Prosumer vs. DLSR thoughts

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

  1. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    You don't see when the highlights are clipping; when the image is
    under-exposed, etc, in an optical viewfinder. Your brain is making
    everything look OK, when in fact it may not be OK.

    You can see the actual DOF in the Prosumer, in real time.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 12, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike

    Alfred Molon Guest

    If the "native" ISO of a CCD is 100, at ISO 3200 you are only using 1/32
    of the well capacity, and the available dynamic range (ratio of max
    signal and noise level) is reduced by 5 stops. There might or might not
    be enough available dynamic range left to record a spefic scene.
     
    Alfred Molon, Nov 12, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. YAG-ART wrote:
    []
    No help for over-the-head, or camera-in-the-lap shooting.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 12, 2004
    #43
  4. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    They are - at certain things. There is no such thing as an object being
    patently "better" than another; that is a platonic illusion. Things are
    only better "at" or "for" certain uses. Plato's chair is probably a
    horrible chair for a thing or two.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 12, 2004
    #44
  5. Mike

    Alfred Molon Guest

    At the same aperture a camera with a smaller sensor (as for instance a
    prosumer) will have a higher depth of field than a camera with a larger
    sensor.
    It is easier to compose overhead with a swiveling LCD.
    Utter nonsense. You need to use decent lenses with DLSRs otherwise
    you'll get crappy results.
    We are currently scanning the slides my brother took with his film SLR
    and a zoom lens. The results make one cry - we are not even at the level
    of a 3 MP digital compact camera.
     
    Alfred Molon, Nov 13, 2004
    #45
  6. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It's not about knowledge in this case, because I can think of many ways
    to address the problem.

    None of the solutions are as complete as being able to see what the
    camera sees without having your eyelashes batting the viewfinder. They
    all have limitations in flexibility, or higher degrees of uncertainty.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 13, 2004
    #46
  7. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    You can see it on the review image should you choose to.
    I can do that on my DSLR, it has a DOF Preview funciton.
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 13, 2004
    #47
  8. YAG-ART wrote:
    []
    It may not be true for you, it certainly is for me. I can hand hold down
    to one or two stops longer exposure with P&S than SLR. I am not sure of
    the reasons why - we had a discussion about this some time ago.
    It's difficult making generalisations, but, for example FZ20 - 36 - 432mm
    f/2.8 Leica lens, total camera cost around GBP 350 - Nikon 8400 24 - 85mm
    f/2.9 Nikon lens, total camera cost around GBP 550. These are amonst some
    of the better prosumer ZLRs.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
    #48
  9. Mike

    C J Campbell Guest

    I also have an A1, and I can tell you that it takes nowhere near the quality
    of picture that my D70 does.

    The A1 is too slow for photographing moving objects. Positioning a moving
    object such as an airplane in the viewing screen is very imprecise.

    The A1 also is too noisy for night photos or for taking pictures of dark
    objects, such as my Scottie. The quality is not there. In fact, my wife's
    Coolpix 5200 generally takes better pictures than the A1.

    The A1's auto focus does not work well from inside an airplane if the window
    is closed and the screen is not good enough to focus manually.

    The A1's raw mode is unwieldy, storing data in two files instead of just
    one. The Dimage Viewer software is better than Nikon's Picture Project,
    though.

    The A1 is extremely fragile, sensitive to heat, humidity, and even slight
    amounts of moisture.

    Despite these faults, I find the A1 to be very useful as a second camera.
    The macro mode works well, though not as well as a dedicated macro lens. It
    is very light weight, works in a wide variety of shooting situations, and
    the optional Minolta flash units work well with it.

    As far as built-in flash goes, I would just as soon manufacturers left it
    out. These flash units are worse than nothing -- you are invariably better
    off shooting with available light.
     
    C J Campbell, Nov 13, 2004
    #49
  10. Mike

    C J Campbell Guest

    The A1 has only a manual zoom, which is one of its best features.
     
    C J Campbell, Nov 13, 2004
    #50
  11. Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:
    []
    We have a saying: "You pays your money and takes your choice"!
    In the case of the DSLR, the payment is be weight as well as money.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
    #51
  12. Jim Townsend wrote:
    []
    Although if the sensors were designed a little differently, you /could/
    have LCD preview on a DSLR! The best of both worlds?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
    #52
  13. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    Sure they are, thats what they are used for.
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 13, 2004
    #53
  14. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    If this is what you think it sure explains a lot
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 13, 2004
    #54
  15. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Mine, too, but it is never near where my left hand is best otherwise
    used. My left hand is usually supporting a big lens, and I have to
    unsupport it to use the DOF preview button. It also gets very dark when
    you press the button.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 13, 2004
    #55
  16. YAG-ART wrote:
    []
    With your camera at arm's length you could not see through an angled
    eyepiece. If you had one of the non-eyepiece finders, you might start
    with laptop shooting, but the image would be very small.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
    #56
  17. It's a shame about the rest of the camera, though. I bought one, but sent
    it back.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
    #57
  18. Mike

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It sure does. It explains why I don't support irrational positions
    posed by artifacts of language. Language is a tool for communication;
    not a god that fabricates arbitrary realities.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 13, 2004
    #58
  19. I bet you could put 200 x 300 sensors on the ground glass screen and read
    them out onto the LCD. Nikon's high-end SLR metering system has almost that
    many sensors<g>. That and a swivel out LCD panel, and you're home free. You
    may not even need that many: all you need it for is rough framing.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 13, 2004
    #59
  20. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    You dont know what your talking about. Sure you need a decent lens,
    however I can't think of one thats not decent, as long as your talking
    about lenses made by the same company that makes the camera.
     
    YAG-ART, Nov 13, 2004
    #60
    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.