you do what feels correct at the time.


    > > I used to use my eye for focus confirmation, those were the days :)

    >
    >
    >
    > only because there was no other option. now there is.


    There was always fixed focus lenses where 'everything' was in 'focus'
    Then again we oonly used top have optical viewfinders it seems peole still want such things though I wonder why .
    Whisky-dave, May 17, 2013
    #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. RichA

    Stupidest idea in a long time

    RichA, Mar 25, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    429
    Bernie Woodham
    Mar 29, 2005
  2. B?wser
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,018
    Jeff R.
    Nov 9, 2008
  3. Paul Furman
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    795
    Ray Fischer
    Nov 25, 2008
  4. Ray Fischer
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    791
    ASAAR
    May 20, 2009
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    5,523
Loading...

Share This Page