The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
    out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
    They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
    quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
    than a traditional reflex viewfinder.

    However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
    because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
    Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
    pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
    used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
    DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.

    Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
    Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
    Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
    size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
    that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
    other AF system, including phase-detect.

    The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
    ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
    and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.

    If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
    similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
    Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    DSLRs will suddenly disappear.
     
    Bruce, Sep 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:38 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
    >out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
    >They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
    >quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
    >than a traditional reflex viewfinder.
    >
    >However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
    >because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
    >Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
    >pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
    >used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
    >DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.
    >
    >Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
    >Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
    >Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
    >size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
    >that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
    >other AF system, including phase-detect.
    >
    >The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
    >ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
    >and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.
    >
    >If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
    >similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
    >Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    >DSLRs will suddenly disappear.


    They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short
    live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously
    noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor
    grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the
    zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical
    system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if
    need be.

    [I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game
    when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for
    the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises.
    Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image
    quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and
    CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free
    full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.]

    Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back
    about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models
    that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh.
    How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's
    right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or
    intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've
    thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially.
    Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant
    to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than
    test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well.
    Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
    important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered
    old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job
    over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it
    better.

    1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the
    previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding
    onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with
    the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has
    been poisoning the water all along.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/30/2010 7:15 AM, Bruce wrote:

    > If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
    > similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
    > Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    > DSLRs will suddenly disappear.


    For years Panasonic has had great cameras--if you go solely be the
    specifications. In actual use they have always been mediocre except in
    ideal shooting conditions.

    The market for high-end point and shoot/superzooms/EVIL cameras has been
    decimated by the falling prices of far more capable D-SLRs.

    Nothing developed so far replaces the tried and true focal plane shutter
    and mirror on a D-SLR.

    Nothing developed so far replaces the speed of phase-detect auto-focus
    on a D-SLR.

    Nothing developed so far replaces the ability to attach lenses directly
    to the camera body as on a D-SLR (rather than the hopelessly poor "lens
    adapters" that some people try (once) on their P&S cameras)).

    It would be wonderful if the Lumix DMC-GH2 is finally the camera that is
    able to overcome all the limitations of super-zooms and EVIL cameras,
    but based on Panasonic's history you should not hold your breath!

    So far, nothing would make me give up my Canon D-SLR and my Canon P&S
    cameras with CHDK installed. Between the D-SLR and P&S I'm covered for
    every eventuality. I don't think the slightly smaller size of the Lumix
    DMC-GH2 is going to make me move to a single camera as it's still much
    larger than my Canon P&S cameras.
     
    SMS, Oct 1, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Joel Connor Guest

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:56:14 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >
    >For years Panasonic has had great cameras--if you go solely be the
    >specifications. In actual use they have always been mediocre except in
    >ideal shooting conditions.


    How would you know? We ALL know that you have never owned even one camera
    in your lifetime. This has been proved hundreds of times.

    Your use of cameras and visiting parks with them is just as delusional as
    your story about helping to install a computer controlled geyser in
    Yellowstone.

    <http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>


    We ALL know you are a psychotic role-playing troll living an imaginary
    online life, one who had never touched any real camera, ever. Don't you get
    that yet?
     
    Joel Connor, Oct 1, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Russ D Guest

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:56:14 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >
    >Nothing developed so far replaces the tried and true focal plane shutter
    >and mirror on a D-SLR.


    Now why would anyone want to? Why would anyone want to invent another
    mechanical contraption that induces a 90-150ms shutter lag in having to
    move all that crap out of the way? Why would anyone want to invent another
    viewfinder that's only 95-97% accurate? Why would anyone want to invent
    another viewfinder that is useless in low light, and can't be used for
    precision manual focusing? Why would anyone want to invent another shutter
    that limits flash sync to last-century 1/250th second shutter speeds? Why
    would anyone want to invent another shutter that distorts the shapes of
    anything that's moving faster than 1/250th of a second? Why would anyone
    want to invent another system that jars the camera so bad that it blurs
    your images from camera shake, halving that expensive lens resolution? Why
    would anyone want to do that again? It's been a pain in the ass for a whole
    century. I can't imagine a world of photography having to put up with that
    shit for another century.
     
    Russ D, Oct 1, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Russ D Guest

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:56:33 -0500, Russ D <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:56:14 -0700, SMS <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Nothing developed so far replaces the tried and true focal plane shutter
    >>and mirror on a D-SLR.

    >
    >Now why would anyone want to? Why would anyone want to invent another
    >mechanical contraption that induces a 90-150ms shutter lag in having to
    >move all that crap out of the way? Why would anyone want to invent another
    >viewfinder that's only 95-97% accurate? Why would anyone want to invent
    >another viewfinder that is useless in low light, and can't be used for
    >precision manual focusing? Why would anyone want to invent another shutter
    >that limits flash sync to last-century 1/250th second shutter speeds? Why
    >would anyone want to invent another shutter that distorts the shapes of
    >anything that's moving faster than 1/250th of a second? Why would anyone
    >want to invent another system that jars the camera so bad that it blurs
    >your images from camera shake, halving that expensive lens resolution? Why
    >would anyone want to do that again? It's been a pain in the ass for a whole
    >century. I can't imagine a world of photography having to put up with that
    >shit for another century.


    Ooops, we forgot to add:

    Why would anyone want to invent another mechanical train like that which is
    so damn noisy, intrusive, and disrespectfully inconsiderate to others that
    they are banned from being used in most public performances, ceremonies,
    and public buildings? Why would anyone want a shutter and mirror mechanism
    that's so noisy that it scares away most wildlife, or draws the attention
    of dangerous wildlife in your direction? Why would ANYONE want that shit
    again?
     
    Russ D, Oct 1, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Rich Guest

    On Sep 30, 10:15 am, Bruce <> wrote:

    > Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    > DSLRs will suddenly disappear.


    It is inevitable that mirror-penta prism cameras will die off. Cost
    is the driver. Unless Nikon and the like want to jump prices up to
    $8000-$15000 for top of the line DSLRs. Course, knowing Nikon, it
    would be in-character.
     
    Rich, Oct 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:46:57 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <>
    wrote:
    : On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:38 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    :
    : >There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
    : >out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
    : >They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
    : >quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
    : >than a traditional reflex viewfinder.
    : >
    : >However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
    : >because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
    : >Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
    : >pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
    : >used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
    : >DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.
    : >
    : >Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
    : >Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
    : >Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
    : >size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
    : >that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
    : >other AF system, including phase-detect.
    : >
    : >The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
    : >ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
    : >and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.
    : >
    : >If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
    : >similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
    : >Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    : >DSLRs will suddenly disappear.
    :
    : They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short
    : live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously
    : noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor
    : grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the
    : zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical
    : system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if
    : need be.
    :
    : [I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game
    : when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for
    : the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises.
    : Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image
    : quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and
    : CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free
    : full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.]
    :
    : Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back
    : about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models
    : that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh.
    : How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's
    : right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or
    : intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've
    : thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially.
    : Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant
    : to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than
    : test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well.
    : Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
    : important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered
    : old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job
    : over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it
    : better.
    :
    : 1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the
    : previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding
    : onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with
    : the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has
    : been poisoning the water all along.

    I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
    countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
    seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
    firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
    order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
    on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
    should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 1, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
    > Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
    > Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
    > size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
    > that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
    > other AF system, including phase-detect.


    Panasonic <snicker>
     
    Mr. Strat, Oct 1, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Russ D
    <> wrote:

    > Why would anyone want to invent another mechanical train like that which is
    > so damn noisy, intrusive, and disrespectfully inconsiderate to others that
    > they are banned from being used in most public performances, ceremonies,
    > and public buildings? Why would anyone want a shutter and mirror mechanism
    > that's so noisy that it scares away most wildlife, or draws the attention
    > of dangerous wildlife in your direction? Why would ANYONE want that shit
    > again?


    Do you sit down to pee too?

    What a whiny pussy!
     
    Mr. Strat, Oct 1, 2010
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote:

    > I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
    > countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
    > seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
    > firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
    > order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
    > on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
    > should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?
    >

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/why-digital-cameras-have-mechanical-shutters.html

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 1, 2010
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Sep 30, 10:15 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >
    >> Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    >> DSLRs will suddenly disappear.

    >
    >It is inevitable that mirror-penta prism cameras will die off. Cost
    >is the driver. Unless Nikon and the like want to jump prices up to
    >$8000-$15000 for top of the line DSLRs. Course, knowing Nikon, it
    >would be in-character.



    Is that why you bought a Nikon DSLR? So you could feel closer to the
    manufacturer you whine about most?
     
    Bruce, Oct 1, 2010
    #12
  13. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 1, 6:19 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >On Sep 30, 10:15 am, Bruce <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    > >> DSLRs will suddenly disappear.

    >
    > >It is inevitable that mirror-penta prism cameras will die off.  Cost
    > >is the driver.  Unless Nikon and the like want to jump prices up to
    > >$8000-$15000 for top of the line DSLRs.  Course, knowing Nikon, it
    > >would be in-character.

    >
    > Is that why you bought a Nikon DSLR?  So you could feel closer to the
    > manufacturer you whine about most?


    UK sales of DSLRs are down, but revenues are up. According to this.
    I guess that means higher cost?

    Amateur Photographer

    UK sales of DSLRs, micro system cameras and compacts shot up in
    August, compared to the same month the year before, according to
    figures seen by Amateur Photographer.

    The number of DSLRs sold in August rose 15.4%, compacts 6%, while
    sales of mirrorless interchangeable lens system cameras grew 191%
    compared to August 2009.

    Sales revenue jumped 21.1%, 4.3% and 166.3% respectively, according to
    GfK Retail and Technology.

    However, the stats show that volume sales of DSLRs and compacts
    slumped 3.9% and 4.3% respectively from April-June 2010, compared to
    the same period last year. Yet sales revenue actually increased by
    17.4% and 5%.

    And in the first eight months of 2010, the number of DSLRs sold
    plunged 6.1% compared to 2009, but sales revenue rose 12.2%.
     
    RichA, Oct 1, 2010
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Oct 1, 6:19 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >On Sep 30, 10:15 am, Bruce <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    >> >> DSLRs will suddenly disappear.

    >>
    >> >It is inevitable that mirror-penta prism cameras will die off.  Cost
    >> >is the driver.  Unless Nikon and the like want to jump prices up to
    >> >$8000-$15000 for top of the line DSLRs.  Course, knowing Nikon, it
    >> >would be in-character.

    >>
    >> Is that why you bought a Nikon DSLR?  So you could feel closer to the
    >> manufacturer you whine about most?

    >
    >UK sales of DSLRs are down, but revenues are up. According to this.
    >I guess that means higher cost?



    A complete non sequituur.
     
    Bruce, Oct 1, 2010
    #14
  15. Bruce

    peter Guest

    On 10/1/2010 7:36 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > RichA<> wrote:
    >> On Oct 1, 6:19 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>> Rich<> wrote:
    >>>> On Sep 30, 10:15 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    >>>>> DSLRs will suddenly disappear.
    >>>
    >>>> It is inevitable that mirror-penta prism cameras will die off. Cost
    >>>> is the driver. Unless Nikon and the like want to jump prices up to
    >>>> $8000-$15000 for top of the line DSLRs. Course, knowing Nikon, it
    >>>> would be in-character.
    >>>
    >>> Is that why you bought a Nikon DSLR? So you could feel closer to the
    >>> manufacturer you whine about most?

    >>
    >> UK sales of DSLRs are down, but revenues are up. According to this.
    >> I guess that means higher cost?

    >
    >
    > A complete non sequituur.
    >


    As is not responding to uncomfortable questions.



    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Oct 1, 2010
    #15
  16. bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > Russ D wrote:
    >> Why would anyone want a shutter and mirror mechanism
    >> that's so noisy that it scares away most wildlife, or draws the attention
    >> of dangerous wildlife in your direction?


    > Yeah, because dangerous wildlife is a major factor
    > in most people's camera buying decision process.


    > Wait, what?!


    Sure, in every photo newsgroup there must live a troll (or, in
    our case, a poor and stupid excuse for one) that is drawn towards
    a shutter. Unfortunately, our stupid and poor excuse for a troll
    mistakes a Canon for a cannon and a shutter for a trigger ---
    the resultant explosion of ignorance of course scares away most
    normal people and draws the attention of troll hunters.

    Trolls are the dangerous wildlife of the usenet.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 1, 2010
    #16
  17. Bruce <> wrote:

    > Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
    > Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
    > Four Thirds sensor,


    Read: It's noisy as hell. Think of a Canon crop camera with
    25 MPix or a full frame with 64 MPix.

    > by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
    > size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
    > that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
    > other AF system, including phase-detect.


    .... and if you believe that without independent 3rd party
    tests, I've got a lot of bridges I can sell you.

    > The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
    > ghosting.


    It also has no lenses and can't attach filters to reduce the
    chance of ghosting.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 1, 2010
    #17
  18. Psests Psosting

    You gots to try harder, o pest of many nyms- or maybe you guys are
    hanging out at the same coffee shop:

    72.251.115.59 - "Russ D"
    72.251.115.59- "Joel Conner".

    Posting minutes apart.

    Shame on you!

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 1, 2010
    #18
  19. Re: Psests Psosting

    On 10/1/10 PDT 8:29 AM, LOL! wrote:
    > On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:13:55 -0700, John McWilliams<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> You gots to try harder, o pest of many nyms- or maybe you guys are
    >> hanging out at the same coffee shop:
    >>
    >> 72.251.115.59 - "Russ D"
    >> 72.251.115.59- "Joel Conner".
    >>
    >> Posting minutes apart.
    >>
    >> Shame on you!

    >
    > Are you THIS SLOW??
    >


    Not usually- but I had been under the impression you used a re-mailer to
    hide your host. Did you used to?

    It's a slow day, I am bored, and you provide the occasional whiff of
    diversion. Plus you foam so easily.....

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 1, 2010
    #19
  20. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 10/1/2010 6:20 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Bruce<> wrote:
    >
    >> Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
    >> Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
    >> Four Thirds sensor,

    >
    > Read: It's noisy as hell. Think of a Canon crop camera with
    > 25 MPix or a full frame with 64 MPix.


    We'll see when it comes out, but given Panasonic's history of noisy
    cameras no one should get their hopes up.

    Micro 4:3 is shaping up to be the APS film of the 21st century.

    > It also has no lenses and can't attach filters to reduce the
    > chance of ghosting.


    Are you sure? Why would you not be able to attach filters to Micro 4:3
    lenses?
     
    SMS, Oct 1, 2010
    #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. Gary G. Taylor

    Beginning of the end for AOL?

    Gary G. Taylor, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    742
    Greg M
    Dec 7, 2003
  2. Jerry McG

    DEbate: Whay Expensive DSLRS vs Consumer Bodies?

    Jerry McG, May 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    458
  3. PossumTrot

    Battery types for consumer DSLRs; 3rd party lenses?

    PossumTrot, Jul 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,139
    Ron Recer
    Jul 17, 2007
  4. Jud Hendrix
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    544
    S.SubZero
    Feb 24, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,434
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page