Death knell for prosumers?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Dec 2, 2006.

  1. Rich

    acl Guest

    acl, Dec 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Uh, no. They take 58mm filters, which is good since most of my MF lenses
    took 58mm filters.

    But there's a big hole at 75mm. I find the 50 too short and the 85/1.8 or
    100/2.0 a tad too long.

    And the 24-105/4.0 is a real clunker (77mm filters), is slow, heavy, and
    expensive.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. I never even got myself a 85 until a couple of years ago. And today I
    don't have 135 so I have jump directly from 105 to 180.
    Nikon had the 35-70/2.8. It is supposed to take 62mm filters. Of course
    it was replaced by something more wide angle (28-70/2.8)

    I don't know about Canon, but it surprising how few zooms Nikon made that
    start around 50. There is the 43-86, the 50-135, the 50-300/4.5, and thats it.
    I guess everybody either want a bit of wide angle as well, or just the
    telezooms that start at 70 or 80.
     
    Philip Homburg, Dec 9, 2006
  4. Rich

    Skip Guest

    In a manner of speaking, yes. Peizoelectronics are a wonderful thing...
     
    Skip, Dec 9, 2006
  5. Rich

    Skip Guest

    Sure, it affects them on both cameras, but on an SLR, I'm not using it for
    composition or to check BEFORE I shoot.
    It's that less than 100% of the time I'm talking about. And it doesn't have
    to be critical, just better than any of the EVFs I've seen. And since they
    aren't strictly realtime, an EVF is an adventure when shooting sports or
    moving objects, I'd imagine.
    And most of them, if not all, use optical viewfinders.
     
    Skip, Dec 9, 2006
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    It's about 24mm-110mm which isn't too bad. An zero shutter noise, the
    camera is dead silent and has no shutter or mirror slap.
     
    Rich, Dec 9, 2006
  7. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    And the viewfinder is just that in the movie industry, an aiming device.
    The focus puller (who is not usually the guy looking through the finder)
    usually measures from the film plane to the subject and sets focus that
    way rather than by squinting through a viewfinder that is a tiny fraction
    of the size that the image will be displayed and guessing that that's
    "good enough".
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 9, 2006
  8. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    Do you know this or are you just assuming it?
    I have an F828 and you can hear the shutter. I would be surprised if
    you could not hear the shutter on the R1 as well.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 9, 2006
  9. Rich

    Rich Guest

    One day it will be as good as optical, it already allows you to see in
    near darkness, something optical viewfinders can't do.
     
    Rich, Dec 9, 2006
  10. Because the answer to both is "never".
    It just depends on what you want from your preview tool.
    For me it enables more inconspicuous photographing if I
    can have the camera in front of my belly. My default
    position for taking pictures of people isn't looking
    down on them and I don't have to knee in the mud for it.
    I can take pictures with the camera on the ground and
    pointing up or straight (flowers).
    I don't care about "controlling" depth because I can tell the
    camera where to focus on and choosing the aperture to achieve the
    required depth is not rocket science.
    I do care about exposure control and I know that if nothing
    in the lcd screen is whited or blacked out, I will have no
    whited or blacked out areas on the image.
    I do care about seeing lots of information on the lcd screen, with
    the motive as background.
    I have no problem with the light because I can always twist the
    preview screen out of the sun.

    So far I haven't seen any optical viewer that can achieve these things
    and I don't think there'll ever be one.

    Lots of Greetings!
    Volker
     
    Volker Hetzer, Dec 9, 2006
  11. This is a digital cinema camera. It's $17.5K for the body. The two
    lenses projected to be available are $5K and $9.5K on top of that.

    Then you need to store the output somewhere. Apparently an 80 GB "entry
    level" storage system will cost only $1000, but that won't last very
    long using the 27 MB/s wavelet-compressed output format. If you want RAW
    uncompressed output, the data rate becomes 323 MB/s (and I don't see
    how they get the data rate that low without some compression).

    For a data rate of 300+ MB/s, you're going to need a pretty substantial
    RAID array, and rather a lot of power as well. Not a terribly portable
    setup.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 9, 2006
  12.  
    Dave Martindale, Dec 9, 2006
  13. Rich

    acl Guest

    The idea was that someone said that cameras have bad EVFs; someone else
    pointed out that at least one video camera doesn't (according to him);
    something like "lemme know when it takes 10mp stills" was said, and a
    link to a cine camera that does just that was given; this was then
    dismissed as irrelevant because too expensive (and heavy). Well, my
    point was that what costs n today will cost n/7 (say) in 5 years. I
    don't think cine cameras and still cameras will converge (I hope not,
    as I don't want to subsidise people who want cine cameras).
     
    acl, Dec 9, 2006
  14. I don't know what you call 'too bad', but this afternoon I was glad I
    took my 300mm with me (this is on FF). For me 24mm (FF equivalent) is
    reasonable, but 110mm is way to short.

    And then there is also f/4.8, which gives a DoF equivalent to 7.2 on FF. I
    guess Sony doesn't care for portraits with a shallow DoF.
     
    Philip Homburg, Dec 9, 2006
  15. Rich

    Rich Guest

    I've used it. First time, I couldn't even tell the shutter had fired,
    soundwise.
    It reminds me of an old Ricoh rangefinder I had, shutter fire weight
    was about 1/2 oz and it was almost dead-silent.
     
    Rich, Dec 9, 2006
  16. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Sounds alot like LCD computer screens, which I hate.
     
    Rich, Dec 9, 2006
  17. Rich

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    [...]
    I had an F707, and I thought the same thing -- which confused me
    because I thought the shutter was electronic. Turned out the
    shutter sound was faked by the speaker, and a menu option
    turns it off.

    Don't have an F828, but see page 141 in the manual, which you
    can find at

    http://esupport.sony.com/US/perl/model-documents.pl?mdl=DSCF828&LOC=3
     
    Bryan Olson, Dec 9, 2006
  18. Rich

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Rich wrote:
    [...]
    Modern plastics offer terrific materials for camera bodies.
    I appreciate finely machined metal gadgets as much as the next
    guy, but for something I carry to take pictures, and have to
    pay for, I'll take plastic.

    If the Sony R1 had image stabilization, I'd probably have
    bought one. I hope they follow it up.
     
    Bryan Olson, Dec 9, 2006
  19. Rich

    Toby Guest

    The resolution is just too coarse to be of any use in fine focusing. A lot
    of modern videocameras allow you to enlarge part of the image electronically
    so that detail covers more pixels and it is easier to focus, but that
    doesn't allow you to see the whole image any longer, which is death on
    wheels when you are shooting video.

    Toby
     
    Toby, Dec 10, 2006
  20. Rich

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Who uses manual focus for video anyway? Not a rhetorical question,
    I'm just not an advanced enough video user to know if this is done
    much. The AF on my video camera works pretty well and I've never used
    manual focus anytime I can remember.
     
    Paul Rubin, Dec 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.