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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants
Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:40:38 +0000, David Taylor wrote: : On 25/03/2013 02:08, RichA wrote: : On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, David Taylor david- : wrote: : On 24/03/2013 19:02, James Silverton wrote: : [] : : I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term : "bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them : look nearly as bulky as DSLR's. : : There was quite a discussion at one time about what to call them - : "bridge cameras" now seem to be a generally accepted term. : : : That used to refer to cameras with reasonable-sized sensors that could : "kind of" emulate DSLR output, not superzooms. : : It referred more to the shape of the camera and the presence of an : electronic viewfinder (EVF) providing the "reflex" than the zoom range : of the lens. The first bridge camera I owned was the Lumix FZ5, with : more than 10:1 zoom range. : : See: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera I'd have said (Back me up here, guys!) that the term "bridge camera" predated by several years the widespread use of any EVF. I'd have said it predated digital. Olympus did a load of bridge super zooms. BugBear |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants
Bowser wrote:
I made the move to m4/3 over the last few months. All the Canon FF gear is gone, and I haven't missed it. Just too damned heavy, obtrusive, and expensive. I don't shoot sports any more, so I miss nothing. And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on either. :-) -Wolfgang |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants
In article , Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Bowser wrote: I made the move to m4/3 over the last few months. All the Canon FF gear is gone, and I haven't missed it. Just too damned heavy, obtrusive, and expensive. I don't shoot sports any more, so I miss nothing. And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on either. :-) You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3. -- "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants
Paul Ciszek wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Bowser wrote: I made the move to m4/3 over the last few months. All the Canon FF gear is gone, and I haven't missed it. Just too damned heavy, obtrusive, and expensive. I don't shoot sports any more, so I miss nothing. And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on either. :-) You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3. Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF. Colour me not very impressed. Canon (EF (full format)): f/1.8: 28mm, 50mm (cheapest lens from Canon), 85mm f/1.4: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm f/1.2: 50mm, 85mm Nikon seems to have at least (but I don't know much about Nikon): f/1.8: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm f/1.4: 24mm, 35mm, 85mm f/1.2: 50mm And of course there are further lenses from third parties for both systems. -Wolfgang |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants
In article , Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Paul Ciszek wrote: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Bowser wrote: I made the move to m4/3 over the last few months. All the Canon FF gear is gone, and I haven't missed it. Just too damned heavy, obtrusive, and expensive. I don't shoot sports any more, so I miss nothing. And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on either. :-) You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3. Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF. Colour me not very impressed.\ Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus than *out* of focus, and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering ability. -- "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants
In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote: I made the move to m4/3 over the last few months. All the Canon FF gear is gone, and I haven't missed it. Just too damned heavy, obtrusive, and expensive. I don't shoot sports any more, so I miss nothing. And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on either. :-) You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3. Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF. Colour me not very impressed.\ Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus than *out* of focus, and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering ability. except that the smaller sensor on m43 means more noise. f/0.95 on m43 is equivalent to f/1.9 on full frame for the same image quality and dof, but on full frame you can go wider and gather even more light (but with shallower dof). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants
Paul Ciszek wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Paul Ciszek wrote: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Bowser wrote: I made the move to m4/3 over the last few months. All the Canon FF gear is gone, and I haven't missed it. Just too damned heavy, obtrusive, and expensive. I don't shoot sports any more, so I miss nothing. And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on either. :-) You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3. Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF. Colour me not very impressed.\ Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus than *out* of focus, Of course. *They* can use f/8 on FF (or f/4 on 4/3rds). :- and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering ability. And yet f/1.4 on FF is a better light gatherer than f/0.95 on 4/3rds: important is the amount of light on the whole sensor. And if you like it that way: Assume the same pixel count. Each pixel gets more light, because it's "more larger" than the f/1.4 is smaller compared to the f/0.95. (Oh, and there's f/1.2, too.) So the FF sensor can use more pixels at the same quality per pixel, or use the same pixel count and a lower ISO and hence more quality (or a shorter exposure time). If you need smaller size and weight more than you need very shallow DOF and extreme light gathering ability, you may be much better served with 4/3rds or (if you want even smaller and don't need an OVF) m4/3. -Wolfgang |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants
On 3/23/2013 8:52 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: : Canon: : : M: Camera too expensive for a non-EVF body. Their lack-luster, last- : to-the-party "commitment" to mirrorless. But I hear they are about to : redeem themselves on this. Really? The only one I've heard predict that is me, and my predictions have fallen on deaf ears. (Justifiably, I suppose, since I have no inside information and am just guessing.) : Their entire line of low to mid-end, cookie-cutter DSLRs. Time to : retire the Rebels. They're successful because they take good pictures and some people really like them. My wife, for example, loves her T2i because of its light weight. She won't hear of replacing it with, say, a 7D because the latter is considerably heavier. A recent conversation with a person who knows, has led me to the conclusion that your predictions have not fallen on deaf ears. There are some serious engineering issues involved. -- PeterN |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Biggest camera flop of last 2 years? | nospam | Digital Photography | 1 | September 17th 12 03:45 AM |
Blast to the past: Digital deliberately erasing the advancesof 100 years! | Laszlo Lebrun | Digital Photography | 3 | April 17th 12 07:16 PM |
Blast to the past: Digital deliberately erasing the advances of100 years! | George Kerby | Digital Photography | 0 | April 16th 12 04:19 PM |
Will EF-S Lenses Become Obsolete In A Couple Of Years? | Matt | 35mm Photo Equipment | 62 | November 28th 04 02:36 PM |
Will EF-S Lenses Become Obsolete In A Couple Of Years? | Matt | Digital Photography | 52 | November 22nd 04 02:25 AM |