Camera categories
Charles
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.
Pat
In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".
Charles
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:0a63d00c-017f-4b9d...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.
My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down) and I
am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all that
will matter in the future?
dj_nme
About the only way that I can see to categorise digicam types is to
describe either there size (EG: ultra-compact, compact & large),
viewfinder mechanism (EG: tunnel, LCD, EVF, SLR & RF), price-range (EG:
disposable, cheap, expensive), can it use interchangeable lenses, the
use that they're put to (EG: P&S, enthusiast or professional) or a
combination of all the above.
For example, I'd describe something like the Ricoh GX200 as a
compact/EVF enthusiasts camera that's moderately expensive.
Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an EVIL
camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.
But, I believe that it's really up to the person to decide how to
describe their gear.
If some-one's used to using a Hasselblad studio camera, then they could
quite easily describe a Canon 5D as a "compact".
The only thing which rankles me is if some twit describes his EVF
digicam as an DSLR camera, when it totally lacks any form of optical TTL
viewfinder (usually using a mirror and pentaprism, but it could use a
beamspiltter/pellicle mirror and/or pentamirror/porromirror instead).
Chris Malcolm
What have you got against functional description?
--
Chris Malcolm
Paul Furman
Sensor/film size is a significant distinction with laws of physics that
follow regarding exposure time and depth of field. THe following are
very different sorts of cameras to operate with very different prices,
depth of field and print size:
-Large format
-Medium format
-35mm
-P&S
Pixel count is really important for print size, especially in good
light. With that sorting factor, we can order the major camera types
like this:
-Large format
-Medium format
-35mm
-P&S
Cost is of course a major factor reflecting real value:
-Large format
-Medium format
-35mm
-P&S
Actual hand held size of the camera has a huge impact on how people use
a camera. With that priority, they sort this way:
-Large format
-Medium format
-35mm
-P&S
The functionality/flexibility of a camera system as a prime force might
sort the list like this though:
-35mm
-P&S
-Medium format
-Large format
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
dj_nme
What functional difference?
They all take pictures: that is their function.
mianileng
> Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an
> EVIL
> camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.
I like that. And *not* in a derogatory sense.
-hh
>
> Sensor/film size is a significant distinction with laws of physics that
> follow regarding exposure time and depth of field. THe following are
> very different sorts of cameras to operate with very different prices,
> depth of field and print size:
> -Large format
> -Medium format
> -35mm
> -P&S
and:
> Pixel count...
> Cost...
> Actual hand held size..
> The functionality/flexibility...
From a distillation of functional terms to those of greatest interest
to most:
Cost: (Low, Medium, High)
Size: (Low, Medium, High)
Flexibility: (Low, Medium, High)
Image Quality: (Low, Medium, High)
...and that's going to be complex enough for most people to sort
through, particularly since its not a full 12 permutations, since some
combinations don't functionally exist.
-hh
Chris Malcolm
So there's no functional difference between a 15mm lens and a 150mm
lens? I see your problem. But it's not a problem with functional
descriptions.
--
Chris Malcolm
whisky-dave
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:704u36F...@mid.individual.net...
But there's no differnce between a 15mm lens and a 150mm lens.
Niether can take photos as they're just lenes :)
Yawn
I see that your problem is that you don't realize you're always wrong.
There really is no difference between a 15mm and a 150mm lens. Both can
image the same content out of any scene, DOF (CoC) included. It all depends
on how much you want to enlarge or reduce the details in the image from
each and how far away you are from the subjects in that image. This is
often difficult for the layman/amateur to believe and comprehend but
nonetheless is perfectly true.
The only thing that makes them different is the size of image recording
plane used with each and the subject distances.
John McWilliams
> There really is no difference between a 15mm and a 150mm lens.
<< Snipped bits out >>
> The only thing that makes them different is the size of image recording
> plane used with each and the subject distances.
Gosh, that'd make 'em different in most languages.......
Paul Furman
Sorry for my annoying repeat format, the point was size determines
almost everything. The differences are digital P&S are surprisingly
capable and flexible so that the really big gear loses in that ranking
and 35mm gains an advantage for the sheer number of lenses & functions
available to expand possibilities in that format.
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> >
>
> > Cost: (Low, Medium, High)
> > Size: (Low, Medium, High)
> > Flexibility: (Low, Medium, High)
> > Image Quality: (Low, Medium, High)
>
> > ...and that's going to be complex enough for most people to sort
> > through, particularly since its not a full 12 permutations, since some
> > combinations don't functionally exist.
>
I was guilty of it too: my format was intended to appear
minimalistic.
> ... the point was size determines almost everything.
Agreed - that's what I was alluding to when I said that some
combinations don't functionally exist. For example, image quality is
hard without growing size, as is also flexibility (lens mounts,
etc).
> The differences are digital P&S are surprisingly
> capable and flexible so that the really big gear loses in that ranking
> and 35mm gains an advantage for the sheer number of lenses & functions
> available to expand possibilities in that format.
Agreed. Most of the whole P&S-vs-dSLR debate simply comes down to
people having a poor time comprehending the concept of a 'trade-off'
of various capabilities.
-hh