If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:20:56 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz 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. By all means. It may not do too well in dim light but what the heck. Win some, lose some, and it's not my money. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
"minnesøtti" wrote in message ups.com... ---------------------------- 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 ! ----------------------------- The sensors used in both of these cameras do not have live readout capability, so yes it is an unreasonable demand. Mark |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:36:21 -0500, "Celcius"
wrote: What possible use would a Nikon D80 have of such an LCD? You only use the LCD to see the result ;-)))) The lack of a twistable LCD is the #1 thing I missed when I went from the Canon G1 to the DSLR series (300D then 1DMII). I would use a twistable LCD even on my 1DMII if it were available. I would like this feature on my next DLSR and would use it in at least 2 ways: 1) To make it easier to show the LCD to someone else while I'm holding the camera (my hand in the hand-hold strap makes it hard to twist the camera to align the LCD properly for someone else to view it straight on). 2) To shoot hand-held over my head (e.g. shooting over the heads of people standing in front of me) or at my waist (shooting candids without bringing the camera up in front of my face, which can make subjects self-conscious). Yes, I can only view the shot after I take it, but by shooting, seeing what I get on preview by looking at the twisted LCD, adjusting my hold and shooting again I can get the shots. Without a twistable LCD I have to move the camera to view the result of the first shot which makes "adjusting my hold" almost impossible for subsequent shots. jc -- "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
"JC Dill" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:36:21 -0500, "Celcius" wrote: What possible use would a Nikon D80 have of such an LCD? You only use the LCD to see the result ;-)))) The lack of a twistable LCD is the #1 thing I missed when I went from the Canon G1 to the DSLR series (300D then 1DMII). I would use a twistable LCD even on my 1DMII if it were available. I would like this feature on my next DLSR and would use it in at least 2 ways: 1) To make it easier to show the LCD to someone else while I'm holding the camera (my hand in the hand-hold strap makes it hard to twist the camera to align the LCD properly for someone else to view it straight on). 2) To shoot hand-held over my head (e.g. shooting over the heads of people standing in front of me) or at my waist (shooting candids without bringing the camera up in front of my face, which can make subjects self-conscious). Yes, I can only view the shot after I take it, but by shooting, seeing what I get on preview by looking at the twisted LCD, adjusting my hold and shooting again I can get the shots. Without a twistable LCD I have to move the camera to view the result of the first shot which makes "adjusting my hold" almost impossible for subsequent shots. jc -- "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA OK But the twistable LCD is not part of a DSLR. Period. I also started with a Canon G1. I do it differently now with a XT. A DSLR doesn't use the LCD. Period. Let's get over it and forge ahead! Marcel |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:47:53 -0500, "Celcius"
wrote: A DSLR doesn't use the LCD. Period. It doesn't now, but that doesn't mean it never will. Let's get over it and forge ahead! It sounds like YOU need to "get over it". I'm just mentioning some valid uses for the feature if it ever gets implemented. Sheesh jc -- "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:47:53 -0500, Celcius wrote:
2) To shoot hand-held over my head (e.g. shooting over the heads of people standing in front of me) or at my waist (shooting candids without bringing the camera up in front of my face, which can make subjects self-conscious). Yes, I can only view the shot after I take it, but by shooting, seeing what I get on preview by looking at the twisted LCD, adjusting my hold and shooting again I can get the shots. Without a twistable LCD I have to move the camera to view the result of the first shot which makes "adjusting my hold" almost impossible for subsequent shots. OK But the twistable LCD is not part of a DSLR. Period. I also started with a Canon G1. I do it differently now with a XT. A DSLR doesn't use the LCD. Period. Let's get over it and forge ahead! There are now several DSLRs that use the LCD. They include the Panasonic Lumix L1 and Leica Digilux 3 (virtually the same camera), Olympus's E400 (only intended to be sold in Europe) and the first to use a 'live' LCD, Olympus's E-330, which is the only one of the lot that has a moveable LCD display. We're now beyond it. Mush! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
"JC Dill" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:47:53 -0500, "Celcius" wrote: A DSLR doesn't use the LCD. Period. It doesn't now, but that doesn't mean it never will. Let's get over it and forge ahead! It sounds like YOU need to "get over it". I'm just mentioning some valid uses for the feature if it ever gets implemented. Sheesh jc -- "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA JC, Sorry for being abrupt (I got over it) ;-) What I find is the fact that most of the time, with a camera that uses an LCD, reflection, light, the sun, whatever... get in the way. My second camera was a Canon Pro1. It could use the LCD, it was also "twistable", but I constantly used the viewfinder which was very clear and, according to Canon, covered 100% of the scene. It also had "spot metering", ISO down to 50, 2.0" TFT, 235,000 pixels LCD, 8MP, etc. : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/page2.asp perhaps the closest to the description the OP made. That camera had a major flaw however: When it was new, after using it for 50 or so shots, the lens froze up on me. Henry's gave me a new one. Less than a year later, when I was on a trip to Greece, it did it again. When I came back, Canon repaired it on warranty, but I elected to trade it in for a Canon 350D. Take care, and sorry again. Marcel |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
"Celcius" wrote in message
... That camera had a major flaw however: When it was new, after using it for 50 or so shots, the lens froze up on me. Henry's gave me a new one. Less than a year later, when I was on a trip to Greece, it did it again. When I came back, Canon repaired it on warranty, but I elected to trade it in for a Canon 350D. They don't make cameras the way they used to. The environment has changed from buying for long-term use (and having repair facilities when the equipment failed) to stamping the gear out on automated assembly lines, and replacing it rather than repairing it. The technology improvements made it rather silly to fix something when a replacement often cost less and did more. Whether that is bad or good is something everyone can decide for themselves. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
What would the life expectancy (working without problems) of a digital
camera be today. From my own experience with previous cameras it appears that 30 months of good usage is about the best duration. That's why I am reluctant to spent over $500.00 for a camera. What do you think? "Celcius" wrote in message ... "JC Dill" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:47:53 -0500, "Celcius" wrote: A DSLR doesn't use the LCD. Period. It doesn't now, but that doesn't mean it never will. Let's get over it and forge ahead! It sounds like YOU need to "get over it". I'm just mentioning some valid uses for the feature if it ever gets implemented. Sheesh jc -- "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA JC, Sorry for being abrupt (I got over it) ;-) What I find is the fact that most of the time, with a camera that uses an LCD, reflection, light, the sun, whatever... get in the way. My second camera was a Canon Pro1. It could use the LCD, it was also "twistable", but I constantly used the viewfinder which was very clear and, according to Canon, covered 100% of the scene. It also had "spot metering", ISO down to 50, 2.0" TFT, 235,000 pixels LCD, 8MP, etc. : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/page2.asp perhaps the closest to the description the OP made. That camera had a major flaw however: When it was new, after using it for 50 or so shots, the lens froze up on me. Henry's gave me a new one. Less than a year later, when I was on a trip to Greece, it did it again. When I came back, Canon repaired it on warranty, but I elected to trade it in for a Canon 350D. Take care, and sorry again. Marcel |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
ideal camera for me
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:37:06 GMT, wrote:
What would the life expectancy (working without problems) of a digital camera be today. As long as the supporting hardware (batteries, memory cards, etc) hold out. And, of course, as long as the output of the camera (particular RAW format, JPEG) is supported. IOW, for the camera itself, as long as there are no problems, forever. From my own experience with previous cameras it appears that 30 months of good usage is about the best duration. Ah! "Good usage". That's not objective, it's subjective. A very different thing. That's why I am reluctant to spent over $500.00 for a camera. What do you think? It depends on your own personal situation. Rather obviously. :-) -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 24-70 2.8 L USM and 100 or 180 macro? etc. Ideal set ? | fr@nk | Digital Photography | 5 | July 12th 06 03:51 AM |
"Ideal" Camera/computer bag for travelling | Brian Sullivan | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | April 29th 06 02:02 PM |
Ideal small camera carry around kit | Colyn | 35mm Photo Equipment | 37 | February 18th 06 10:53 PM |
Ideal DSLR | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | July 18th 05 04:31 PM |
Ideal camera case for ps so hard to find! | Ajanta | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | August 22nd 04 04:16 AM |