DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Nov 23, 4:27 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:

You referring to the servos used in P&S cameras. The ones that are
slower, less precise, and harder to control than the manual zooms
found on most SLR lenses.

This is the bottom line: every fly-by-wire zoom I've ever used or tried has
been horrible and every mechanical zoom has been excellent.

It might be theoretically* possible to produce a good fly-by-wire zoom, but
the ones on the cameras one might actually want to buy are horrible.

*: It's probably theoretically impossible on a P&S camera. Since the
feedback system involves the delay from sensor to EVF, they are always going
to be unacceptably slow. Especially in low light were the frame rate goes
down.


Well, with some luck we'll switch to high-speed, high-resolution
electronic viewfinders eventually. Think of the possibilities: real-
time indication of overexposed/underexposed areas, simulation of the
final image in the viewfinder (if one so chooses), etc. And all this
with an articulated LCD, too, for awkward angles.

But currently we're not there, and, overall, I prefer an optical
viewfinder most of the time. And, anyway, I don't think this has much
to do with the crap currently flooding this group and rpdslr.

"acl" wrote:
On Nov 23, 4:27 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:

You referring to the servos used in P&S cameras. The ones that are
slower, less precise, and harder to control than the manual zooms
found on most SLR lenses.

This is the bottom line: every fly-by-wire zoom I've ever used or tried
has
been horrible and every mechanical zoom has been excellent.

It might be theoretically* possible to produce a good fly-by-wire zoom,
but
the ones on the cameras one might actually want to buy are horrible.

*: It's probably theoretically impossible on a P&S camera. Since the
feedback system involves the delay from sensor to EVF, they are always
going
to be unacceptably slow. Especially in low light were the frame rate goes
down.


Well, with some luck we'll switch to high-speed, high-resolution
electronic viewfinders eventually.

Eventually doesn't do a lot of good for the photos I need to take over the
next few years.

But even that's questionable. The F707 was 5 years ago, and there really
hasn't been much improvement in EVFs since then. Extrapolating actual trends
has your "eventually" being a long way off.

(Also, I think that the dcam is close to being a technologically mature
product. We're not going to get much more than the current 30% QE, and the
microlenses already collect most of the light from the pixel area. There's
another stop or two of dynamic range to be had at ISO 100 in the large-pixel
dSLRs, but that's about it.)

Think of the possibilities: real-
time indication of overexposed/underexposed areas, simulation of the
final image in the viewfinder (if one so chooses), etc. And all this
with an articulated LCD, too, for awkward angles.

See my other note on articulated anglesg. But you can just look at the
scene and see what's going to blow. Sheesh, it seems that people don't want
to have to think and actually look at the scene they're photographing and
want the camera to do everything for them.

But currently we're not there, and, overall, I prefer an optical
viewfinder most of the time. And, anyway, I don't think this has much
to do with the crap currently flooding this group and rpdslr.

To say nothing of the 7 other groups we're crossposting to...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 23 Nov 2007 01:06:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

John Navas wrote:
SMS ???• ?
Neil Harrington wrote:

I haven't seen it on any new laptop, including any the ones I've bought over
the last three or four years. IIRC Toshiba used to use the little blue
button thingy, and they don't now.

Dell still has it on some business notebooks, such as the D630. It was
also on the D620. They are going after the users that will no longer buy
Thinkpads, but that got used to the TrackPoint.

And prefer it. Like so many better tools, you have to learn how to use
it effectively before it pays off.

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.

Technology that requires the user to adapt is inherently flawed.
Technology needs to adapt the the user.

Every bit of technology around you is causing you to adapt to it. It's just
happening so slow that you don't notice it.

Not too long ago people lived in caves and in mildly heated temporary shelters.
This caused them to burn off excessive calories rapidly by using fat-stores to
keep the body warm. You evolved so that approximately 70% of your calories are
devoted to just that purpose. In fact I still take advantage of this in winter
to burn off any pounds I gained in summer just by lowering the temperature in my
home. I don't have to change my habits at all, nor even how much I eat. I can
lose up to a pound per day even while I sleep. (After the outside temperatures
have dropped enough to take advantage of the free cold air.) My body turns up
its internal thermostat within about 10 days of living in lower temperature
conditions. It adapts easily to that more natural 45-55 degree indoor
temperature. I can wear nothing but socks, shorts, and a T-shirt and I'm
perfectly content at 45-55 F. Weight gain is not due to modern eating habits,
it's due to modern heating habits.

You also evolved to eat seasonal foods, massive quantities of only one kind at a
time with long periods of fasting between food sources. Burning off fat-stores
while trying to migrate to new sources in many instances. Your body's natural
evolution to living on this planet developed seasonal and cyclic use of gaining
and burning fat over short to long periods of time. You kept that system
flexible and in perfect working order back then. Now you don't exercise that
portion of your evolutionary system at all and it goes into atrophy. Tell
someone to not eat for 3 days, let alone 3 weeks and watch them freak out. I've
gone as long as 3 months in one particularly harsh winter due to being snowed in
where there was no food and no help. Today it doesn't even bother me if I have
to go without food for a week. I don't even feel hungry during that short of a
span. After having lived through these things and studying evolution and the
development of all life on earth I now suspect the "well balanced (continuous)
diet" is the cause of many modern illnesses. From diabetes and who knows what
else.

In case you believe these are dangerously unhealthy practices -- seasonal
low-temperature living, fasting long periods, lots of the same seasonal foods,
only 1 or 2 kinds of food per day or week (imagine foraging), etc. The last time
I was to a Dr. for a busted bone from falling out of a tree I was told my
insides were 25 years younger than my chronological age. People tell me I look
20 years younger than I am too. I can also heal a completely broken bone in 3
weeks to where the break can't even be detected on an x-ray anymore. I've also
outlived 2 (I was told "incurable") modern diseases that have killed millions of
people. I must be doing something right.

I cite these evolutionary examples because ...

In order for society to adapt to this new modern technology of living in
over-heated caves and having their multi-food platters brought to them daily
with no need for lengthy fasting, they had to invent health and exercise clubs,
imitation steps in the cliff that move for them called stair-masters, and
motorized (motorized yet!) treadmills, and who knows all what mouse-cages they
invented. All the diets that never seem to work, and insulin treatments, and all
the "health" laws they pass with zero-trans-fats, and no smoking laws, (you
adapted to inhale campfires daily, yes, I smoke too, this allows me to snorkel
to great depths due to being able to hold my breath much longer than others, but
I digress) ...... ALL THIS in trying to adapt their behavior to try to adapt to
the very technology in which they have enslaved themselves.

Your logic and reasoning is inherently flawed. Find and use a functioning mind.

(sorry for the OT, I got bored reading the tomes of misinformative posts about
photography and cameras from people that have obviously never been near either
in real life)

On Nov 23, 4:55 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"acl" wrote:
On Nov 23, 4:27 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Well, with some luck we'll switch to high-speed, high-resolution
electronic viewfinders eventually.

Eventually doesn't do a lot of good for the photos I need to take over the
next few years.

Sure. That's why I finally ended up with a dslr last year, and I'm not
changing it any time soon.


But even that's questionable. The F707 was 5 years ago, and there really
hasn't been much improvement in EVFs since then. Extrapolating actual trends
has your "eventually" being a long way off.

(Also, I think that the dcam is close to being a technologically mature
product. We're not going to get much more than the current 30% QE, and the
microlenses already collect most of the light from the pixel area. There's
another stop or two of dynamic range to be had at ISO 100 in the large-pixel
dSLRs, but that's about it.)

Think of the possibilities: real-
time indication of overexposed/underexposed areas, simulation of the
final image in the viewfinder (if one so chooses), etc. And all this
with an articulated LCD, too, for awkward angles.

See my other note on articulated anglesg. But you can just look at the
scene and see what's going to blow. Sheesh, it seems that people don't want
to have to think and actually look at the scene they're photographing and
want the camera to do everything for them.

Well, I'd love the option of seeing it on screen. I'm not that good at
judging dynamic range by eye, except in obvious cases, and this beats
spotmetering (see the dynax 7 film camera for a neat way to present
information-wouldn't it be better superimposed on the image, if it had
no drawbacks?).


But currently we're not there, and, overall, I prefer an optical
viewfinder most of the time. And, anyway, I don't think this has much
to do with the crap currently flooding this group and rpdslr.

To say nothing of the 7 other groups we're crossposting to...

Well, I don't read them, so I don't care (sorry). But seeing rpd and
rpdslr becoming what they are at the moment really ****es me off,
given what they were. We're at the point where people can't be
bothered to point out obvious untruths because they can't post as much
as the troll. But the troll is helped by the idiots who reply and
agree with him: it's the old divide and conquer at work (that, and
simple stupidity-sorry again!).

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:40:27 -0800 (PST), acl
wrote:

On Nov 23, 4:27 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:

You referring to the servos used in P&S cameras. The ones that are
slower, less precise, and harder to control than the manual zooms
found on most SLR lenses.

This is the bottom line: every fly-by-wire zoom I've ever used or tried has
been horrible and every mechanical zoom has been excellent.

It might be theoretically* possible to produce a good fly-by-wire zoom, but
the ones on the cameras one might actually want to buy are horrible.

*: It's probably theoretically impossible on a P&S camera. Since the
feedback system involves the delay from sensor to EVF, they are always going
to be unacceptably slow. Especially in low light were the frame rate goes
down.


Well, with some luck we'll switch to high-speed, high-resolution
electronic viewfinders eventually. Think of the possibilities: real-
time indication of overexposed/underexposed areas, simulation of the
final image in the viewfinder (if one so chooses), etc. And all this
with an articulated LCD, too, for awkward angles.

pssst.... don't look now, all but the high-resolution part has already been done
in any of the Canon models with a swiveling LCD with CHDK added.

Catch up! Every CHDK camera owner with a swiveling LCD has been enjoying all
this and OH so much more, you wouldn't believe!, for over half a year.

Here's some fun beginner's pages in case you are curious to what no DSLR can
ever do, not as long as they depend on that OVF from last century:

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/UBASIC/TutorialScratchpad

We haven't even added in all the latest commands for 108 video compression
levels in 2 different types, extended shutter speeds to 1 minute, high-speed
burst mode used for bracketing in as many steps as you want, USB remote control
commands (no tethered computer ever needed), I'm forgetting so many, the motion
detection commands were added already I think, ... anyway, we're having too much
fun with our cameras to update those pages.



But currently we're not there, and, overall, I prefer an optical
viewfinder most of the time. And, anyway, I don't think this has much
to do with the crap currently flooding this group and rpdslr.

That's a good boy, you stick with that OVF and DSLR. It's SO much better!

(did the sarcasm come through enough, should I try again?)

(or maybe he was being sarcastic and it didn't come through at all, it's so hard
to tell sometimes, normally they just say they were trying to be sarcastic to
cover up their stupidity and ignorance in instances like this)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:55:11 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"acl" wrote:
On Nov 23, 4:27 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:

You referring to the servos used in P&S cameras. The ones that are
slower, less precise, and harder to control than the manual zooms
found on most SLR lenses.

This is the bottom line: every fly-by-wire zoom I've ever used or tried
has
been horrible and every mechanical zoom has been excellent.

It might be theoretically* possible to produce a good fly-by-wire zoom,
but
the ones on the cameras one might actually want to buy are horrible.

*: It's probably theoretically impossible on a P&S camera. Since the
feedback system involves the delay from sensor to EVF, they are always
going
to be unacceptably slow. Especially in low light were the frame rate goes
down.


Well, with some luck we'll switch to high-speed, high-resolution
electronic viewfinders eventually.

Eventually doesn't do a lot of good for the photos I need to take over the
next few years.

But even that's questionable. The F707 was 5 years ago, and there really
hasn't been much improvement in EVFs since then. Extrapolating actual trends
has your "eventually" being a long way off.

(Also, I think that the dcam is close to being a technologically mature
product. We're not going to get much more than the current 30% QE, and the
microlenses already collect most of the light from the pixel area. There's
another stop or two of dynamic range to be had at ISO 100 in the large-pixel
dSLRs, but that's about it.)

Think of the possibilities: real-
time indication of overexposed/underexposed areas, simulation of the
final image in the viewfinder (if one so chooses), etc. And all this
with an articulated LCD, too, for awkward angles.

See my other note on articulated anglesg. But you can just look at the
scene and see what's going to blow. Sheesh, it seems that people don't want
to have to think and actually look at the scene they're photographing and
want the camera to do everything for them.

But currently we're not there, and, overall, I prefer an optical
viewfinder most of the time. And, anyway, I don't think this has much
to do with the crap currently flooding this group and rpdslr.

To say nothing of the 7 other groups we're crossposting to...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


Ooooh, lookie, another ignorant and stupid one. I'll just let the first ignorant
one share the CHDK links with this ignorant one.

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
John Navas wrote:
SMS ???. ?
Neil Harrington wrote:

I haven't seen it on any new laptop, including any the ones I've bought
over
the last three or four years. IIRC Toshiba used to use the little blue
button thingy, and they don't now.

Dell still has it on some business notebooks, such as the D630. It was
also on the D620. They are going after the users that will no longer buy
Thinkpads, but that got used to the TrackPoint.

And prefer it. Like so many better tools, you have to learn how to use
it effectively before it pays off.

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.

Technology that requires the user to adapt is inherently flawed.
Technology needs to adapt the the user.

Exactly. It's just ridiculous to pretend it's some shortcoming of the user,
for not taking the time to develop the skills necessary to attempt to use a
very awkward control device as effectively as a much easier and more natural
one. And it can't be done anyway. No motorized long zoom will go from end to
end anywhere nearly as fast as a manual zoom of the same f.l. range.

Neil

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:45:51 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
John Navas wrote:
SMS ???. ?
Neil Harrington wrote:

I haven't seen it on any new laptop, including any the ones I've bought
over
the last three or four years. IIRC Toshiba used to use the little blue
button thingy, and they don't now.

Dell still has it on some business notebooks, such as the D630. It was
also on the D620. They are going after the users that will no longer buy
Thinkpads, but that got used to the TrackPoint.

And prefer it. Like so many better tools, you have to learn how to use
it effectively before it pays off.

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.

Technology that requires the user to adapt is inherently flawed.
Technology needs to adapt the the user.

Exactly. It's just ridiculous to pretend it's some shortcoming of the user,
for not taking the time to develop the skills necessary to attempt to use a
very awkward control device as effectively as a much easier and more natural
one. And it can't be done anyway. No motorized long zoom will go from end to
end anywhere nearly as fast as a manual zoom of the same f.l. range.

Neil


Call me the next time that you can go from 28mm to 504mm focal length on that
manual zoom control fast enough.

:-)

(f'n morons, all)

On 2007-11-22 19:21:20 -0700, Exomiter said:

On 23 Nov 2007 01:06:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

John Navas wrote:
SMS ???• ?
Neil Harrington wrote:

I haven't seen it on any new laptop, including any the ones I've bought
over the last three or four years. IIRC Toshiba used to use the little
blue button thingy, and they don't now.

Dell still has it on some business notebooks, such as the D630. It was
also on the D620. They are going after the users that will no longer
buy Thinkpads, but that got used to the TrackPoint.

And prefer it. Like so many better tools, you have to learn how to use
it effectively before it pays off.

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.

Technology that requires the user to adapt is inherently flawed.
Technology needs to adapt the the user.

Every bit of technology around you is causing you to adapt to it. It's just
happening so slow that you don't notice it.

Not too long ago people lived in caves and in mildly heated temporary shelters.
This caused them to burn off excessive calories rapidly by using fat-stores to
keep the body warm. You evolved so that approximately 70% of your calories are
devoted to just that purpose. In fact I still take advantage of this in winter
to burn off any pounds I gained in summer just by lowering the
temperature in my
home. I don't have to change my habits at all, nor even how much I eat. I can
lose up to a pound per day even while I sleep. (After the outside temperatures
have dropped enough to take advantage of the free cold air.) My body turns up
its internal thermostat within about 10 days of living in lower temperature
conditions. It adapts easily to that more natural 45-55 degree indoor
temperature. I can wear nothing but socks, shorts, and a T-shirt and I'm
perfectly content at 45-55 F. Weight gain is not due to modern eating habits,
it's due to modern heating habits.

this is so true!...I burrow into the ground just before it freezes
solid (being careful to leave at least one nostril exposed to fresh
air), and my respiration slows to almost nothing...not only do I lose
weight over the winter, but I save enough on utility bills to follow
the 12-month rule and buy the latest Nikon gear each spring

You also evolved to eat seasonal foods, massive quantities of only one
kind at a
time with long periods of fasting between food sources. Burning off fat-stores
while trying to migrate to new sources in many instances. Your body's natural
evolution to living on this planet developed seasonal and cyclic use of gaining
and burning fat over short to long periods of time. You kept that system
flexible and in perfect working order back then. Now you don't exercise that
portion of your evolutionary system at all and it goes into atrophy. Tell
someone to not eat for 3 days, let alone 3 weeks and watch them freak out. I've
gone as long as 3 months in one particularly harsh winter due to being
snowed in
where there was no food and no help. Today it doesn't even bother me if I have
to go without food for a week. I don't even feel hungry during that short of a
span. After having lived through these things and studying evolution and the
development of all life on earth I now suspect the "well balanced (continuous)

I won't be eating at all in 2008, so I can afford the D3 and the D300
and several new lenses...I also have me eye on a Gitzo that is made of
antigravitas and actually floats a few inch above the ground,
eliminating the last few sources of camera shake, but of course it's
quit expensive even by NASA standards

In case you believe these are dangerously unhealthy practices -- seasonal
low-temperature living, fasting long periods, lots of the same seasonal foods,
only 1 or 2 kinds of food per day or week (imagine foraging), etc. The
last time
I was to a Dr. for a busted bone from falling out of a tree I was told my
insides were 25 years younger than my chronological age. People tell me I look
20 years younger than I am too. I can also heal a completely broken bone in 3
weeks to where the break can't even be detected on an x-ray anymore. I've also
outlived 2 (I was told "incurable") modern diseases that have killed
millions of
people. I must be doing something right.

I am so good-looking it's quite impossible to shoot portraits of anyone
else...they simply get self-conscious...I had the very first female
suicide bomber in my studio a few years back and was very excited about
getting exclusive photos of her, but when she started up with the old
'does this bomb vest make my hips look fat' I knew it would not work
out, and sure enough...

I cite these evolutionary examples because ...

In order for society to adapt to this new modern technology of living in
over-heated caves and having their multi-food platters brought to them daily
with no need for lengthy fasting, they had to invent health and exercise clubs,
imitation steps in the cliff that move for them called stair-masters, and
motorized (motorized yet!) treadmills, and who knows all what mouse-cages they
invented. All the diets that never seem to work, and insulin
treatments, and all
the "health" laws they pass with zero-trans-fats, and no smoking laws, (you
adapted to inhale campfires daily, yes, I smoke too, this allows me to snorkel
to great depths due to being able to hold my breath much longer than
others, but
I digress)

I had to quit smoking while snorkeling as I found the taste of wet
cigars quite unpalatable...I have a fine collection of underwater cigar
lighters for sale on eBay

...... ALL THIS in trying to adapt their behavior to try to adapt to
the very technology in which they have enslaved themselves.

Your logic and reasoning is inherently flawed. Find and use a functioning mind.

once again, I can help out...if you have access to a rhubarb patch,
simply place one large stalk of rhubarb in the center of a ring of
smooth clean stones under a full moon...this oracle can be consulted
for clear and reliable advice about such matters as 'should I vote for
Ron Paul or Pat Paulsen?' or 'which do I need more, a Sigma lens or
minty fresh breath?' or 'am I a wise guy or a truck driver?

(sorry for the OT, I got bored reading the tomes of misinformative posts about
photography and cameras from people that have obviously never been near either
in real life)

you can bypass the tomes and go straight to the misinformation once the
RSS feed is up and running...thanks for sharing your angst
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Ray Fischer" wrote:

You referring to the servos used in P&S cameras. The ones that are
slower, less precise, and harder to control than the manual zooms
found on most SLR lenses.

This is the bottom line: every fly-by-wire zoom I've ever used or tried
has been horrible and every mechanical zoom has been excellent.

It might be theoretically* possible to produce a good fly-by-wire zoom,
but the ones on the cameras one might actually want to buy are horrible.

*: It's probably theoretically impossible on a P&S camera. Since the
feedback system involves the delay from sensor to EVF, they are always
going to be unacceptably slow. Especially in low light were the frame rate
goes down.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


Some of my mechanical zooms slip, and zoom all the way out if I point the
camera down without holding on to the lens barrel. - I don't know if this
"fly-by-wire" stuff can have this same problem or not.