rec.photo.digital
Fred
recently?
Don Stauffer
> Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
> recently?
>
>
for awhile. Don't like the spam any better now, but it is certainly
better than earlier.
In fact, the P&S/SLR war now is more bothersome than the spam :-)
Wallace McCarthy
>Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
>recently?
>
Ever since P&S cameras started to surpass DSLRs. They feel bad on why they had
to waste so much money on so many overpriced lenses and overpriced bodies. Even
worse, locking themselves into just one manufacturer due to expense alone.
They're still desperately trying to justify that investment and all those (what
they once thought were) educated choices so long ago. It's wholly
understandable.
Don't worry. Just like the film vs. digital debates finally died down when 35mm
film wasn't as good as digital anymore, this will too will die down when the
majority finds out that DSLRs and all the lenses in the world just aren't as
good a high-quality full-featured P&S camera.
It's called evolution. Some people have to be dragged, kicking and screaming,
into the technology and benefits of this century. Or be left behind.
Then too, think how many of them have lived out their virtual-photography lives
in this newsgroup for the last 20 years. All that parroted "net-knowledge" that
they once thought they had amassed by reading downloaded manuals and reviews
online no longer has any value. That's what happens when reality hits their
psychotic fan. They've made their own selves obsolete from the only lives
they've ever known. It must be scary for them to find out that nobody needs them
anymore in their virtual life, which they wouldn't have had in the first place
if anyone really needed them in real life to begin with. Self-evident.
Their cries of anguish speak tomes about their tiny little virtual-worlds &
lives. Tomes that they wish would have never been revealed. Too late. They did
it all on their little own.
John McWilliams
Completely ignoring the pest and his hundred sox is the only salvation
to us.
And not even mentioning him, as I am not doing!
--
john mcwilliams
Pete D
"Wallace McCarthy" <wmcc...@noaddressforyou.com> wrote in message
news:d0ajh4hkimdi305j2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:17:06 -0000, "Fred" <fred...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
>>recently?
>>
>
> Ever since P&S cameras
<snip>
> it all on their little own.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, show us the photos big fella. We are all standing by to
be truly amazed dude.
Harlan Adamson
Ooops, too late. You should have heeded your own advice. But then DSLR-trolls
have never been too intelligent. That's the very reason they choose DSLRs,
realistically or virtually, to go alone with their virtual-photography careers
and experience.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
daniel parkins
>
>BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, show us the photos big fella. We are all standing by to
>be truly amazed dude.
>
Standing? You type while you stand and live out your virtual-photography virtual
life? Wow, you're even more stupid than I once thought.
John McWilliams
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:29:18 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, show us the photos big fella. We are all standing by to
>> be truly amazed dude.
>>
>
> Standing? You type while you stand and live out your virtual-photography virtual
> life?
Er, that's metaphor....
Wow, you're even more stupid than I once thought.
In English, even in the US of A, that'd be "stupider". But Pete D ain't
stupid.
You are ignorant of good grammar as well as manners and judgement.
I could go on, but I am not replying to teh scoks, er, much.
--
john mcwilliams
arlington cromwell
>You are ignorant of good grammar as well as manners and judgement.
>
>I could go on, but I am not replying to teh scoks, er, much.
I don't think anyone could have disproved you better than you disprove yourself.
Alan Browne
> We are all standing by to be truly amazed dude.
Why feed it?
DarnelBuccanon
Feed what?
While waiting for an answer, the rest of us that like to stay on topic put our
time to good use and learn a thing or two by reading this ... maybe you can too
if you actually read AND comprehend it.
Rich
> Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
> recently?
Well, "pan and scan" is actually a disgusting, pre-HD TV version of a
P&S where (like a P&S) a sawed-off runt of a movie or TV is shown so
it will fit on an old 4:3 TV set. The people who prefer this kind of
art mutilation are probably the same as those who prefer P&S's to
DSLRs...
Pete D
"arlington cromwell" <acro...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:0mujh41fh4g196s0p...@4ax.com...
LOL, and there is the troll disproving his own
existence...........................................................
Pete D
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:oNqdnRPFA-shg4fU...@giganews.com...
> Pete D wrote:
>
>> We are all standing by to be truly amazed dude.
>
> Why feed it?
>
HA HA, like you haven't? ;-)
FreelanceFrankie
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
Fred
news:962326c8-b58c-42c8...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I meant "point and shoot"!
God knows why I typed "pan and scan", I must have had my TV head on :o)
Steve
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:31:26 -0800 (PST), Rich <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 11, 7:17 am, "Fred" <fredap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
>>> recently?
>>
>>Well, "pan and scan" is actually a disgusting, pre-HD TV version of a
>>P&S where (like a P&S) a sawed-off runt of a movie or TV is shown so
>>it will fit on an old 4:3 TV set. The people who prefer this kind of
>>art mutilation are probably the same as those who prefer P&S's to
>>DSLRs...
>
>Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
>bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
>continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
>newsgroup-troll and a fool.
>
>
>1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
>wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
>of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
>gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
>range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
>larger format cameras.
You're so much fun to prove wrong. And yet again, you prove you know
nothing about cameras. Only DSLRs in general give you seamless zoom
range. Most P&S cameras have discreet steps that the zoom must stop
at. So for the whole range that the zoom lens covers, the camera may
have only 6 or 7 actual focal lengths it can ever be at. You push the
zoom lever and it doesn't stop when you let go. It only stops when it
gets to one of it's preset zoom levels.
If you want a seamless zoom range then get a DSLR.
BobG
What you say is true for some of the very low-end P&S cameras, but is not true
for all of them. Take for example the many P&S cameras that have manual or
fly-by-wire zoom-ring adjustments on them. Seamless zooms.
Another good example are the CHDK capable P&S cameras. The super-zoom models
have 129 discreet zoom stops programmed into the firmware that silently moves
the lens elements using a precision ultra-sonic motor. For all intents and
purposes this is pretty much a "seamless" range. I'd challenge anyone with a
manually zoomed lens to try to divvy-up their zoom adjustment for their lens
into 129 discreet steps, manually or with any other feature on their camera.The
best part of all is that each and every one of those focal-length zoom steps of
a CHDK P&S camera can be recalled instantly at any time to duplicate that zoom
setting again, perfectly. Either manually or with easy to write programmable
scripts. Impossible to accomplish on any manually adjusted zoom lens (except for
the two extreme ends of its zoom range). For the stop-motion animator, the
scientist, the panorama photographer, documenting collections and media, for
anyone using their camera for any advanced photography techniques a reproducible
zoom-setting is highly valuable. At any time you can go back and recreate the
exact camera settings used before. You're not just limited to duplicating the
zoom setting with perfect precision. You can also recall and duplicate any
intermediate ISOs (you're not limited to the standard ISO steps, all CHDK
cameras have a seamless ISO range too), shutter-speeds, apertures, zoom setting
... right down to and including the focus setting that was used before,
duplicating the focus setting with 1mm precision. You can't do that on any DSLR
nor any other cameras nor other camera lenses on earth.
For the scientist and researcher, there's yet another benefit to CHDK P&S
cameras. You're not limited to the 1/3EV steps for shutter speeds. You may
choose any shutter speed from 65 seconds to 1/40,000 second in 1/100,000 second
increments. There are two methods of inputting new shutter speeds, the standard
1/3EV steps or precise decimal fractions.
Thanks for raising this issue. It gave me a chance to point out many more
reasons why some P&S cameras are better than any DSLR that has ever existed or
will probably ever exist. DSLRs are for point and shoot amateurs who don't have
these exacting needs for precision--as do many professional who do require these
high levels of precision and have switched over to top-quality P&S cameras to
meet those needs today.
Roy G
Deep Reset
"DarnelBuccanon" <dbuc...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:538kh4du9om47oko0...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:09:32 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Pete D wrote:
>>
>>> We are all standing by to be truly amazed dude.
>>
>>Why feed it?
>
> Feed what?
>
> While waiting for an answer, the rest of us that like to stay on topic put
> our
> time to good use and learn a thing or two by reading this ... maybe you
> can too
> if you actually read AND comprehend it.
>
>
> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
<Boring repetitive drivel elided>
WARNING: People of a sensitive nature may wish to look away now, the
following post contains language of an adult nature.
[slow hand clap] Congratulations, you've discover cut and paste.
Now please, engage your other neuron and fuck off somewhere else and drag
the standards down there, you're really getting on people's tits, you
tedious, infantile fuckwit.
Deep.
J. Barrington
Do try to stay on topic for a photography newsgroup instead of just posting
trollish off-topic comments.
Here are some suggested topics for your consideration:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
Alan Browne
As little as possible. I do try to get the message out that replying to
it makes it come back for more.
I never said I was perfect, just making the journey...!
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
NathanPost
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Pete D wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:oNqdnRPFA-shg4fU...@giganews.com...
>>> Pete D wrote:
>>>
>>>> We are all standing by to be truly amazed dude.
>>> Why feed it?
>>>
>>
>> HA HA, like you haven't? ;-)
>
>As little as possible. I do try to get the message out that replying to
>it makes it come back for more.
>
>I never said I was perfect, just making the journey...!
Can't you off-topic trolls ever talk about photography?
Here's some photography related comments for future discussion consideration.
Steve
"all intents and purposes" "pretty much" is not the seamless range
that a DSLR gives. So even the high-end super zoom "P&S" (and I put
P&S in quotes because once you get to that level, DSLRs are just as
much a P&S as those bulky cameras) can't match the seamless zoom range
of a DSLR. DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
albert_shriver
>
>"all intents and purposes" "pretty much" is not the seamless range
>that a DSLR gives. So even the high-end super zoom "P&S" (and I put
>P&S in quotes because once you get to that level, DSLRs are just as
>much a P&S as those bulky cameras) can't match the seamless zoom range
>of a DSLR. DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
>has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
Aww, you conveniently snipped out the important bit:
>I'd challenge anyone with a
>manually zoomed lens to try to divvy-up their zoom adjustment for their lens
>into 129 discreet steps, manually or with any other feature on their camera.
That means that the P&S's 129 steps are more seamless than your manually zoomed
DSLR lens.
LOL
H.S.
>
> "all intents and purposes" "pretty much" is not the seamless range
> that a DSLR gives. So even the high-end super zoom "P&S" (and I put
> P&S in quotes because once you get to that level, DSLRs are just as
> much a P&S as those bulky cameras) can't match the seamless zoom range
> of a DSLR. DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
> has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
er .. It also depends on the resolution a human hand/fingers can move
the 'seamless' zoom with, along with the precision. Your argument is
similar to that analog tape is better than an audio CD because CD has
digital data (and is not 'seamless') while being ignorant of the fact
that human hearing perception is band limited.
Note that I am not saying is it not much more convenient to use DSLR
zoom lenses instead of pressing + or - button on a P&S, but if a P&S has
enough discrete steps, for all practical purposes it may not be
different than a DSLR zoom only in movement. Now, why "for all practical
purposes"? Because this relates to practical world, not math and physics
derivations on paper.
Now before the fanatics jump to conclusions and start to whine and spam
this group carrying their pitch forks and torches (in other words, being
imbecile kids instead of being mature grown men with reasonably
developed brains), please note that this response is strictly related to
the resolution and precision of the mechanical movement of the lens. As
far as precision is concerned, it is not possible to beat a discrete
system steps by a human hand (at those steps).
Having said all this, I must also stress I am *not* taking any side in
these arguments, but only pointing out that the infinite accuracy is
only possible in theory, on paper, but coming to real world there is no
such thing as a perfectly "seamless" system and using phrases like you
have replied to make perfect practical sense.
--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.
Steve
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:50:30 -0500, "H.S." <hAs.sa...@gTHEmail.com>
wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>>
>> "all intents and purposes" "pretty much" is not the seamless range
>> that a DSLR gives. So even the high-end super zoom "P&S" (and I put
>> P&S in quotes because once you get to that level, DSLRs are just as
>> much a P&S as those bulky cameras) can't match the seamless zoom range
>> of a DSLR. DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
>> has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
>
>er .. It also depends on the resolution a human hand/fingers can move
>the 'seamless' zoom with, along with the precision. Your argument is
>similar to that analog tape is better than an audio CD because CD has
>digital data (and is not 'seamless') while being ignorant of the fact
>that human hearing perception is band limited.
It's not like that argument at all. It *would* be like that argument
if digital was only 7 bit, i.e., 128 steps. If a P&S had 65536
positions, then I'd agree that it's essentially seamless. But analog
tape blows away 7 bit digital unless you're talking about a different
encoding modulation scheme other than linear PCM. One bit PWM can
blow away analog tape if it has a high enough sample rate.
But most P&S cameras only have maybe 6, 7, or 8 zoom steps. Only a
very low percentage high end models have more. And those are more
like a small DSLR and give up the main advantages of a P&S: small size
and light weight.
Do you want to compare analog tape to 3 bit digital? lol
>Note that I am not saying is it not much more convenient to use DSLR
>zoom lenses instead of pressing + or - button on a P&S, but if a P&S has
>enough discrete steps, for all practical purposes it may not be
>different than a DSLR zoom only in movement. Now, why "for all practical
>purposes"? Because this relates to practical world, not math and physics
>derivations on paper.
Because most P&S cameras with the + and - buttons only have relatively
few discrete zoom levels. 10 would be on the high end.
>Having said all this, I must also stress I am *not* taking any side in
>these arguments, but only pointing out that the infinite accuracy is
>only possible in theory, on paper, but coming to real world there is no
>such thing as a perfectly "seamless" system and using phrases like you
>have replied to make perfect practical sense.
I'm not taking sides in this argument either. I've said all along
that each camera has it's place. My digital cameras include 2 Canon
P&S and 2 Nilkon DSLRs and I like and use them all. But unlike our
resident P&S troll, I know what each is and is not capable of.
Steve
Which camera is it that you have which has 129 steps?
DarrenFoster
>I'm not taking sides in this argument either. I've said all along
>that each camera has it's place. My digital cameras include 2 Canon
>P&S and 2 Nilkon DSLRs and I like and use them all. But unlike our
>resident P&S troll, I know what each is and is not capable of.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
Ron Hunter
movies with the tops, and bottoms of heads cut off on closeups. The
16:9 format is horrible. It is just plain impractical, and unaesthetic.
The 4:3 format was designed to fit the normal aspect of human beings,
and the 16:9 is more appropriate for scenery.
As for P&S cameras, many of us just don't want to 'fiddle' with a bunch
of settings before taking a picture, and either don't WANT to carry a
large, heavy, camera, or aren't physically able to do so (or both). So
what is wrong with that?
Would you want the ADA to be expanded to make DSLR makers manufacture
their cameras in a smaller, lighter, size? Of course you wouldn't, so
why try to convince perfectly satisfied P&S users that they NEED to
carry around a bulky camera, and a 5 kilo bag of lenses?
Fred
news:q_KdnQ3PtelJdIbU...@giganews.com...
>
> As for P&S cameras, many of us just don't want to 'fiddle' with a bunch of
> settings before taking a picture, and either don't WANT to carry a large,
> heavy, camera, or aren't physically able to do so (or both). So what is
> wrong with that?
> Would you want the ADA to be expanded to make DSLR makers manufacture
> their cameras in a smaller, lighter, size? Of course you wouldn't, so why
> try to convince perfectly satisfied P&S users that they NEED to carry
> around a bulky camera, and a 5 kilo bag of lenses?
>
>
in bulky camera bags, to the extent that latterly my interest in photography
waned to virtually zero. It was the advent of 'decent' compact digital
cameras, such as the Canon Powershot range, that persuaded me to make the
switch to digital. I made the conscious decision to dump SLRs in favour of
having a camera that I could take anywhere, easily and unobtrusively. My
interest in photography was immediately re-invigorated, and I've never
looked back since.
Wild horses wouldn't persuade me to go back to using a DSLR as my main
camera, despite the fact that I know they are capable of taking better
photographs in difficult situations. Certainly a DSLR or similarly capable
'bridge' camera is useful for the occasional situation, but hell would
freeze over first before a DSLR replaced a P&S as my main everyday camera.
Steve
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:41:35 -0000, "Fred" <fred...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Actually, I think everyone except our resident troll can agree on
these points. For most people in most situations, a decent small P&S
is good enough and the size, weight and cost savings are benefits. But
for the discriminating photographer whether [s]he be a pro or an
advanced amateur, the capability of taking better photographs in
difficult situations is worth the extra bulk and expense of a DSLR.
And of course, a "bridge" camera falls in between those extremes. A
little too big to be a carry everywhere pocket camera but smaller than
a DSLR. Better picture quality than a pocket camera, but not quite as
good as a DSLR in difficult situations.
If you're at all familiar with sailboats, bridge cameras remind me of
the old Mac 26x. It's a sailboat with a big honkin outboard that can
sorta plane under power. It doesn't sail as well as a decent sailboat
and doesn't power as well as a decent powerboat. But if you want to
sail sometimes and power at a decent clip other times and only want
one boat, it's there for you. It's a "bridge" boat.
Steve
Pete D
"DarrenFoster" <dfo...@snippedforspam.com> wrote in message
news:sf4nh45soggg6pdv8...@4ax.com...
Pete D
"Steve" <st...@example.com> wrote in message
news:t04nh4ds1agtfseul...@4ax.com...
LOL, the one he dreams about and talks about in the sock drawer...... to all
the other socks.............
gregory blaine
>For most people in most situations, a decent small P&S
>is good enough and the size, weight and cost savings are benefits. But
>for the discriminating photographer whether [s]he be a pro or an
>advanced amateur, the capability of taking better photographs in
>difficult situations is worth the extra bulk and expense of a DSLR.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Atheist Chaplain
news:av5oh4llgc0n8na1l...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:37:02 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>For most people in most situations, a decent small P&S
>>is good enough and the size, weight and cost savings are benefits. But
>>for the discriminating photographer whether [s]he be a pro or an
>>advanced amateur, the capability of taking better photographs in
>>difficult situations is worth the extra bulk and expense of a DSLR.
>
> Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
> bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it
> and
> continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
> virtual-photographer
> newsgroup-troll and a fool.
>
<tiresomely repeated cut and past removed>
so that's the extent of your knowledge, a cut and past argument, and a name
change every other post, seems the one here who is the troll would be you.
but your probably to stupid to even realise it.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
Steve
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:50:30 -0500, "H.S." <hAs.sa...@gTHEmail.com>
wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>>
>> "all intents and purposes" "pretty much" is not the seamless range
>> that a DSLR gives. So even the high-end super zoom "P&S" (and I put
>> P&S in quotes because once you get to that level, DSLRs are just as
>> much a P&S as those bulky cameras) can't match the seamless zoom range
>> of a DSLR. DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
>> has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
>
>er .. It also depends on the resolution a human hand/fingers can move
>the 'seamless' zoom with, along with the precision. Your argument is
>similar to that analog tape is better than an audio CD because CD has
To satisfy my boundless curiosity, I just did a little experiment
while I was thinking about this. I grabbed the closest "analog" zoom
lens, which just happened to be the Nikon DX 12-24mm, and tried to see
just what kind of manual dexterity my fingers were capable of.
I set the zoom ring all the way to one stop and then, making sure that
it at least moved a tiny bit, moved it as little as I could over and
over, counting as I went, but with being fairly quick about it. By
fairly quick, I mean I didn't want to take all day so I was averaging
maybe 2 tiny moves per second. My technique was straightforward...
Just use the fingers of one hand to turn the zoom ring and the fingers
of the other hand holding the lens halfway over the zoom ring and half
off it, on the barrel. That way, I could feel and count the little
moves as the ring turned against the barrel.
I won't say what my results were right away because you should really
try this for yourself. I'll just say that I was fairly astounded at
just how many "steps" I was able to achieve.
Steve
RickBaynes
It doesn't matter how many that you get on any lens. You forgot to add in that
93-97% error factor in the FOV of your OVF. No matter how many "zoom steps" that
you have you'll never be able to use them to frame and compose your image
properly. This is what primarily drives the DSLR owner to buy more megapixels.
They always have to crop every photo that they take before it is presentable.
All those extra pixels that they dearly paid for always wasted due to that
inaccurate OVF. A DSLR's innacurate OVF can cause the difference between a
useful 12megapixels and the wasted excess of 14megapixels due to inherent
framing errors in that camera's optical design. In the earlier digital-days that
would be like throwing away a whole sensor's worth of pixels.
Isn't it fun when one test reveals the huge drawbacks of another part of your
favorite camera? I found it quite amusing.
Steve
Apparently you're not smart enough to know what an error factor is. I
think you mean 93-97% coverage. Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that
have 100% coverage. So using your illogical logic so evident in that
BS list you keep trolling, if there's one camera in a category with
any particular positive trait, that extends to all cameras in that
category. So that proves you wrong yet again, using your own logic. I
find that quite amusing.
>you have you'll never be able to use them to frame and compose your image
>properly. This is what primarily drives the DSLR owner to buy more megapixels.
Just because YOU say YOU are incapable of framing and composing YOUR
images using an OVF doesn't mean other people can't. Everyone already
knows you're just a hack with no photographic skills.
Thatch Hudson
> Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that have 100% coverage.
Only one D/SLR camera has ever existed in the world of photography with a full
100% OVF coverage, the Sony A900.
Unless you own one of these then the rest of your claims are just self-deluded
wishful thinking on your part. Sorry, but facts is facts.
This camera was specifically engineered to address that nagging and annoying
problem that professionals have had to deal with for decades upon decades.
Camera makers refused to address this issue due to the precision and refinements
required to pull it off properly.
Now, if they could only do something about that god-awful low-light performance
of all OVFs then they might finally start to approach the usefulness of a good
EVF. It still won't allow them to relay real-time shutter-speed effects, overlay
live histograms, under/over-exposure area alerts, DOF and focal-length
information, custom cropping and framing grids, etc., etc., but at least it'll
be one small step in the right direction.
Hopefully by then they'll have realized their folly and abandon the SLR design
altogether in favor of a more accurate and useful leaf-shutter system with a
highly functional and adaptable EVF that performs well under all lighting
conditions. I believe some camera designers are doing just that. Some people,
who are forever trying to justify their expensive and inaccurate DSLR purchase
by putting down all other cameras, wrongly call them "P&S" cameras.
John McWilliams
Please, you're giving trolls a bad name by referring to Vern and his
thousand socks as such.
He is successfully trolling Steve, SMS and a few others, but they have
said they'll stop. For everyone else, he's but a minor pest.
Please! No replies!
Do paste in the drivel as a reply, pest.
--
lsmft
Strom Beckridge
Can't you resident-trolls ever stay on topic?
Here's a little something to help you:
nospam
<thatch...@mailnotwanted.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:33:43 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that have 100% coverage.
>
> Only one D/SLR camera has ever existed in the world of photography with a full
> 100% OVF coverage, the Sony A900.
nonsense. there's been quite a few slr cameras with 100% coverage,
including the nikon d3 and d300 as well as some back in the film days.
tconway
"Strom Beckridge" <sbeck...@spamnotwanted.org> wrote in message
news:59moh4d47qmtogo0t...@4ax.com...
You guys are like the seamonster Hydra. You cut off one head and another
one reappears shouting the same drivel.
Give it a break.
H.S.
>
> You guys are like the seamonster Hydra. You cut off one head and another
> one reappears shouting the same drivel.
> Give it a break.
>
>
>
I guess it is time to plonk the post from that user or the posts which
contain those script responses. It is only due to these trolls that the
utility of this group is taken a severe beating.
John McWilliams
> tconway wrote:
>> You guys are like the seamonster Hydra. You cut off one head and another
>> one reappears shouting the same drivel.
>> Give it a break>>
>
> contain those script responses. It is only due to these trolls that the
> utility of this group is taken a severe beating.
The group is fine. This pest is working hard for attention, and slowly
it's dying out.
Plonking is fine if it's easy to do with your newsreader, but you can't
do it on posting name. Just not replying is the answer.
--
john mcwilliams
BarryAncroft
Why more off-topic comments? Is this all that these trolls can concern
themselves with? (of course it is, that's why they are trolls)
Here, try some of these topics:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
H.S.
> do it on posting name. Just not replying is the answer.
>
Yup, best strategy.
carl_anderson
>John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> do it on posting name. Just not replying is the answer.
>>
>
>Yup, best strategy.
Yes, heaven forbid that they might have to face-up to some of these facts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
Dave Martindale
>DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
>has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
Depends on the P&S camera. Some P&S cameras allow you to zoom while
they are shooting movies, so they must have continuous zoom while
remaining in focus (or you'd see the discontinuities). The Canon S1/S2
etc. series is one example. On the other hand, last time I looked most
P&S cameras would *not* allow zoom during movies, suggesting that they
only support a finite number of focal lengths.
Dave
Steve
They usually prevent optical zooming during movies because the noise
of the lens moving is picked up and recorded. The finite number of
steps doesn't have anything to do with why they don't allow zooming
during shooting movies.
Even the ones that allow you to zoom while shooting do not have
continious zoom. The lens mechanism itself might. But it's only
allowed to stop in certain preset positions. You'll can see a
seamless movement from one position to the next, but the lens won't
stop moving when you release the zoom button. It will continue to the
next stopping point.
Steve
Steve
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:33:43 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that have 100% coverage.
>
>Only one D/SLR camera has ever existed in the world of photography with a full
>100% OVF coverage, the Sony A900.
Absolutely wrong.
>Unless you own one of these then the rest of your claims are just self-deluded
>wishful thinking on your part. Sorry, but facts is facts.
You would have no idea what a fact is if it hit you in the face. Here,
I'll reword this in language you can understand, since it's yours:
The point outlined below completely disproves your usual
resident-troll bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself,
or don't read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are
nothing but a virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. DSLRs can and do have full 100% OVF coverage.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be
more than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that DSLR
cameras are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of this internet troll yelling "You NEED a P&S!" can be
summed up in just one short phrase:
"If 1 person is saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish
thing"
---
Now, if you want to know another DSLR that meets all of my criteria
above, then you tell me the model of P&S that meets all of your
criteria.
But of course you can't. Because there isn't one.
Then again, you've already proven yourself to be a talentless hack
when you ADMITTED that you are incapable of framing a subject properly
with a 97% coverage OVF. What a drag it is to be you. Pathetic.
JerryThompkins
Let us know when you notice this on the one of the 129 available steps.
Show us zoomed video from your DSLR while you're at it.
Alan Browne
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:33:43 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that have 100% coverage.
>
> Only one D/SLR camera has ever existed in the world of photography with a full
> 100% OVF coverage, the Sony A900.
Wrong. Current models include:
nikon d3: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/page2.asp>
D300 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page2.asp
Sony a900 (100%)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dslra900.asp
Canon 1Ds III (100%)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos1dsmkiii.asp
Canon 5D Mk II (98%).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos5dmkii.asp
others...?
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Kent Ramsey
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Thatch Hudson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:33:43 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that have 100% coverage.
>>
>> Only one D/SLR camera has ever existed in the world of photography with a full
>> 100% OVF coverage, the Sony A900.
>
>Wrong. Current models include:
>
>nikon d3: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/page2.asp>
1
>D300 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page2.asp
>
2
>Sony a900 (100%)
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dslra900.asp
3
>
>Canon 1Ds III (100%)
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos1dsmkiii.asp
4
3 more than what was claimed. Not an overwhelming amount of evidence, but it is
more than 1.
Out of all the available SLRs and DSLRs ever made, that's not a very high
percentage. Whereas 100% of all P&S cameras ever made do have 100% coverage on
their EVF/LCD viewfinders. It's impossible not to have that on a P&S camera as
the viewfinder view comes directly from an equivalent sampling of pixels off the
sensor that will record the final image.
What you also fail to realize is that if you change the focal-length of the lens
on a DSLR, then you slightly alter the FOV in the viewfinder for each lens.
While they may claim 100% coverage, that's only for one particular focal-length
for which that OVF was optimized. The viewfinder relies on a separate set of
optics to create that image. The micro-grooved fresnel lens at the back of the
flat focusing screen is part of the optical system, optimized for specific
focal-length lenses, I know this because I personally designed some in the past,
optimizing them for use with microscopes of various configurations. It is always
a compromise in any SLR system. This too is why D/SLR metering is always so
inaccurate and why the DSLR owner is forever trying to recover from
under/over-exposure problems by having to delve into the RAW data. Depending on
the angle of incoming light from the lens (dependent on the FOV of the lens in
use) it will change the way the metering reads that light. The DSLR is a world
of compromises. As was/is the SLR that always suffered from these exact same
drawbacks.
Those pros that have always run into these drawbacks of the SLR design, now no
different in the DSLR design, have moved on to more capable and precise high-end
P&S cameras.
nospam
<kentr...@kentramsey.com> wrote:
> What you also fail to realize is that if you change the focal-length of the
> lens
> on a DSLR, then you slightly alter the FOV in the viewfinder for each lens.
> While they may claim 100% coverage, that's only for one particular
> focal-length
> for which that OVF was optimized.
nonsense.
> The viewfinder relies on a separate set of
> optics to create that image. The micro-grooved fresnel lens at the back of the
> flat focusing screen is part of the optical system, optimized for specific
> focal-length lenses, I know this because I personally designed some in the
> past,
sure you did.
> optimizing them for use with microscopes of various configurations. It is
> always
> a compromise in any SLR system. This too is why D/SLR metering is always so
> inaccurate and why the DSLR owner is forever trying to recover from
> under/over-exposure problems by having to delve into the RAW data.
it's actually very accurate and far more sophisticated than what's in a
p/s, notably nikon's 1005 segment matrix metering. furthermore, people
like to play with raw just because they can. much of the time, it's
not needed.
> Depending
> on
> the angle of incoming light from the lens (dependent on the FOV of the lens in
> use) it will change the way the metering reads that light. The DSLR is a world
> of compromises.
everything is a compromise.
Kent Ramsey
>In article <kalph4trlpefb6f2l...@4ax.com>, Kent Ramsey
><kentr...@kentramsey.com> wrote:
>
>> What you also fail to realize is that if you change the focal-length of the
>> lens
>> on a DSLR, then you slightly alter the FOV in the viewfinder for each lens.
>> While they may claim 100% coverage, that's only for one particular
>> focal-length
>> for which that OVF was optimized.
>
>nonsense.
>
>> The viewfinder relies on a separate set of
>> optics to create that image. The micro-grooved fresnel lens at the back of the
>> flat focusing screen is part of the optical system, optimized for specific
>> focal-length lenses, I know this because I personally designed some in the
>> past,
>
>sure you did.
Then how do I know that the rear surface of the focusing screen is a
micro-grooved fresnel lens? And that fresnel-lens' focal-length, in order to
optimize light transmission, must match the angle of light from the incoming
virtual image, which is dependent on the optics attached to the front of the
camera. Did you know this?
Why do I feel perfectly safe in answering for you. And that that answer would be
a loud and resounding "NO".
>
>> optimizing them for use with microscopes of various configurations. It is
>> always
>> a compromise in any SLR system. This too is why D/SLR metering is always so
>> inaccurate and why the DSLR owner is forever trying to recover from
>> under/over-exposure problems by having to delve into the RAW data.
>
>it's actually very accurate and far more sophisticated than what's in a
>p/s, notably nikon's 1005 segment matrix metering. furthermore, people
>like to play with raw just because they can. much of the time, it's
>not needed.
Please explain how the image being formed on the sensor, then directly relayed
to the EVF/LCD can be less accurate than a compromised optical assembly using a
different light path than the one that the sensor uses? This will be most
interesting.
Ever hear of the K.I.S.S. principle and why that works so well? The D/SLR
paradigm is anything but that.
Mark Thomas
> 3 more than what was claimed.
> Whereas 100% of all P&S cameras ever made do have 100% coverage on
> their EVF/LCD viewfinders.
Again, Vern is wrong here. There aren't many, but there are some p&s
cameras that don't have 100% view. I'll post their names as soon as he
posts an image, or names his p&s and teleconverters.
But more importantly, the small amount of cropping that exists, p&s or
dslr, is irrelevant to almost anyone, except those who wish to make a
technical point. Real, practical photographers seem to get by fine with
slightly cropped viewfinders. And as for the 'loss of resolution' from
a 95% crop... gee, that's soooo significant. By the way, Vern, can you
think of any reasons why the vf crop might actually be *useful*? Have a
good think about that one, you might learn something else. I mean, you
have recently learnt about why sunny 16 doesn't always apply, how HSS
flash works, and why .5s can make a difference when using autofocus.
> It's impossible not to have that on a P&S camera as
> the viewfinder view comes directly from an equivalent sampling of pixels off the
> sensor that will record the final image.
Absolutely incorrect. What a moronic and daft suggestion - does he
think there is just a wire from each pixel to the LCD??? Given that the
data *has* to be processed/manipulated before display, the manufacturer
can do what they like, inc. cropping.
> I know this because I personally designed some in the past
While most of the preceding text about f-o-v was correct (but largely
irrelevant, *that* was hilarious. Yes, Vern, of *course* you did, dearie.
> Those pros that have always run into these drawbacks of the SLR design, now no
> different in the DSLR design, have moved on to more capable and precise high-end
> P&S cameras.
Name just ONE.
JerryWilder
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>Again, Vern is wrong here. There aren't many, but there are some p&s
>cameras that don't have 100% view. I'll post their names as soon as he
>posts an image, or names his p&s and teleconverters.
Oh look! A resident troll's challenge! Watch anyone comply!
LOL
Mark Thomas
>>> focal-length lenses, I know this because I personally designed some in the
>>> past,
>> sure you did.
>
> Then how do I know that the rear surface of the focusing screen is a
> micro-grooved fresnel lens?
Even more hilarious. Perhaps it *could* be because you can just look at
it and see..?
> Ever hear of the K.I.S.S. principle and why that works so well? The D/SLR
> paradigm is anything but that.
True. But your problem is you type so much garbage, anything you get
correct is simply swamped by the stupidity and lack of experience.
Have you noticed that your army of supporters is actually a little on
the small side? I mean other than you (and all your sockpuppets), there
is just... err..
helloooo?
anyone???
David J. Littleboy
>
>> Ever hear of the K.I.S.S. principle and why that works so well? The D/SLR
>> paradigm is anything but that.
>
> True. But your problem is you type so much garbage, anything you get
> correct is simply swamped by the stupidity and lack of experience.
Actually, he's wrong here too. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" trumps
KISS, every time. SLRs work really well, are a pleasure to use, and have
been the camera of choice for the vast majority of pro and serious
photographers for the last 50 years. Since a good SLR viewfinder is far
superior to the best current EVFs and phase detection AF works way better
than contrast detection AF, this isn't changing soon.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
WalterSmither
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>Have you noticed that your army of supporters is actually a little on
>the small side? I mean other than you (and all your sockpuppets), there
>is just... err..
>
>
>helloooo?
>
>anyone???
Have you ever noticed that people who are secure in their findings and test
results in life don't require an army of supporters, those supporters who are
just as mindless as the people they support? It's not a matter of belief,
because some people KNOW they are right, they've proved their findings to
themselves. No matter what anyone else says or does.
Do you seriously base your beliefs on how many around you believe the same
thing?
If so, "WOW". Can you get any more insecure, lost, and mindless than that?
I don't know anyone that does that in my personal life. If I did I would
instantly walk away from being that close to someone that moronic that they
can't think for themselves. That'd be one dangerous person, someone definitely
not worth knowing.
Talk about brain-dead followers. Can you say "Baaaaa...." like the good sheep
that you are?
"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody
has thought." - Albert von Szent-Gyorgyi
May you learn the art of discovery some day. Baby steps, take baby steps. You're
not ready for the big leagues.
Here's a few more to get you started on your baby-steps' path to independent
creative thinking and enlightenment:
"The poet, the artist, the sleuth -- whoever sharpens our perception tends to be
antisocial ... He cannot go along with currents and trends." - Alfred North
Whitehead
"Innovators and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools. They are
precisely the men who defy what the school has taught them." - Ludwig von
Mises
"Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose sight of the
shore." - Andre' Gide
"We often think that when we have completed our study of 'one' we know all about
'two', because 'two' is 'one and one'. We forget that we have still to make a
study of 'and'." - A. S. Eddington
"If I had read as many books as other men, I should have been as ignorant as
they are." - Thomas Hobbes
"What does education often do? It makes a straight-cut ditch of a free,
meandering brook." - Henry David Thoreau
Not that any of this will make sense to you, because, as the other saying goes:
"Words are like a mirror -- if a moron peers into them you can't expect a moron
to see any wisdom nor intelligence in those words."
Then why post this, you might ask?
"Just because the message may never be received does not mean it is not worth
sending." - Segaki
Perhaps someone other than you and your severely diminished mentality might get
something out of these words.
And now... back to something photography related ...
Though, if you really think about it, this whole post is photography related.
Only the innovator and creative genius will excel at photography. Most certainly
not the brain-dead followers. The words contained herein might awaken and
inspire that sleeping giant inside of some sheep-following hapless soul who
didn't know they had it hiding deep within them.
Dan Farmington
wrote:
> SLRs work really well, are a pleasure to use, and have
>been the camera of choice for the vast majority of pro and serious
>photographers for the last 50 years.
Only for those "Pros" that aren't bright enough to notice:
1. focal-plane distortions
2. obnoxious noise
3. innacurate viewfinder coverage
4. impossibly slow flash sync
5. ungainly weight
6. dust and dirt on sensor
7. ridiculously dim viewfinders
8. black bodies absorb more thermal radiation which is a detriment to digital
sensors
9. .... (this list is long)
Want me to list them all again? The list is over 100 important points by my last
count. "Pro" does _NOT_ and never has equalled "intelligent" nor "creative". By
any stretch of the imagination. It only means that they are meagerly smart
enough to con others who are less intelligent out of their money. That is all
that "Pro" has ever meant and that is all that it will ever mean.
Mark Thomas
I can't fully agree. While the SLR was/is an effective answer to a
series of design requirements, it can hardly be called 'simple'. Have
you ever disassembled and reassembled one?
Now I agree that if it isn't broke... but if there is a cheaper/simpler
way to *effectively* do something, then I believe it should be pursued.
Depending on a few factors, contrast-detect AF can be more accurate in a
technical sense than phase detect and it removes front-/back-focus
problems, but yes, it is slower. So PD works 'faster' but not
necessarily better, unless fast is the only criteria. And again, if the
G1 means that CD can be made fast enough for serious use, bring it on, I
say! Similarly, if a decent evf comes out of this new line of camera
development I don't think anyone will complain about that either. You
do realise that the G1 has CD-AF lag down to 0.36s? A very well known
dslr is 0.26s, so the G1 is already in the ballpark. It's not difficult
to guess that they could halve that figure as time goes on, at which
point not many folk would be complaining..
As to whether this is a pointer to the death of the slr format in the
long term, who knows, and frankly who cares - it's just a body.
I just want to see better and more affordable cameras. The G1 isn't
necessarily better, and certainly isn't cheaper!, but the format has a
great deal of potential imo.
Mark Thomas
WalterSmither wrote:
> Have you ever noticed that people who are secure in their findings and test
> results in life don't require an army of sockpuppets?
Hal Holbrook
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
Oh my. A realistic and sensible post from you. This may cause nightmares.
james_thornton
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>Just corrected your error and deleted the rubbish.
>
Here's to correct your mindless and low-level functioning correction:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:01:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Why don't you just use your real name and stay with it?
>
Good grief, the parade of resident-trolls never ends.
1. Because it drives resident-trolls up the wall and they're too amazingly
stupid to figure out why anyone would do it, even when just told why, so they
keep asking why.
2. Resident-trolls reveal themselves more rapidly so I know which ones they are
and then know to never take anything that they post seriously. They live on the
net with no real experiences, photographic or otherwise. Then I laugh when they
try to give advice to anyone. With luck, others might see how this works and
also realize who the resident-trolls are from the trolls having quickly outted
themselves.
3. I don't like promoting mindless followers. Let insecure need-to-be leaders
fall into that trap. They too are stupid enough.
4. To prove to others that your name is meaningless. What knowledge and wisdom
that you can convey is what matters. The ego of a public identity is of no real
use in life. The need for that is reserved for the terminally insecure.
5. I don't need any support from others to voice and back-up my opinions. The
moment that I find some mindless idiot applauding what I say from one day to the
next it's time to change names.
6. What good is a real name online. Are you coming for dinner? You'll bring the
wrong wine anyway. Just stay away because you're nothing but a fucking idiot.
You've already proved that. I don't allow idiots into my personal life. They're
for you to have as "friends". You deserve them, I don't.
7. If I didn't make this entertaining for myself I couldn't stand to be here
trying to help those that might deserve the help. The resident-trolls like
yourself make this tedious enough. It's not much, but the entertainment quotient
of watching resident-trolls, like you, freak out and jump around helps offset
the drawbacks. It's fun knowing how much of their day they waste trying to hunt
down everyone's names, sort them out, and make their meaningless screen-name
lists that only reveals their emotional and psychiatric problems.
8. I'm not so insecure that I need your recognition nor the recognition of
anyone. In fact if I got continual recognition from an idiot like you I'd
probably want to kill myself for having any connection at all with something as
amazingly stupid as you.
9. Posers can be crafty, it's their only life. They have perfected the art of
deception, self-deception, and being a useless psychotic pretender. It's all
they have in life. It's fun to take away their only reason for being. With luck
they'll finally put that oft-considered suicide option higher on their "What to
do today..." list.
10. Why do just one thing? With this technique I can not only help others but
amuse myself and kill 10 resident-usenet-trolls with one stone. Win win win, all
around.
11. I like typing lists at 130wpm and wasting 4.37 minutes of my time each day.
Because, after all, in the sage advice of Willy Wonka, "A little nonsense now
and then is relished by the wisest of men."
12. And sarcasm, when used judiciously I like sarcasm.
Now copy this post, convert it to a raster-graphic file (GIF format suggested to
conserve file-space), load it into your photo editor, flip it on its vertical
axis--once, print it up, use a staple-gun to affix the resulting print-out to
your upper-lip, then go look in the mirror. Repeat whenever you feel the need to
ask again.
SMS
> "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>> 'Kent Ramsey' (aka Vern/anti-dslr-troll) wrote:
>>
>>> Ever hear of the K.I.S.S. principle and why that works so well? The D/SLR
>>> paradigm is anything but that.
>> True. But your problem is you type so much garbage, anything you get
>> correct is simply swamped by the stupidity and lack of experience.
>
> Actually, he's wrong here too. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" trumps
> KISS, every time.
He's harmless enough. Spending so much time creating sock-puppets, and
cutting and pasting, keeps him out of trouble. Just don't encourage him
with follow-ups to his posts.
> SLRs work really well, are a pleasure to use, and have
> been the camera of choice for the vast majority of pro and serious
> photographers for the last 50 years. Since a good SLR viewfinder is far
> superior to the best current EVFs and phase detection AF works way better
> than contrast detection AF, this isn't changing soon.
Those two items alone are sufficient reason to move up to a D-SLR.
Suddenly the tool is part of the solution, rather than something to be
tolerated and worked around. You spend less time cursing focus lag, or
shielding the LCD so you can compose your shot in bright sunlight, plus
you can take photos in less than optimal lighting conditions.
On the minus side, you spend more time e-mailing photos to those that
are unable to capture the same shot due to their equipment. If someone
tries to hand me their P&S camera to take a picture of them, instead I
offer to use my equipment and e-mail the photo to them, and most of the
time they're grateful. I carry business cards along in my bag and tell
them to e-mail me first, rather than trying to copy down their e-mail
address.
Max Baxter
>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>> 'Kent Ramsey' (aka Vern/anti-dslr-troll) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ever hear of the K.I.S.S. principle and why that works so well? The D/SLR
>>>> paradigm is anything but that.
>>> True. But your problem is you type so much garbage, anything you get
>>> correct is simply swamped by the stupidity and lack of experience.
>>
>> Actually, he's wrong here too. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" trumps
>> KISS, every time.
>
>He's harmless enough. Spending so much time creating sock-puppets, and
>cutting and pasting, keeps him out of trouble. Just don't encourage him
>with follow-ups to his posts.
>
>> SLRs work really well, are a pleasure to use, and have
>> been the camera of choice for the vast majority of pro and serious
>> photographers for the last 50 years. Since a good SLR viewfinder is far
>> superior to the best current EVFs and phase detection AF works way better
>> than contrast detection AF, this isn't changing soon.
>
>Those two items alone are sufficient reason to move up to a D-SLR.
>Suddenly the tool is part of the solution, rather than something to be
>tolerated and worked around. You spend less time cursing focus lag, or
>shielding the LCD so you can compose your shot in bright sunlight, plus
>you can take photos in less than optimal lighting conditions.
Not if you can't see them in that OVF "in less than optimal lighting
conditions", but you can easily see and even auto-focus on them in an EVF "in
less than optimal lighting conditions".
Catch up.
>
>On the minus side, you spend more time e-mailing photos to those that
>are unable to capture the same shot due to their equipment. If someone
>tries to hand me their P&S camera to take a picture of them, instead I
>offer to use my equipment and e-mail the photo to them, and most of the
>time they're grateful. I carry business cards along in my bag and tell
>them to e-mail me first, rather than trying to copy down their e-mail
>address.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
Mark Thomas
> (stuff)
A few notes for search engines and anyone tempted to take SMS seriously
or visit his websites.. A quick look around shows the following facts -
if you can be bothered reading it, make your own judgment about this
person, his real experience, and his morals.
SMS, aka
Steven M. Scharf
scharf...@gmail.com
scharf...@nordicbicycleproducts.com
scharf...@earthlink.com (scharf...@linkearth.com)
scharf...@earthlink.net (scharf...@linkearth.net)
bicycleac...@nordicgroup.us
charge...@nordicgroup.us
batteryac...@nordicgroup.us
Digital Camcorder Academician
Digital Camera Academician
Bicycle Academician
Dr. Digital
Dr Sumner C. Roberts
...has an interesting reputation as the author of a multitude of
websites that are created apparently for link-income purposes and usenet
debates, and are then abandoned. Examples of some of his old efforts:
http://www.digitalslrinfo.com (abandoned 2006)
http://nordicgroup.us/fold/ (abandoned 2002)
http://nordicgroup.us/rack.htm (abandoned 2001)
http://nordicgroup.us/chargers/ (? abandoned 2007)
That site rather amusingly states "This is a non-profit, non-commercial
site; I don't sell anything" at the top, yet at the bottom, "The above
links are affiliates and I receive 3-5% compensation from these companies"
http://www.nordicgroup.us/digicam/ (abandoned 2006)
http://nordicgroup.us/camcorder (abandoned 2004)
Again, that one states - "This is a non-commercial, informational site.
Nothing is sold on this site. No advertising is accepted.", yet at the
bottom there are the Amazon and Adorama ads and links and he states "I
receive compensation from these companies"
http://www.nordicgroup.us/tripod/ (abandoned 2003)
Here are some of his other creations:
http://nordicgroup.us/
http://nordicbicycleproducts.com/
http://www.bicyclecoffeesystems.com/
http://bicycleluggageracks.com/
http://bicyclelighting.com/
http://nordicgroup.us/cageboss/
http://nordicgroup.us/commutebike/
http://batterydata.com/
Yes, everything from coffee on your bike to travel tripods and
camcorders and the amazing one-track expertise he shows in recommending
the exact same cameras and batteries to anyone who asks, no matter what
their needs - yes, Mr Scharf is a whiz of all he sees. It's probably
little wonder that he actually doesn't have the time to actually use or
test any of the things he describes or recommends. Are there any image
galleries of his work? No. (Do correct me here, Dr Roberts... er
sorry, I mean Mr Scharf - don't be shy..)
Anyway, his most recent creation appears to be:
http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps
This site gained a small burst of notoriety here when Mr Scharf
recommended it.. without declaring it as his. At that time, the site
named the author as the "Digital Camera Academician", a name SMS/Steven
M. Scharf uses elsewhere, eg http://www.nordicgroup.us/digicam/ and on
the dpreview forums. After he was exposed as the author, he got a
little upset and decided to place a number of false 'accolades' on his
site. He misquoted comments from people here (including me). When
*that* was exposed, he changed the names slightly (I'm now "Mark
Thomasville" - how amusing!) and added a few ridiculous ones, presumably
to indicate that it was all just a harmless joke from the start.
Then the name "Digital Camera Academician" vanished from that page and
hey presto, the site is now penned by the self-proclaimed, highly
experienced, "Dr Sumner C. Roberts". Despite his 30 years in the
photography and digital imaging trade, 'Dr Roberts' of course has
absolutely no web history. Gee, do you think it might be SMS still?
Out of interest, in Australia it is illegal to use false identities and
qualifications to deceive - not in the US?
Anyway, here are a few words from Mr Scharf himself:
"Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading experts on bicycle lighting.
An electrical engineer by trade, he enjoys cycling and designing
lighting systems. He lives in Silicon Valley and works for a small
semiconductor company."
"Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading experts on Li-Ion and NiMH
batteries, and chargers. An electrical engineer by trade, he enjoys
cycling and designing bicycle lighting systems. He lives in Silicon
Valley and works for a small semiconductor company"
"Steven Scharf is an electrical engineer living in Silicon Valley,
specializing in portable power design for embedded systems. He has
worked for GTE, Xerox, McDonnell Douglas, Alcatel, National
Semiconductor, and Transmeta."
"Earth's Leading (and only) Authority on Water Bottle Cage Mounting
since 2002"
"Earth's Independent and Authoritative Source for Digital Camera Battery
Information"
"One of Earth's Leading Authorities on Vehicle Racks"
..(only one of them?)
and here's the last word from his very best friend at
http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps:
"Dr. Digital is Dr. Sumner C. Roberts, a professional photographer who
has been shooting professionally since 1980. He has photographed over
800 weddings and other life events, as well as doing studio photography.
He has written articles for numerous magazines on the subject of how to
select a digital camera. Dr. Digital lives in Zephyrhills (like the
water), Florida."
Yes, that is 'Steven M. Scharf'. Would you buy anything from this man?
Click on his affiliate links? Believe anything he posts?
PS - I am happy to be corrected on anything posted above - anyone, Mr
Scharf included, who wishes to offer verifiable information to the
contrary, is welcome to contact me. I'll very happily apologise if any
of it is incorrect or misquoted. Needless to say, I have cached copies
just in case any webpages are altered to protect the guilty, as he has
already proven he will do. (O:
PPS - The trail on Mr Scharf goes MUCH further than shown above. I'm
being kind by stopping here.
Alan Browne
> 3 more than what was claimed. Not an overwhelming amount of evidence, but it is
> more than 1.
Snipped out my last bit to enforce your silly statement.
> Out of all the available SLRs and DSLRs ever made, that's not a very high
Those were just the DSLR's. SLR's like the F-5, EOS-1 series, Maxxum 9,
many, many others have 100% VF's.
> What you also fail to realize is that if you change the focal-length of the lens
> on a DSLR, then you slightly alter the FOV in the viewfinder for each lens.
> While they may claim 100% coverage, that's only for one particular focal-length
> for which that OVF was optimized. The viewfinder relies on a separate set of
There are more than what I put up there, that's just the recent slate.
Whatever difference from 100% that other lenses vary, it is not an
important amount v. the photo. Nobody shoots to within a % of the
frame. For that matter, it's always better to under shoot a little (and
have crop margin) than the reverse.
SLR's have always been produced with the high end cameras at 100% and
the consumer cameras at slightly less than that.
I know photographers who _prefer_ the slightly cropped viewfinder as it
guarantees them cropping space around the subject. (I prefer 100%).
I know MF shooters who purposely over frame their shots for cropping space.
Like most of your long list of false negatives, you're blowing this one
way out of proportion.
Jerry Evans
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>I know photographers who _prefer_ the slightly cropped viewfinder as it
>guarantees them cropping space around the subject. (I prefer 100%).
I know them too.
I call them amateurs who don't know how to get it right the first time, in the
camera, like pros do.
Alan Browne
What a silly child you are. There is no one way that all pros do
things. And for that matter I know few pros who don't take a
significant number of shots more than what is needed or used. They
certainly do not waste a moment on optimal fill of the viewfinder unless
for very specific reasons. And for those reasons they are likely using
medium/large format.