The big questions about DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: DanP on 24 Apr 2010 06:29 On 24 Apr, 11:07, Robert Spanjaard <spamt...(a)arumes.com> wrote: > As EVFs get better, they will probably surpass these larger OVFs as well. > > -- > Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com I'd love to see it but I know the dynamic range of the EVF is a problem that cannot be solved completely. Bad OVF's are bad because they are either too small or not transparent enough. That is something that can be easily fixed. DanP
From: Robert Spanjaard on 24 Apr 2010 06:48 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:29:19 -0700, DanP wrote: > Bad OVF's are bad because they are either too small or not transparent > enough. That is something that can be easily fixed. How? -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Robert Spanjaard on 24 Apr 2010 07:17 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 06:53:47 -0400, John A. wrote: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:48:12 +0200, Robert Spanjaard > <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:29:19 -0700, DanP wrote: >> >>> Bad OVF's are bad because they are either too small or not transparent >>> enough. That is something that can be easily fixed. >> >>How? > > By making them bigger or more transparent? Now there's a bright idea. My compliments to you, John. A TTL OVF is a compromise of brightness and size, limited by the amount of light collected by the lens. That's why the OVF of a Four Thirds-camera needs much smaller than a 35mm-format OVF to stay reasonably bright. If you want more brightness, you'll have to make it even smaller. If you want it to be bigger, it'll become darker. If you want your Four Thirds OVF to be as big and bright as a 35mm OVF, the optical system will have to be as big and bright too. That means that, to match the size and brightness of a 35mm camera OVF with a 50mm f/1.4 lens, the Four Thirds camera with a 25mm lens would need an aperture of f/0.7. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Neil Ellwood on 24 Apr 2010 07:46 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:49:16 -0500, Joel Connor wrote: > On 22 Apr 2010 16:37:39 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>Ray Shafranski <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:1fd97cd6-3a04-4e15- ad54-670b393393aa(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>>> Canon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored, interchangeable >>>> lens camera? >>>> 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 camera? >>>> Sigma. Does anyone care? >>>> Samsung. Will they make a dent in 4/3rds sales? >>> >>>The lifting mirror and the pentaprism/pentamirror are relics of film >>>days and should be replaced on all DSLR designs. >> >>Gee, you're so smart. I wonder why millions of people don't listen to >>you and simply abandon SLRs. > > That must be sarcasm because millions do. The smart ones do today, > anyway. Check to see how many high-quality P&S cameras are bought > compared to how many cameras are bought with last century's archaic SLR > design. The numbers bought and used make the non-SLR designs the clear > winners by a huge margin. > > Some of them even rival the print quality of up to 13x18" in size when > pitted against a medium-format sensored Hasselblad. Something that DSLRs > can't even do. > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml Going by that reasoning why are so many people using cameras that have the old fashioned sixteenth century technology? i.e. lenses. -- neil Reverse 'r' + 'a' and remove 'l'. Linux counter 335851
From: Ray Fischer on 24 Apr 2010 13:12
DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 24 Apr, 07:40, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> I do. �With 30 minute exposures you cannot see to focus through the >> viewfinder. �Live view at least increases the brightness and size of >> the image so that you can find something on which to focus. >> >> And yes, I do know theis from first-hand experience. �7 minutes at >> ISO800 is about the same exposure. �That's nighttime with nothing but >> starlight. > >So, will you give up the optical viewfinder and live with the Live >View only? That appears to be a silly question. Care to explain? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |