The big questions about DSLRs

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 22, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Canon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored, interchangeable lens
    Nikon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored camera and/or an ,
    high megapixel FF camera that doesn't cost $8000?
    Olympus. Will they dump DSLRs?
    Pentax. Will they release a FF camera, will they survive?
    Sony. Will they release a non-boring entry level camera?
    Fuji. Will they release a new pro DSLR or any interchangeable lens
    Sigma. Does anyone care?
    Samsung. Will they make a dent in 4/3rds sales?
    RichA, Apr 22, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. The lifting mirror and the pentaprism/pentamirror are relics of film days
    and should be replaced on all DSLR designs.
    Ray Shafranski, Apr 22, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Yes, because they risk getting left behind if they don't.

    Yes, because they risk getting left behind if they don't.

    Yes, but it may not have 24 MP.

    No, but they won't spend $ squillions on their development.

    Kodak and Pentax are talking right now. Watch this space.

    Only if the Alpha range stops losing vast amounts of money.

    Not with that terrible sensor! The NX10 is a noisebox.
    Bruce, Apr 22, 2010
  4. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Gee, you're so smart. I wonder why millions of people don't listen to
    you and simply abandon SLRs.
    Ray Fischer, Apr 22, 2010
  5. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Smirk. Another armchair CEO.
    Ray Fischer, Apr 22, 2010
  6. RichA

    DanP Guest

    Is that troll bait?

    DanP, Apr 22, 2010
  7. RichA

    Pete Guest

    Yes, and until sensors plus software can exceed the night-adaptive
    vision of the human eye, framing of very low light shots will remain a
    difficulty without an optical finder.
    Pete, Apr 22, 2010
  8. RichA

    ColinD Guest

    Wrong. That design of camera was invented in the film days, but it is
    not a relic by any means.
    If you do not have an optical viewfinder, then you have to have an
    electronic viewfinder. Where does such a finder get its image from?
    Yes, that's right, from the sensor. Sensors used for viewing and then
    taking the shot are compromised by the changeover from view to capture
    modes taking many milliseconds to do so, adding to shutter lag times.

    The sensors must be constantly open to light, including direct sunlight
    if the camera is swinging around. This was a problem with rangefinder
    cameras with cloth focal-plane shutters like the Leica rangefinder
    models. An f/1.4 lens took only seconds to burn a hole in the shutter
    fabric if you had the sun in shot. I can imagine the results on your 15
    or 20 megapixel sensor with focused sunlight playing over it.

    Point&shoot cameras have this problem, and is why they all come with
    built-in shutters over the lens. As long as the camera is switched on,
    there is light on the sensor, probably fading the bayer matrix dyes as well.

    Mirrors in dslr's are very sophisticated devices. They allow for an
    accurate fraction of light to pass through for focusing and metering,
    and they aren't spring-driven any more. The better ones at least are
    motor driven up and down, fast with soft landing, and counterbalanced to
    minimise vibration. To say they are 'relics' is pure biased ignorance.

    Colin D.
    ColinD, Apr 23, 2010
  9. RichA

    Remmy Martin Guest

    Except for the FACT than an EVF image can be electronically ramped up in
    gain far higher than anything you'll ever see in any optical viewfinder.
    All of my EVF equipped cameras are able to frame and focus in light
    conditions so low that you can't even see any image at all in an optical
    viewfinder, making any DSLR totally worthless in those lighting conditions.

    I do wish that you blind-worshipping DSLR idiots would catch up with
    Remmy Martin, Apr 23, 2010
  10. That point has been reached. In the very dimmest conditions I have to
    use the LCD of my DSLR because I can see more than I can through the
    optical viewfinder or with the naked eye. This was demonstrated very
    clearly recently when I tried to take available light shots in a dark
    tunnel. At ISO 200 and f8 the shutter speed required was more than 30
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 23, 2010
  11. RichA

    Kyle Abhams Guest

    16 to 28 milliseconds is hardly a shutter-lag making eternity. That's far
    faster than any human reaction time. This amount of time from sensor to
    EVF has already been calculated by those using CHDK equipped cameras and
    using its motion-detection feature to ascertain the exact total amount of
    time used.
    Except for the FACT that you're a moron. This has already been analyzed in
    the astronomy forums many years ago. It is surprising how long you can
    leave the image of the sun on your sensor in the same spot without doing
    damage. The amount of time being well over 20-40 seconds. Depending on the
    sensor design. And mind you, the sun must be focused and held still in just
    one tiny pixel-sized spot for this to occur.
    You're a moron.
    You're a moron.
    Kyle Abhams, Apr 23, 2010
  12. RichA

    Rich Guest

    I don't know where that will go. Kodak makes medium format CCDs that
    make FF CMOS look like what they are, well noise-controlled but
    ultimately crude consumer devices. However, going back to Kodak CCDs
    for small sensors will be a problem since noise is the be-all, end-all
    of sensor performance these days.
    Rich, Apr 23, 2010
  13. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Oooo! Now we get the fantasies!
    Ray Fischer, Apr 23, 2010
  14. Bzzzzzzt.
    John McWilliams, Apr 23, 2010
  15. Self limiting: 0! Unless they make something besides a mirror that reflexes.
    John McWilliams, Apr 23, 2010
  16. RichA

    ColinD Guest

    Why is it that, almost without exception, P&S aficionados resort to
    name-calling when disagreeing with a poster? Is it a case of small
    sensor, small mind?
    ColinD, Apr 23, 2010
  17. How about electronic reflex? Take the signal from the sensor, process
    it, and "reflex" it up to the EVF display by means of wires?
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 23, 2010
  18. RichA

    Pete Guest

    That is very useful, of course. My situation is entirely different:
    there is enough light to see the view in my optical finder. Use of the
    LCD reduces my night vision because it is brighter than the scene, the
    colours are different, and the image is noisy. My preference is for
    optical finders just as I prefer writing with a pen than a pencil, if
    pencils could be made to have the same characteristics as a pen I would
    no longer have a preference.
    Pete, Apr 23, 2010
  19. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    Something wrong with your numbers there. If it was that dark then the 1s
    time averaged viewfinder image would still be 11 stops underexposed
    which would be indistinguishable from black cat in a coal cellar. Dazzle
    from the LCD can be a nuisance in low light conditions too.

    Which SLR can meter for a 30 min exposure at 200 ASA? I'd be surprised
    if on that timescale the image wasn't dominated by stray IR photons in
    the sensor and warm spots from the control electronics.

    Astronomical cameras can now focus better than humans by repeatedly
    sampling highlights in the image, but generic DSLR autofocus tends to
    hunt in low light conditions and manual focus is more reliable. YMMV

    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Apr 23, 2010
  20. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Kodak makes full frame (35mm-size) CMOS and CCDs.
    Bruce, Apr 23, 2010
    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.