Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Feb 4, 2008.

  1. dj_nme wrote:
    It was all documented on newsgroups at the time - poor JPEG conversion in
    the camera and a feeling that the LCD viewfinder was insufficiently

    David J Taylor, Feb 12, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    Perhaps it's a difference in taste or style, but I find the 188K pixel
    EVF in my DMC-FZ8 with diopter correction to be quite good. The
    automatic zoom makes it better for manual focusing than many (most?) of
    the optical viewfinders I've used, and other than that and composing
    (framing) the image, what is there?
    John Navas, Feb 12, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    It actually has zero effect on framing: frame, focus and shoot.
    The autofocus in my DMC-FZ8 is very fast, particularly in fast autofocus
    mode, contributing to near instant shutter response. To quote Digital
    Photography Review on the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between
    pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous".
    The spec is 0.005 second shutter release time lag (the time between
    pressing the button on the camera and the photo being taken).
    John Navas, Feb 12, 2008
  4. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    Suggest you get out of cyberspace and talk to actual realtors. Most
    real estate photo work is non-critical, and the Kaiden 360 is considered
    a hot item.
    John Navas, Feb 12, 2008
  5. John Navas wrote:
    I think it's also affected by switching between the Nikon D40 DSLR and the
    (only 115K) Panasonic FZ5/FZ20. Whilst it's usable, your first reaction
    is "how did I ever manage with the EVF!". I hardly ever use manual
    focussing - in fact there isn't MF on the FZ5, so I'm spared the worry.
    The best description I could honestly use is "usable".

    David J Taylor, Feb 12, 2008
  6. measekite

    John Bean Guest

    I was, but I didn't expect it to be like an optical finder
    and it wasn't.
    Depends on how much of the hype you succumbed to ;-)
    I liked it, but by coincidence I also replaced it with a DS.
    I've never regretted the change of course but I do still
    miss the controls and feature set of the A2.
    Shame, it is a camera that deserves much more than that.
    John Bean, Feb 12, 2008
  7. measekite

    Alan Browne Guest

    I've never heard of the notion that it is customary to shut down the
    root group when creating sub divisions. In any case, the "root" is
    rec.photo which also anchors the 'old' film groups.

    Unfortunately, what did happen was other interests such as zlr, P&S and
    rangefinder were appended to the rfd. As co-founder of rpd.slr-systems,
    I was not for that at all, but we went along to prevent vote sabotage.
    Unfortunately, that is a reality of forming new NG's under the big 8.

    rpd.slr-sys, is a somewhat thriving group. Yes, there is too much
    x-posting 'tween here (and/or rpd35mm) to it and this was a recognized
    issue at the time. It was hoped that people would ween themselves off
    of the older groups over time. Alas, this has not occurred.

    Further, with the popularity and quality of a variety of web based,
    moderated groups a lot of people have stopped or reduced their use of
    usenet groups. Issues like trolls and plain idjiuts bent on screwing up
    NG's have contributed. I personally prefer the simple text format of
    usenet over the webNG's and blogs, but my own formerly rich
    participation has cut. (I took a break from photo NG's back in the late
    fall and only recently have participated in the odd thread of interest.

    As to "is rpd.slr-systems" a viable group and should ".zlr" be in there?
    My answers are yes and hell no.

    The whole point of the slr-systems group is the system aspect of the
    modular cameras which zlr's, by their nature, are not.

    Alan Browne, Feb 12, 2008
  8. measekite

    measekite Guest

    John Navas wrote:

    On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:17:39 +1100, dj_nme <> wrote in <47b0d799$0$20184$>:

    My suspision is that even SVGA won't be high enough resolution to replace an SLR viewfinder and justify the high cost of the this hypothetical EVF camera.

    Current resolution works quite well. The manual focus auto-zoom in the EVF in my Panasonic DMC-FZ8 beats an optical viewfinder hands down.

    The FZ8 has a better EVF than the Canon S5 and while the Leica lens is better than the Canon the Canon produces better prints up to ISO 400.  Panasonic over processes and causes smearing to lower the noise where Canon does not do that.  Canon also has a swivel LCD and that is a big advantage, especially when doing macro photography.

    I do wish that Canon would have upgraded the EVF like Panasonic did.  My second choice is the FZ18.  I like the wider and longer lens and I think that the image quality is not less than the FZ8.
    measekite, Feb 12, 2008
  9. measekite

    measekite Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:

    dj_nme wrote:

    David J Taylor wrote:

    dj_nme wrote: []

    No they don't. A ZLR camera is just an SLR cameras with a zoom lens integral with the body, they do not have an EVF. ZLR cameras have a TTL optical viewfinder, just like any other SLR camera.

    I have two ZLR cameras here which both have EVFs - the Panasonic FZ5 and FZ20, and arguably the Nikon 8400 as well.

    They have EVF, not reflex viewfinders. Without a reflex viewfinder, it aint a ZLR camera.

    Just because you want an EVF to be a reflex viewfinder does not make it so.

    The EVFs in my cameras function exactly as expected, providing a right-way up image. I would not "want" them to do anything else.

    That is irrelevent. Your Pinocchio (the EVF) will never be a real boy (reflex viewfinder), no matter how hard you wish is to be.

    Please stop telling me what I do, or do not wish. I use a particular tool - camera, computer, workshop tool - because it does the job I want. The electronic viewfinder in the cameras I mentioned does exactly the job I want, and can be better than the optical viewfinder in some circumstances.

    Personally I like it better in all circumstances.  Also you can see the shooting information in the EVF but not in an optical viewfinder.

    That is what matters - not what it's called today. The names discussion finished several years ago when the new groups were founded. David
    measekite, Feb 12, 2008
  10. measekite

    measekite Guest

    I do not think that manual focus is such a big feature on an EVF camera
    (Canon S5, Pan FZ8/18. These features are better implemented on a
    DSLR. The purpose of an EVF camera is as a (uneven) replacement of a
    DSLR when you want to travel light but still have a little more than a
    standard point and shoot while also having a wider zoom range. I am not
    sure that an EVF like the Canon S5 would produce a better 8x10 than an
    optical viewfinder Canon A650IS. I think that the results when shot at
    the same focal length, shutter speed, f stop and ISO (keeping all other
    settings like for like) would be identical.
    measekite, Feb 12, 2008
  11. measekite

    dj_nme Guest

    Well, at the time of Dimage A2 release date it was Minolta's only answer
    to the DSLR cameras being made by Canon, Nikon and Pentax and (even) the
    (much lauded 640x480) EVF on the Dimage A2 didn't hold up well against
    an SLR viewfinder.
    I didin't feel it was worth struggling against, when I could give my Dad
    a nice digicam for his birthday and get a real DSLR for practically the
    same money for myself.
    dj_nme, Feb 13, 2008
  12. measekite

    dj_nme Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:

    The fact that ZLR cameras (the cameras actually refered to as "zlr
    cameras" by their manufaturer) are really a subset of SLR cameras should
    have been pointed out at the time.
    It should have been rp.d.evf and r.p.d.slr-sys and r.p.d.slr-sys.zlr to
    make this distinction obvious.
    dj_nme, Feb 13, 2008
  13. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    With all due respect, that would have been silly and useless.
    John Navas, Feb 13, 2008
  14. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    Standard practice where creating a hierarchy is to have the root group
    just a placeholder for the subgroups, but when a root group is already
    established, it's not going to get shut down.
    John Navas, Feb 13, 2008
  15. And, to repeat for those who may have missed it, I'll guarantee
    metaphorically that regardless of normal practices cited above,
    regardless of how imperfectly some groups are named or how bereft a
    couple are, there won't be any changes for a very long time.

    Usenet is dead; film at eleven.

    Long live usenet!
    John McWilliams, Feb 13, 2008
  16. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    Sad but all too true.
    John Navas, Feb 13, 2008
  17. The couple I've talked to so far tell me it has a bad reputation for
    physical fragility and poor image quality.

    We can work out the basic physical constraints on quality by simple
    arithmetic. It produces a circular image in your camera sensor which
    the software straightens out. Lets assume generously the inner circle
    has a diameter of 1/5th of your camera sensor width. Let's generously
    assume your camera has 5,000 pixels along its landscape width.

    So the top of the Kaidan's 360 view will be represented by approx
    3,000 pixels. So a 60 degree field of view will be represented by
    approx 500 pixels. Then you have to degrade that by whatever quality
    of optics you can get for the price of a Kaidan 360 and the inevitable
    losses of the straightening out software.

    I think that gives us the reason why all of the Kaidan demos are
    rather small low resolution images :)

    I'm sure that's good enough for low end RE work, and what the Kaidan
    buys you is time, because it delivers a panorama very fast indeed,
    which is very important when you have to shoot as fast as possible
    because they're not paying you much. But there's plenty of RE work
    which demands significantly better image quality than that, and those
    RE photographers who actually need a DSLR rather than a P&S for image
    quality reasons need better quality images than you can get from a
    Kaidan 360.

    So my guess is that the Kaidan 30 will be a hot item with those RE
    photographers whose competitive edge is that they're cheaper than the
    competition, but wll be unpopular with thise whose competitive edge is
    that their images are better and well worth the extra cost.

    Does that fit with the reports of the RE photogs you know?
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 14, 2008
  18. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    John Navas, Feb 14, 2008
  19. measekite

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, John:

    I don't recall, actually. Yet, I am aware that she's been an occasional
    "contributor" to where I've spent
    the past five years lurking (and sometimes, posting).

    There, "Rita Berkowitz" has often clashed with the newgroup's "top two"
    ("Rod Speed" and "Folkert Rienstra"). Typically, instead of "Nikon over
    Canon," her trolls involve "SCSI over IDE" and "Intel over AMD."
    A logical assumption, it would seem.
    Thanks...I do try to refrain from combativeness, whenever possible. :-J

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Feb 16, 2008
    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.