Please Canon, release a FF D-SLR for less than $2000!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by The Lone Gunman, Feb 23, 2007.

  1. The Lone Gunman

    Mark² Guest

    That's my impression, too!
    I have yet to see ANY flat panel model look as good as an earlier tube-based
    HD monitor I saw...before "flat" somehow became synonimous with "cool" for
    some dumb reason. So it's flat. So what? All this blocky, streaky CRAP
    that's being crammed down our throats (as in, you can hardly buy a decent
    tube-based screen any more) is just annoying. I'm all for progress, but at
    some point, we have to call it what it is. -Even with true HD signals, it
    often looks artificially sharp...blocky...slow...streaky...and just plain
    bad upon even somewhat close inspection. Big is neat, but not if clarity
    sucks. It's kind of like assuming that a 1MP image automatically is better
    just because you print it at 50 inches accross. At some point, you have to
    stay within a basic standard of motion/color/detail quality or it just
    becomes an size.
    Mark², Feb 26, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. The Lone Gunman

    Skip Guest

    Rita, I apologize for the tone of this post and the other ones. I'm not
    sure why I was so gruff, but I shouldn't have been. And I do know what
    you're talking about, it is most prevalent in non HD broadcasts. I don't
    watch much that isn't, but Speed Channel isn't HD, and I do see it. In
    fact, I did see it right after these posts.
    Right now, as things stand, I prefer plasma, but that could change.
    Skip, Feb 26, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Lone Gunman

    Skip Guest

    What I was looking at was an HD feed, or actually two of them. The store
    where we were comparing is a moderate high end home entertainment store. So
    things there were as good as they could get. They carry the top brands, and
    the top lines of those brands. (By the way, if you want to see "stunning,"
    look at Bang and Olufson's plasma. Wow.)
    I was, indeed, looking at LCDs with poor response times, most of them have
    that. Even the XBR and the other top LCDs lag behind plasma by about 2 ms.
    That may not seem critical, but I found it noticeable.
    Costco is the same way, everything looks bad.
    Skip, Feb 26, 2007
  4. The Lone Gunman

    Skip Guest

    We use Cox Cable.
    Skip, Feb 26, 2007
  5. The Lone Gunman

    Skip Guest

    You are right about that, but CRTs don't come in 42", at least affordably.
    Canon and Toshiba are set to introduce a new technology, SED (Surface
    Emitting Diode, IIRC) that is supposed to rival CRTs. That may drive
    plasma, LCD and whatever else down, if it ever becomes affordable.
    "Flat" translates to "space efficient" in our case. A CRT the size, or even
    close to the size, of the plasma we have would take up way too much of a
    footprint in our room. But, Mark, you should take a look at the new flat
    panels, with a good source. They aren't blocky, slow or streaky from a
    reasonable viewing distance, at least in HD. Non-HD, you are right.
    Skip, Feb 26, 2007
  6. The Lone Gunman

    Skip Guest

    My last TV, or strictly speaking, the one before that, lasted about 20
    years, a Phillips 27", that cost us about $700 back in 1984 or so. It went
    out a couple of years ago, we bought a Magnavox 27" that was exactly the
    same TV, but in a grey case rather than black (Magnavox is a Philips brand)
    for less than $200. Unfortunately, given the way things are these days, I
    don't expect the new one to last that long.
    We're about 12' from the TV, by the way.
    Skip, Feb 26, 2007
  7. The Lone Gunman

    Skip Guest

    No, cable only. But, since all the networks we watch are HD in our area
    (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, ESPN, PBS, A&E, and a few others,) it wasn't too much
    of a concern.
    In an earlier post, you said something like "unless plasma technology
    improves," or something like that. I have a feeling that plasma has been
    taken as far as it's going to go, since, right now, LCD is available in
    higher res, I believe 1280x1080, as opposed to plasma maxing out at 1080x
    Skip, Feb 26, 2007
  8. The Lone Gunman

    Mark² Guest

    Ya, I remember reading about how Canon was investing BILLIONS, researching
    some sort of new flat screen tech that was supposed to make current stuff
    look even more like crap. Canon and Toshiba both have good reputations for
    not wasting their time on R&D, so it'll be interesting to see what they come
    up with.
    Ya, there may be better out there. I think part of what throws me is
    listening to folks in the stores as they look at blocky, streaky crap...then
    going on and on about how "cool" it is, etc. It's sort of the feeling I get
    when I see people oohing and ahhing over the worst snapshots you could the 1 hour labs. :)

    I just get the impression that marketing has convinced the masses of
    something that isn't really better...just bigger...and in many cases is a
    real step backwards in terms of basic viewing.

    The tube-based set I was remembering was (I think) a 40 inch model... I
    could be wrong, but I'm thinking it had more than one gun to zap the screen.
    I don't remember the manufacturer, but it was a few years ago. I seem to
    recall a price of around $6K...
    Mark², Feb 26, 2007
  9. I'll check it the local "Tweeter"
    I think at 12 MS Response time,.... you should decide an LCD is
    perfectly wantable-but depends on your size preferences :) especially at
    the price point per say. All I want is a good quality LCD 27" computer
    compatible with my current Mac connectivity and HD built in sub 400
    bucks... crystal ball forcast.probably have to wait till July.
    Little Green Eyed Dragon, Feb 26, 2007
  10. The Lone Gunman

    ASAAR Guest

    Even with monitors using tubes, flat screens were superior. If
    you don't know why I could let you revel in your ignorance, but I'll
    provide a hint and hope that you reflect on it.
    ASAAR, Feb 26, 2007
  11. The Lone Gunman

    ASAAR Guest

    Even with monitors using tubes, flat screens were superior. If
    you don't know why I could let you revel in your ignorance, but I'll
    provide a hint and hope that you reflect on it.
    ASAAR, Feb 26, 2007
  12. The Lone Gunman

    Frank ess Guest

    I've read that "ideal" viewing ditance is approximately five screen
    heights (CRT; I have no idea if it is different for other
    technologies). I've measured my instinctive locations on a number of
    occasions and found I like it a bit more than five heights away. Of
    course TV constitutes a pretty small portion of my interest in the
    world, now. Twenty or so years ago a relative gifted us with a 37"
    Phillips. It lasted a loooong time, but eventually expired (I'm
    convinced) from the effects of loneliness.
    Frank ess, Feb 26, 2007
  13. Skip wrote:
    In even low-end LCDs 1360 (or 1366) x 768 pixels is quite popular, and can
    provide a good viewing experience....

    David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2007
  14. Frank ess wrote:
    I was going to mention the "five times" figure, but didn't as it related
    to the SD TV ("625" or "525" lines), whereas many of the current displays
    interpolate the active transmitted lines (576 or 480?) to 768 pixels for
    display, and they don't have the visible line structure or interlace that
    was present in the displays where the "five times height" figure was
    derived. So whether "five times height" is still valid, I don't know.

    I just checked, and we sit about 2.7m away from a 32cm high display image,
    so about 8.5 times picture height, and I do sometimes wish the display
    were a little bigger.

    My TV is less lonely then it was, as it can now be connected to the
    portable and used as a computer display for slideshows.

    David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2007
  15. The Lone Gunman

    Skip Guest

    12ms? Most LCDs, or at least the good ones, are at 8ms, the XBR is at 6ms,
    plasmas run between 6 and 4 ms.
    Skip, Feb 26, 2007
  16. The Lone Gunman

    Keith Baird Guest

    Try using film and a film scanner. Problem solved.

    Keith Baird, Feb 26, 2007
  17. The Lone Gunman

    Keith Baird Guest

    In other words, Canon really *does* manufacture exactly the camera you
    want. You just don't want to buy it. Exactly the irrationality I don't

    If you're too cheap or poor to buy a 5D and you bought a
    20D/30D/Rebel/whatever instead, surely you did so with eyes wide open
    and you've no one to blame but yourself for the diminished usefulness of
    your 17-35mm zoom. Why not just stick to film and maybe but a film
    scanner? Seems the ideal solution for you.

    Keith Baird, Feb 26, 2007
  18. No need to apologize since I didn't take your post in a hostile tone. I
    think the real issue is technology is advancing too quickly to keep up with
    all of what's out there. It really doesn't matter anyway when one of our
    TVs craps out in about two or three years we will be tossing it in the
    trash. Seriously, you will be tossing it since it's uneconomical to repair.
    One of my friends found this out when his two-year-old LG gave up the ghost.
    It wasn't that he didn't want to pay the ridiculously high price for a power
    supply (used pull) since new power supplies were no longer made and the used
    one was just as difficult to get. The answer was to buy another TV. So,
    when my XBR craps out it will be tossed in the dumpster and a new one of
    better specs and lower price will be mounted in its place. Technology moves

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Feb 26, 2007
  19. See my other post on this. Realistically, don't expect to get more than
    three years of life from any of these new flats, LCD or plasma, as they were
    never built to last. The days of getting 20 years from a TV are gone.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Feb 26, 2007
  20. We get all of that here as well. Oh, I think it's on the Discovery Channel
    or NG in HD that show "Ultimate Factories" on a regular basis. Keep an eye
    out for the Ferrari factory tour, as this is one you don't want to miss.
    And it looks really nice in HD.
    I never said that plasma TVs are terrible, they just don't do anything for
    me. I think they can probably do a lot with the technology and they will.
    The main advantage plasma had over LCD was the angle of viewing. Early LCD
    TVs you had to be straight on or the picture was unusable. Going by memory
    the XBR's viewing angle is around 170*, same as plasma. And I can say the
    picture still looks great at a very wide angle.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Feb 26, 2007
    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.