From: Ofnuts on
On 07/04/2010 19:59, Neil Harrington wrote:
> Ofnuts wrote:
>> On 07/04/2010 18:26, Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> Only when we see EVFs with resolutions in the megapixels. I don't
>>> think that will be any time soon.
>> The Lumix G1 is already in the megapixel range (even if they cheat a
>> little with the number).
> That's interesting.
>> The 1/1780 rule in the DoF computation has
>> some physiological basis. It tells us that a "true" 3Mpix EVF will be
>> very difficult to distinguish from an optical VF and that a 6Mpix
>> could even be better in most aspects.
> I'm not familiar with the 1/1780 rule. What's that about?

See <>. The idea is that a
good eyesight won't distinguish details smaller than 1/1780 of the
diagonal of a picture looked at from a distance sufficient to see it in
full in one glance.

From: Chris H on
In message <Bv2dnYoasrg-UiHWnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d(a)>, Neil
Harrington <never(a)> writes
>> I would be surprised if many people under 50 buy P&S these days. At
>> least not the low-mid range ones.
>I don't know. My nephew (early 40s) has a little Canon, shirt pocket size,
>and his phone is a Blackberry. Do Blackberrys have cameras too? (Apparently
>they have everything else, but my ignorance of cell phones is pretty

No idea. Probably it has. Almost impossible to find one without these
days. I still keep a Nokia 6210 as I sometimes need a phone without a
camera to visit some customers

>My newest cell phone has a camera, a whopping 0.3 megapixels.

Then it is old... it is difficult to find one with less than 5MP. Flash
and light for video.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/

From: Rich on
"Seymore" <me(a)> wrote in

> "RichA" <rander3127(a)> wrote in message
> news:556ad2a2-9637-43e8-beaf-de7e9855a6de(a)
> ..
>>I don't think the DSLR line in Hogan's graph should be narrowing that
>> much, people are still overwhelmingly buying Canon and Nikon and they
>> don't have mirror-less cameras, but it makes sense compacts are going
>> away and (yuck!) cellphone with cams are rapidly expanding sales.
> I never read the article, however it's pretty obvious that P&S are
> being replaced by camera phones.
> Let's face it, if you want a slow portable camera, why not just use
> your phone? In fact, I think the shutter delay on my cheap phone is
> quicker that my P&S.

I agree, but I hate cellphones, blackberries, iphones, etc. The people
glued to them are frigging zombies.
From: Jeff R. on

"Rich" <none(a)> wrote in message

> I agree, but I hate cellphones, blackberries, iphones, etc. The people
> glued to them are frigging zombies.

A certifiably stupid justification for hate.

An excellent indication - however - of *credibility*.
Good to know for the future.
And the past.

Jeff R.

From: Will T on
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:26:12 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>

>The mirror is just in the way for video, true. But I don't see video
>replacing stills, ever. Right now it has a good deal of novelty value and
>I've noticed the kiddies especially love video in their P&S cameras. For a
>while. Then their interest in it seems to disappear to be replaced by the
>next novelty.

You must be some kind of snapshooter. When I am documenting many unique
species in the wild, their unique behavior is what sometimes helps to
define them as a unique species. This cannot often be recorded in simple
still images. CD-quality stereo audio-recording is also an asset to the
professional nature photographer.

Get out much? No, of course not. You're just another pathetic armchair
photographer troll of usenet. You just proved it.