DSLRs and P&S both dying off?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
Next: looking for a camera that fit's my styles
From: Ofnuts on 7 Apr 2010 16:29 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_formula>. 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. -- Bertrand
From: Chris H on 7 Apr 2010 17:25 In message <Bv2dnYoasrg-UiHWnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> 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 >complete.) 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 7 Apr 2010 20:05 "Seymore" <me(a)seymorezworld.com> wrote in news:xu-dna-3882XTSHWnZ2dnUVZ7rqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net: > "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:556ad2a2-9637-43e8-beaf-de7e9855a6de(a)h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com. > .. >>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. >> >> http://www.bythom.com/ > > > > 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 7 Apr 2010 20:17 "Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3uWdnQgt04wkgCDWnZ2dnUVZ_usAAAAA(a)giganews.com... > 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 7 Apr 2010 22:45
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:26:12 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: > >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. |