ideal camera for me
Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:
-- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a sensitivity); -- A very good resolution of the lens; -- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4); -- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x; -- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps; -- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot. -- Reasonably priced; -- Reasonably small. A Sony DSC-R1 or a dSLR fit the bill mostly. All of the said cameras have such a big sensor (i.e., APS-C). Sony R1 has a high-resolution lens. dSLR's with the premium lenses provide high resolution, too. However, the problem with Sony R1 is that it has a zoom of only 5x. I heard that one can attach a 1.7x teleconverter (US$400) to Sony R1, but I am not sure about the quality and practicality of it. None of the dSLR cameras, to my best knowledge, have a flippable "live" LCD screen. Or, there is a camera which fits the bill ? Thanks. |
ideal camera for me
"minnesøtti" wrote in message
oups.com... Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me: -- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a sensitivity); -- A very good resolution of the lens; -- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4); -- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x; -- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps; -- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot. -- Reasonably priced; -- Reasonably small. A Sony DSC-R1 or a dSLR fit the bill mostly. All of the said cameras have such a big sensor (i.e., APS-C). Sony R1 has a high-resolution lens. dSLR's with the premium lenses provide high resolution, too. However, the problem with Sony R1 is that it has a zoom of only 5x. I heard that one can attach a 1.7x teleconverter (US$400) to Sony R1, but I am not sure about the quality and practicality of it. None of the dSLR cameras, to my best knowledge, have a flippable "live" LCD screen. Or, there is a camera which fits the bill ? Thanks. Don't know and don't care. Roy G |
ideal camera for me
"Roy G" wrote in message ... "minnesøtti" wrote in message oups.com... Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me: Don't know and don't care. Roy G Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick". They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and then always, always add reasonable cost. The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation. Roy G |
ideal camera for me
Roy G wrote: "Roy G" wrote in message ... "minnesøtti" wrote in message oups.com... Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me: Don't know and don't care. Roy G Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick". They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and then always, always add reasonable cost. The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation. There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen. This'll be what I am looking for ! I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some camera which I overlooked. |
ideal camera for me
"minnesøtti" wrote in message ups.com... Roy G wrote: "Roy G" wrote in message ... "minnesøtti" wrote in message oups.com... Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me: Don't know and don't care. Roy G Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick". They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and then always, always add reasonable cost. The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation. There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen. This'll be what I am looking for ! I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some camera which I overlooked. Minnesøtti, You are in effect pointing that Roy is right in stating that "ideal gimmicks .... always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features". Your examples of the Pentax D100K or the Nikon D80 with "twistable LCD" do just that. These cameras DO NOT have a twistable LCD, nor are they likely to have any. What possible use would a Nikon D80 have of such an LCD? You only use the LCD to see the result ;-)))) It's akin to wishing a Volkswagen to have the bumper of a Jeep Cherokee.... Marcel |
ideal camera for me
"minnesøtti" wrote in message
oups.com... Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me: -- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a sensitivity); -- A very good resolution of the lens; -- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4); -- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x; -- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps; -- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot. -- Reasonably priced; -- Reasonably small. A Sony DSC-R1 or a dSLR fit the bill mostly. All of the said cameras have such a big sensor (i.e., APS-C). Sony R1 has a high-resolution lens. dSLR's with the premium lenses provide high resolution, too. However, the problem with Sony R1 is that it has a zoom of only 5x. I heard that one can attach a 1.7x teleconverter (US$400) to Sony R1, but I am not sure about the quality and practicality of it. None of the dSLR cameras, to my best knowledge, have a flippable "live" LCD screen. Or, there is a camera which fits the bill ? Thanks. There are no 10X zooms that will provide the resolution you require let alone anything close to f/1.4. Let's say it were even possible to make a good 18-180mm f/1.4 lens. Do you have any idea how big the front element would have to be? It would have to be at least 128mm across. That's larger than the front element of many huge super telephoto lenses. Outside of the lens requirements the camera could be implemented. -S |
ideal camera for me
"minnesøtti" wrote in message
ups.com... Roy G wrote: "Roy G" wrote in message ... "minnesøtti" wrote in message oups.com... Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me: Don't know and don't care. Roy G Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick". They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and then always, always add reasonable cost. The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation. There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen. This'll be what I am looking for ! I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some camera which I overlooked. Well, since there are no zooms with an aperture larger than f2, and no constant aperture zooms with a 10x factor, I'm not sure that "reasonable" is an applicable term... Now, if you don't want both features in one lens, and the f1.4 isn't necessary in a zoom, that's another thing. In that case, be patient, since Oly introduced a live LCD on a camera, I'm sure improvements are in the pipeline... -- Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm |
ideal camera for me
Skip wrote: "minnesøtti" wrote in message ups.com... Roy G wrote: "Roy G" wrote in message ... "minnesøtti" wrote in message oups.com... Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me: Don't know and don't care. Roy G Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick". They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and then always, always add reasonable cost. The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation. There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen. This'll be what I am looking for ! I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some camera which I overlooked. Well, since there are no zooms with an aperture larger than f2, and no constant aperture zooms with a 10x factor, I'm not sure that "reasonable" is an applicable term... Now, if you don't want both features in one lens, and the f1.4 isn't necessary in a zoom, that's another thing. In that case, be patient, since Oly introduced a live LCD on a camera, I'm sure improvements are in the pipeline... That was the idea. I agree to have a fast lens (1.4 diaphragm) of a fixed focal length. I need a fast lens so that I could snap shots in dark. If it is a dSLR, I could swap the lens for a zoom lens. I want to snap pictures (e.g. flower or a person) at the tele end, so that the depth of field would be most pronounced. I know that Oly E330, Sony A100 and Canon 20Da have the 'live' LCD. I think one should expect that the twistable LCD screens are not far away. An example of the camera which is close to my requirements is Sony R1. The only problem which I have with it is that its zoom is only 5x (I want at least 10x). One can attach a 1.7 x teleconverter, but it is awkward and expensive at that. I am not sure how it works out. I hope d that the knowledgeable people would be able to advise me :"Definetely take Sony R1" or: "Do not take it !". |
ideal camera for me
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:11:56 -0800, minnesøtti
wrote: Roy G wrote: "Roy G" wrote in message ... "minnesøtti" wrote in message oups.com... Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me: Don't know and don't care. Roy G Seems like I have been a bit snappy and nasty, but what gets me into that state is the uselessness and stupidity of these "My Ideal Gimmick". They always include impossible or unlikely combinations of features, and then always, always add reasonable cost. The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation. There is nothing unreasonable in my demand. Take a Pentax D100K, or a Nikon D80 with 18-200 VR lens, and add a twistable "live" LCD screen. This'll be what I am looking for ! I do not orient well in the world of the digital cameras, so that I hoped that the more knowledgeable peers would be able to advise me some camera which I overlooked. The one that comes closest I think is an Olympus E-330. A "live" LCD on an SLR is difficult--it sounds like what you want is something like a Sony DSC-R1 with interchangeable lenses. Sony could do this and if they did it might be a marketing coup, but I wouldn't hold my breath. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
ideal camera for me
Roy G wrote:
The makers of Hasselblad think their costs are reasonable, and I suppose NASA also consider themselves to be a very cost effective organisation. According to rumor (John Shaw), Hasselblad is suffering financial difficulty, so we shall see ;-) As far as NASA ... they live on tax dollars, which just about promises inefficiency and/or corruption, however, they are clearly getting better on the efficiency front. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com