Prosumer vs. DLSR thoughts

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. Mike

    Larry Guest

    The "depth of field" thing was just to try for an "ARTSY"
    shot... Maybe good for a Christnas card..

    Athritis is one of those things you just learn to live with
    if you can. It being a bother until a few years after 50..
    I guess I can live with it.

    As for gloves, NO WAY on the 828... some tof the buttons
    are so damn small they are near impossible even with NAKED
    fingers.

    I have a pair of "finger gloves" I usually use but DAMNED
    if I could find 'em yesterday.

    As for the focus, it worked well.. I'll now be using it
    more often that way.. Manual is just more satisfying for
    me. (old line, blockhead who likes the old way better
    SOMRTIMES)
     
    Larry, Nov 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike

    MarkH Guest

    There is something wrong when you are too weak to hold a camera larger than
    a compact P&S!

    I don't work out at all and have no problem using my Canon 10D + Battery
    Grip + 2 Batteries + 28-135 IS Lens + Canon 550EX Flash. I could feel the
    weight all right, but I wasn't straining myself you hold it up when using
    this for 2-3 hours on Friday.
     
    MarkH, Nov 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    Sounds not dissimilar in use to a rangefinder, in that you must use a spot
    in the middle to focus - the rest of the frame gives no useful information.
    Rangefinders are great at what they do, but the ability to use the whole
    screen to focus manually is one of the major advantages that reflex cameras
    have over rangefinders.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 14, 2004
  4. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    Sounds very fiddly - on the 10D, with a FTM USM lens such as a 50mm f/1.4 or
    the 28-135 IS USM, the procedure consists of, er, turning the focus ring
    until what you're looking at is in focus.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 14, 2004
  5. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    Already available, but not cheap - you need to use a medium format SLR with
    a digital back.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 14, 2004
  6. Mike

    Charlie Self Guest

    OK. I wasn't specific enough. DSLR in or around 35mm size. I'm not even vaguely
    interested in medium format SLR backs, for a variety of reasons, all of which
    start with $.

    Charlie Self
    "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
    promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
     
    Charlie Self, Nov 14, 2004
  7. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    DSLR sensors need to be read out in the dark, as the rows of pixels are read
    by shifting each pixel into its neighbour, and picking up the data as it
    "drops off the end". AIUI, consumer sensors avoid this requirement by having
    each pixel's storage duplicated in a non-light sensitive part of the chip.
    After exposure, the data is dumped en-masse into this "backup", and then
    read out whilst the next frame is being exposed.

    Adding this feature to a DSLR sensor would dramatically reduce the szie of
    the storage well for each pixel. This would adversely affect noise and
    dymanic range, which are big selling points for DSLRs.

    So a manufacturer is faced with a choice. They can add a low-resolution,
    low-framerate LCD viewfinder facility to their SLR, but at the cost of image
    quality - noise would increase and dynamic range would decrease. In the eyes
    of the likes of Canon and Nikon, they lose a competitive advantage in a part
    of the product specification that most of their target market regard as very
    important, and instead gain a feature that hardly any of their target market
    even want. That's commercial suicide.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 14, 2004
  8. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    It's alright - you aren't paying some sort of "light tax" on it, you know.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 14, 2004
  9. Mike

    dj_nme Guest

    Bollocks.
    To get the full frame as would have been recorded on a 35mm negative,
    you would effectively be paying a "light tax" in the difference in cost
    between a APS sensor and a full-frame sensor DSLR.
    To get a 135 50mm equivalent on an APS sensor DSLR, I (or any-one) would
    have to buy yet another lens (in this case a 35mm fl lens) due to the
    crop-factor.
    Otherwise the rest of the image that _should_ be recorded is lost off
    the edge of the sensor and _wasted_.

    The "tax" is the cost (difference) of buying a full-frame DSLR or
    purchasing a whole bunch of new lenses get the (effective) focal length
    I require, despite already owning the lenses in focal lengths I use with
    my compatible mount film SLR.
     
    dj_nme, Nov 15, 2004
  10. MarkH wrote:
    []
    What I was getting at is that there is a choice between carrying round
    bulky and heavy DSLR gear and a lighter P&S which does not require a
    bagful of accessories. I found that I was missing out on evening shots as
    I was not taking the SLR camera after a whole day lugging it round. With
    the P&S I get more photographs because I take it to more places. Total
    weight about 1lb.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 15, 2004
  11. No, it actually removes the need for the majority of turning to the rough
    focus point, you simply do the fine-focus bit. Were you to turn the focus
    ring in atuo-focus mode you would not accidentally upset the focus
    setting. In practice it works very well, but as with any user interface
    it may suit some users better than others.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 15, 2004
  12. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    No, it's quite right, all of the light that comes through the lens is
    completely free. That the image circle overlaps the edges of the sensor by
    more than a micron is therefore of pretty much no concern, and you can
    "waste" as much light as you like - there's an infinite supply and it's
    free.
    So let me get this right: APS sized sensor cameras "waste light", and this
    is important and something I should care about because a 1DS Mk II is
    expensive?

    No, sorry, I really can't drum up the massive amounts of anger from the pit
    of my stomach that you seem to feel I should experience over this.
    You could just buy the lens you wanted in the first place. If you wanted the
    field of view of a 35mm lens, then a 50mm lens is not a good purchase.

    Of course, it may be the case that you have some lenses from a previous 35mm
    camera that you are able to use on a digital SLR, even though they give you
    a different field of view. That the lens mount of a newer format digital
    camera system is backwards compatible with the lens mount from an earlier
    35mm system, even though they're different sized formats, is something that
    the manufacturers should be applauded for.
    No it shouldn't be recorded - it's been left to fall onto the black baffles
    inside the camera quite deliberately. If any of it was being recorded, I
    should have to take my camera in for repair, as it would be clear that the
    sensor was off-centre.
    And it's OK, because you're still not charged by the photon.
    But I didn't buy such a camera. This being the case, it would appear that
    you're talking about a tax which is entirely voluntary.
    Questions about the implications for focal length of multi-element lenses,
    and retrofocal lenses aside, the focal length of a 50mm lens is really 50mm
    whatever you mount it on. An APS sensor digital camera is not a 35mm camera,
    it's a smaller format, and so the focal lengths which constitute wide-angle,
    standard and telephoto are different to 35mm.
    Perhaps you would be more happy with a DSLR that had a completely
    incompatible lens mount, so you didn't have to worry about this "wasted"
    light, which seems to cause you so much distress. I believe Olympus make
    such a system, although many of their lenses probably have an image circle
    which is much larger than actually needed. Perhaps it is somehow less of a
    "waste", even if said lenses could cover a 36*24mm frame, because you can't
    mount them on any existing 35mm system? Personally I find it something not
    worth losing any sleep over.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 15, 2004
  13. DSLRs have vastly superior image quality - virtually no noise at ISO 400
    and below.

    -Dave
     
    Dave Herzstein, Nov 15, 2004
  14. Mike

    ArtKramr Guest

    Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DLSR thoughts
    Why is that?





    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Nov 15, 2004
  15. Mike

    bob Guest

    Actually not. It comes at the price of the lens. That's why Nikon has their
    DX line -- the image circle doesn't cover full frame, so the lenses are
    smaller and cheaper.

    Bob
     
    bob, Nov 15, 2004
  16. Mike

    Owamanga Guest

    ...and has an advantage over non-DX lenses that they are not spraying
    so much stray light inside the CMOS/CCD cavity to reflect back on the
    inner lens surface.
     
    Owamanga, Nov 15, 2004
  17. Mike

    Aerticus Guest

    can't be assed m8

    there are about 3 trillion posts up there of which about 2 trillion and a
    right good bit are all repeats

    You win ...


    Define "preview" in the context you use it.

    Aerticus
     
    Aerticus, Nov 15, 2004
  18. If you don't like DSLR's get a ZLR.. The *only* difference between
    Its primarily because of the larger pixel-sensor size. See
    http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos20d.html
    About halfway down the article is a table that compares various DSLR
    sensors and the Sony F828. Note the pixel area for the 8MP Sony F828
    (7.3 sq. microns) and that of the 8MP Canon 20D 42 sq. microns), nearly
    a factor of 6!

    -Dave
     
    Dave Herzstein, Nov 15, 2004
  19. Mike

    MarkH Guest

    No, my ideal setup beats that.

    I listed a P&S camera (Canon A95) + D-SLR + Accessories + Lenses + Flash.

    The P&S camera has the advantages you mention, but the D-SLR can be taken
    to sports events where the P&S would not do the job very well, therefore my
    ideal setup gets more photographs.

    P&S + D-SLR gives much more versatility than any P&S or any D-SLR can on
    their own. Compared to a good flash or lens, adding a P&S to the setup
    costs very little.
     
    MarkH, Nov 15, 2004
  20. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    The pixels are bigger, and more engineering goes into them to make them
    quieter.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 15, 2004
    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.