ideal camera for me

minnes?tti wrote:

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 !


Since the fast majority of photographers out there believe they can take a
better picture looking through the viewfinder rather than using a "live LCD",
you are unlikely to find what you are looking for.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:05:09 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
minnes?tti wrote:

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 !


Since the fast majority of photographers out there believe they can take a
better picture looking through the viewfinder rather than using a "live LCD",
you are unlikely to find what you are looking for.

Well, Olympus and Panasonic both are selling DSLRs with a live-preview
option, so the technology does exist.

That would be the solution to the original request. Get the Olympus DSLR
(since it has a tilt/swivel LCD; the Panasonic has a fixed display), a
couple of zoom lenses to cover the focal length range, plus a fast
fixed-focal-length lens for the low-light stuff, and you're good to go.

-dms

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.

Roy G

You're always a bit snappy and nasty. That's what we've all come to
love about you--you old haggiss eater
--
Gator Bait

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
A "live" LCD on an SLR is difficult--

I don't see any problem. Just use the interline CCD type as is used
in P&S cameras.

With the mirror down the camera works like a SLR, with the mirror up
(and shutter open) you get a live preview.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:27:30 +0100, Philip Homburg wrote:

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
A "live" LCD on an SLR is difficult--

I don't see any problem. Just use the interline CCD type as is used
in P&S cameras.

With the mirror down the camera works like a SLR, with the mirror up
(and shutter open) you get a live preview.

So where do you put the meter?


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 28 Nov 2006 20:00:14 GMT, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:27:30 +0100, Philip Homburg wrote:

In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
A "live" LCD on an SLR is difficult--

I don't see any problem. Just use the interline CCD type as is used
in P&S cameras.

With the mirror down the camera works like a SLR, with the mirror up
(and shutter open) you get a live preview.

So where do you put the meter?

Two options:

1: On shutter half-press, drop the mirror to expose the meter/focus
sensors. Meter&focus, then raise the mirror and expose.

2: Do what P&S cameras do, and use the main sensor for metering and
focusing information. Not as good as dedicated sensors, but it does
work.

-dms

On 28 Nov 2006 05:34:46 -0800, minnesøtti wrote:

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 !".

Definitely take the Sony R1 . . . if you don't want to wait
several years for something to appear that more closely resembles
your probably unattainable dream camera.

Where it meets your wishes:
-- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a sensitivity);
-- A very good resolution of the lens;

Where it doesn't:
-- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4);
It's several stops slower, f/2.8 to f/4.8

-- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x;
It only has a 5x lens

-- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps;
It can take up to 3 continuous shots at 3 fps, and only for jpg
images, as the R1 doesn't allow continuous shooting in RAW mode.
After that quick burst you won't be able to take any more shots for
nearly 8 seconds if an 80x card is used. The delay can be shorter
if a faster card is used.

-- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot.
It has one, but it's not attached in the usual position

-- Reasonably priced;
It's probably dropped in price from its initial lofty $1000, but
if you want to add the expensive lens adapters to broaden its 5x
range, bring lots of cash, as either of them will push the price
back up above $1000.

-- Reasonably small.
Even without the lens adapters, it's big and heavy for anyone
used to even large P&S cameras. At only a slightly greater height
and width than Canon's 350D it wouldn't be seen as a big camera by
most DSLR users, but it's far from small, and at 2.2 pounds is no
lightweight. The telephoto conversion lens adds another 2 pounds.
It's reasonably small if your frame of reference is cameras that
resemble bowling balls.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
...
minnes?tti wrote:

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 !


Since the fast majority of photographers out there believe they can take a
better picture looking through the viewfinder rather than using a "live
LCD",
you are unlikely to find what you are looking for.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


Why not, Thomas?
After all, one can see much better and judge of the results from a vewfinder
than a LCD, especially in the sun. When I had the Canon Pro1 and found out I
could use the viewfinder rather than the LCD, this was my choice.
Marcel

"Bill K" 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.

Roy G

You're always a bit snappy and nasty. That's what we've all come to
love about you--you old haggiss eater
--
Gator Bait

Watch it.

Have you learned to use cutlery in a civilised manner yet??

By that, I mean holding the knife in the Right hand while simultaneously
using the fork in the Left hand.

Roy G

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
ASAAR wrote:

Definitely take the Sony R1 . . . if you don't want to wait
several years for something to appear that more closely resembles
your probably unattainable dream camera.

Why? The Panasonic LX2 has far superior image quality and is much cheaper
and smaller.

I have a Panasonic LX1. I like the lens' resolution and its low
aberrations. I like the capability to choose out of the rich set of
settings.

However, now I want a camera which would have a larger dynamic range
than LX1, and more sensitivity (E.g. I want to be able to take the
pictures in the dim light, and to take the pictures of the buildings
which are half-lit by the Sun, and the other half is in deep shade).
Secondly, I want a camera which has a greater depth of field, so that I
could take the pictures of people and of objects with the complete
blurring of the background. For this, I need a camera with a larger
sensor such as APS-C (Sony R1 has it), and a long zoom (at least 10x)
(Sony has only 5x).

I had a look at Oly E-330, and I was not totally convinced that it is
what I want. The flippable LCD screen has a limited degree of movement
freedom. In the image quality department, this is an unremarkable
camera. I would have to spend a fortune for the fast fixed and for the
telezoom lenses.