Decent alternative to dslr?

On Nov 5, 12:07 pm, NEWS FLASH - DSLR IDIOTS - AT IT AGAIN!
wrote:
NEWS FLASH - DSLR IDIOTS - AT IT AGAIN!


Quick! Which part of the topic of "Decent ALTERNATIVES to dslr?" do you fail to
understand?



Quicker!! What part of "solution to a problem" did you fail to
understand?

As to who the idiot is, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:25:44 -0000, "Henry" wrote:

What I don't want in *no* VF at all - which seems to be a growing trend, I
couldn't bear holding out the camera at arm's length to see the shot on the
rear LCD (although lots of people seem perfectly happy with that
arrangement)

While I agree that just an LCD only viewfinder would be unusually limiting at
times, don't discount some of the things it can be used for.

One excellent example is when trying to take macro-photos of insects in flight.
I invented a technique for myself where I set the focus manually to about 2 feet
in front of the lens, using a tele-macro lens arrangement so I get a good
close-up but with lots of working distance. Then setting the f/stop about
halfway for a fairly deep DOF. By holding the camera with arms half extended and
looking in the LCD only, you can quickly swing the camera around in all 3
dimensions to accurately follow and frame that insect in flight as it's buzzing
around plants and flowers. Following its rapid movements while also keeping it
within the depth you've chosen for clear focus by moving the camera toward and
away from you too, just as fast as the insect is flying. I've obtained some
macro photos of insects in flight using this method that would be impossible
with an EVF or any optical viewfinder held to the eye.

Another method is to use the same technique as an advance image stabilization
system when you are in a moving vehicle that is shaking or any platform that is
moving far beyond what any IS system can compensate for. By using the inertia
and mass of the camera, you partially tense your arm muscles into a sort of
spring suspension while framing and focusing through the LCD. You can be riding
on the back of a bouncing snowmobile at 50 mph and still hold the camera
perfectly still once you get the hang of how it works. Learn to practice this
am-spring-balance method. Again, this is impossible to do by using an EVF or
optical viewfinder held to the face.

These are just two of the more extreme and impossible to duplicate examples
where an LCD may come in handy for you one day.


My memories of EVF's are of fairly grainy images that gave you a general
picture (no pun intended) of the scene, but were not much good for focus or
detailed framing.

Framing is 100% accurate. Unlike all optical viewfinders which are never 100%
accurate, and any stray light entering from the back of the camera will offset
the exposure readings in any DSLR. But you might still be annoyed by some of the
lower resolution EVF displays, until you get used to them and find their
benefits.

I have also found a technique where you can use a pixelated EVF display to
improve manual focusing to where it is even faster and more accurate than using
an optical viewfinder. Think of the whole screen as a micro-prism, like you are
used to seeing as the small semi-circle in any SLR focusing screen. Now, think
of its properties in reverse. In an EVF when the details and contrasting edges
are in focus, those pixels will scintillate as they are individually lit and
darkened as the in-focus features pass over the EVF's pixels. Any areas not in
focus won't cause this scintillation effect because they are only gradually
lighting and darkening adjoining pixels. The exact opposite of what happens in a
micro-prism in an optical viewfinder.

Once you learn how to see this you'll wonder how you ever did without it. That
coarse and grainy image is more beneficial than you might first think. Instead
of wondering if just the center is in focus, as in an optical viewfinder (unless
its just a low-contrast and low-light frosted screen), you can rapidly see which
parts of your whole scene are in accurate focus in an EVF from this pixel
scintillation.


Perhaps EVF's have improved in the last few years?, I suppose they must
have.

Some have, some have not. But I have found that the more of them that I used,
the more ways I found to use them to my benefit, greatly increasing my chances
of getting the best shot. Some photos that I could have never accomplished at
all with an optical viewfinder in the past.

You'll find out, once you get the hang of it.

Think in new ways. Try new things.

I did. That's why I'll never care if any camera I own ever has an optical
viewfinder ever again. People can cry about the benefits of an optical
viewfinder all they want. Doesn't matter one bit to me. I know better now. They
don't.

"Henry" wrote in message
...
Hi


First, let me pre-empt the flame brigade by saying that I *have* done a
lot of on-line research in an attempt to reach a decision - but I'd like
some thoughts from people who might have hands-on experience.

I've been using dslrs for about three years now - or rather *not* using
them because I very often just can't face all the hassle of carting the
necessary paraphernalia around with me.

I know all the IQ advantages of a dslr over a P&S but I 'd still like
something easily transportable and generally less 'fussy'

So my question is, which is the *best* non-dslr camera out there below 500
GBP??

I'd define *best* for my purposes as

1 - image quality - the lowest noise possible up to 800 iso

2 - features - optical viewfinder is a must-have as much manual control
as possible, decent lens.

3 - size - doesn't have to be 'micro' but generally small and easy to
carry around.

4 - build quality - as rugged as possible

Brand is unimportant.

Any thoughts or personal recommendations would be appreciated.

TIA Henry




Everyone seems to be telling you to get an EVF long zoom P&S, but I'll tell
you from personal experience what the main problem with them is, not
resolution as a good auto focus sort of negates that requirement, it's the
sluggishness of the display. If you tried to use one at an air show you
would soon realise how hard it is to get any decent shots as compared with a
DSLR where nearly every shot is a keeper.

In article , Doug McDonald says...

What about macro range?

Compact cameras are generally speaking very well suited for macro
photography, because of the small sensor. Lots of DOF and no need to use
dedicated macro lenses.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:50:58 -0000, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Henry" wrote in message
...
Hi


First, let me pre-empt the flame brigade by saying that I *have* done a
lot of on-line research in an attempt to reach a decision - but I'd like
some thoughts from people who might have hands-on experience.

I've been using dslrs for about three years now - or rather *not* using
them because I very often just can't face all the hassle of carting the
necessary paraphernalia around with me.

I know all the IQ advantages of a dslr over a P&S but I 'd still like
something easily transportable and generally less 'fussy'

So my question is, which is the *best* non-dslr camera out there below 500
GBP??

I'd define *best* for my purposes as

1 - image quality - the lowest noise possible up to 800 iso

2 - features - optical viewfinder is a must-have as much manual control
as possible, decent lens.

3 - size - doesn't have to be 'micro' but generally small and easy to
carry around.

4 - build quality - as rugged as possible

Brand is unimportant.

Any thoughts or personal recommendations would be appreciated.

TIA Henry




Everyone seems to be telling you to get an EVF long zoom P&S, but I'll tell
you from personal experience what the main problem with them is, not
resolution as a good auto focus sort of negates that requirement, it's the
sluggishness of the display. If you tried to use one at an air show you
would soon realise how hard it is to get any decent shots as compared with a
DSLR where nearly every shot is a keeper.


I swear, some of you DSLR advocates must be buying your P&S cameras in a Good
Will bin for $15, selecting models from 8 years ago that were thrown away for
obvious reasons.

Do yourself a favor so you don't look so ignorant and foolish sometime. Test any
of the newer models in the last 6 years.

Do you think I could follow, frame, and focus on an annoyed wasp in flight in an
EVF or LCD if the display was sluggish? In tele-macro mode at that? Where the
wasp is filling up a 3rd of the display? Really now. Think about it, okay? In a
P&S camera that was manufactured over 5 years ago too.

Now go do some real homework instead of just regurgitating what you've read
every other DSLR advocate ever say. Then come back and tell us how things really
are one day after you've wiped that obvious egg off your face. That's the
trouble with believing what you've been told on the web by some self-appointed
"pro" idiot. Someone who has actual experience will come along one day and make
you look like a fool if you repeat what you are not sure about and never
bothered to test it yourself.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:50:58 -0000, Steve B wrote:

Everyone seems to be telling you to get an EVF long zoom P&S, but I'll tell
you from personal experience what the main problem with them is, not
resolution as a good auto focus sort of negates that requirement, it's the
sluggishness of the display. If you tried to use one at an air show you
would soon realise how hard it is to get any decent shots as compared with a
DSLR where nearly every shot is a keeper.

For something like an airshow, that's not at all true, as you can track
the planes through the viewfinder without any problem. Get a model with
fairly fast focussing (e.g. a Panasonic or a recent Canon), and airshow
photography with a superzoom is straightforward. I've taken plenty of
well-timed airshow shots with my FZ5.

EVFs do have some disadvantages:

* low resolution compared to an optical finder, which makes manual
focus more difficult
* Some lag, which makes photographing sudden action (as opposed
to tracking something and anticipating the right moment) harder.

In both cases, the limitations can be mitigated or eliminated with the
right techniques, but they are still things that need to be considered.

-dms

Doug McDonald writes:

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Doug McDonald says...

What about macro range?
Compact cameras are generally speaking very well suited for macro
photography, because of the small sensor. Lots of DOF and no need to use
dedicated macro lenses.

That's not the question. One can get DOF and exactly the same
noise performance as a P&S with an SLR by stopping down.

At least until diffraction sets in.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

Henry wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Henry wrote:

2 - features - optical viewfinder is a must-have as much manual
control as possible, decent lens.

I'm interested why an optical VF is a must-have?

True, the electronic VF in my Olympus C-770 is a complete waste of time
for manually focusing on a subject, so if manual focus is an issue, it
makes sense (if it works better with an optical VF - I don't know).

OTOH, having a histogram in the viewfinder is brilliant - something the
DSLR brigade seem not to appreciate. :-)

Sorry - I unintentionally misled you. although an 'optical' (as in
'looking through glass') VF would be nice, I'm not averse to a good EVF.

Ah, OK. I suspect I'm not alone in that misunderstanding. :-)

What I don't want in *no* VF at all - which seems to be a growing trend,
I couldn't bear holding out the camera at arm's length to see the shot on
the rear LCD (although lots of people seem perfectly happy with that
arrangement)

Yeah, I'm with you on that one.

My memories of EVF's are of fairly grainy images that gave you a general
picture (no pun intended) of the scene, but were not much good for focus
or detailed framing.

The lack of resolution and clarity do make it difficult, but for me it's
more the focus mechanism that makes it pretty much impossible to manually
focus my C-770. With a focus ring on the lens you at least have a chance.

If my next camera isn't a DSLR, it will have focus and zoom rings on the
lens (like the Panasonic DMC-FZ50, for instance).

Perhaps EVF's have improved in the last few years?, I suppose they must
have.

I hope and expect so.

"Michael Meissner" wrote:
Doug McDonald writes:

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Doug McDonald says...

What about macro range?
Compact cameras are generally speaking very well suited for macro
photography, because of the small sensor. Lots of DOF and no need to
use
dedicated macro lenses.

That's not the question. One can get DOF and exactly the same
noise performance as a P&S with an SLR by stopping down.

At least until diffraction sets in.

Diffraction bites you at different f stops, depending on the format. (This
is because with digital, one tends to have the same resolution in lines per
height (i.e. similar MP counts) across different formats.)

This means that you can use much smaller apertures on dSLRs than P&S
cameras. The 5D produces critically sharp images at f/16, while you can't
stop down below f/5.6 on many P&S cameras.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Michael Meissner" wrote in message
...
Doug McDonald writes:

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Doug McDonald says...

What about macro range?
Compact cameras are generally speaking very well suited for macro
photography, because of the small sensor. Lots of DOF and no need to
use
dedicated macro lenses.

That's not the question. One can get DOF and exactly the same
noise performance as a P&S with an SLR by stopping down.

At least until diffraction sets in.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

Oh Michael... You let truth interfer with a good story again!
One of my "impossible shots" taken with a lowly little Olympus P&S
demonstrates DOF no DSLR could produce When I tried using a 5D Canon and
24 -70 F/2.8 lens, It simply didn't equal the Olympus in that area.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/55467407

I guess by now Michael, you've realized you can take a horse to water but
you can't make it drink!

Douglas