A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1021  
Old December 5th 07, 08:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,151
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

sgtdisturbed wrote:
[]
If any of you see wild comparisons about how "a DSLR kicks the sh*t
out of all P&S cameras", just ignore it. We all know what's really
going on with today's cameras, so let the idiots just throw their
tantrums and they will tire out.


Except these days there is more likelihood of a false posting the other
way round. The posters go quiet when the image defects are pointed out.
Let people compare the images for themselves.

Cheers,
David


  #1022  
Old December 5th 07, 11:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

In rec.photo.digital.zlr Neil Harrington wrote:

"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.zlr William Graham wrote:


But the way you talk about digital Point & Shoots, one would think
they
are more sophisticated electronically, and I can't understand why this
would
be the case......Why couldn't you take a digital Point & Shoot, add a
mirror
and a rangefinder to it, and give it the ability to interchange lenses
and
have a better camera? Of course, it wouldn't be smaller or lighter or
cheaper, and therefore as capable of being smuggled into opera houses
and
night clubs, but for general photography, why wouldn't it be a better
(more
versatile) machine? IOW, why would leaving off a mirror provide the
machine
with any better electronics than not leaving off a mirror?

It doesn't necessarily provide the machine with more sophisticated
electronics, but having a mirror in front of the sensor prevents you
from using those extra sophistications, because they depend on having
the lens focussing the image on the sensor instead of through the
viewfinder. In other words, the mirror literally gets in the way.

The few very expensive DSLRs which do offer such facilities do so
either by offering a dual mode of operation, such as mirror up and
mirror down, with mirror up losing you the valued optical viewfinder,
or they compromise on optical efficiency by using a half silvered
mirror, etc.. In other words, if you want a mirror *and* those
facilities, getting round the mirror problem involves further costly
engineering and compromises.

The SLR mirror is a carry over from clockwork film camera technology
some of whose advantages haven't yet quite been duplicated by purely
digital technology. In fact digital technology can do it, just not yet
at an marketable price. We won't have to wait long. In other words
the SLR design concept is already obsolescent. There are huge
investments in the technology which will prevent it from becoming
obsolete for a long time yet, however.

OK. I understand that the mirror can be a pain. the same thing is/was true
for film cameras. but the alternative is the electronic viewfinder, and I
haven't seen any that measure up to the "real" image view that you get
with a mirror yet. These tiny screens on the back of the cameras just
won't cut it. Maybe a combination....You look in the hole just like an
optical viewfinder, but instead of a mirror, you see a huge view of an
electronic image that is as spectacular as the one you will eventually see
on your desktop 20 inch monitor.....


Which would mean an EVF resolution of more than a megapixel, maybe two
megapixels. I don't expect to see anything like that marketed for a long
time, if ever.


Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there
isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it
shouldn't be long in coming.

But apart from the difference in viewfinder clarity, the DSLR has other
advantages over anything with an EVF. My Coolpix 8800 for example is a great
camera, but doesn't have all the flash capabilities of my D80 or even D40,
or even any of the Nikon DSLRs being made when the 8800 was introduced. It
accepts the same flash units but can't do the same things with them.


Only because someone in marketing decided not to offer those
features. The camera doesn't have to have a mirror in order to conrol
a flash.

For whatever reasons, the DSLR is able to do easily some things the EVF
camera cannot do at all.


Since the converse is also true, the reasons are rather
important. We're not talking about what you can easily find in a High
St camera shop today, we're discussing what may be offered in the near
future.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  #1023  
Old December 5th 07, 12:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Tony Polson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,194
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004.



Surely that cannot be right? The review of this camera on the Steve's
Digicams web site suggests that the EVF has only VGA resolution:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2.html

VGA implies 640x480 resolution, or 0.3 MP, which is a very long way
from the 9.2 MP you suggested.

  #1024  
Old December 5th 07, 12:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Tony Polson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,194
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

Tony Polson wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004.



Surely that cannot be right? The review of this camera on the Steve's
Digicams web site suggests that the EVF has only VGA resolution:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2.html

VGA implies 640x480 resolution, or 0.3 MP, which is a very long way
from the 9.2 MP you suggested.



.... although the Luminous Landscape review of the same model suggests
it is 1.0 MP:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...nolta-a2.shtml

The reviewer states:
The A2 has the highest resolution electronic viewfinder (EVF) of any
camera currently (March, 2004) on the market, at nearly 1 Megapixel.
Four times that of anything else.


  #1025  
Old December 5th 07, 12:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr, rec.photo.misc
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:

Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there
isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it
shouldn't be long in coming.


You are off by a factor of 30.

First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP.

Still 0.92 would be very impressive, if it were true, but they counted
the red green and blue pixels separately, in reality it was a vga
display with 640x480 pixels.


Scott
  #1026  
Old December 5th 07, 12:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Deep Reset
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Neil Harrington wrote:

"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.zlr William Graham wrote:


But the way you talk about digital Point & Shoots, one would think
they
are more sophisticated electronically, and I can't understand why this
would
be the case......Why couldn't you take a digital Point & Shoot, add a
mirror
and a rangefinder to it, and give it the ability to interchange lenses
and
have a better camera? Of course, it wouldn't be smaller or lighter or
cheaper, and therefore as capable of being smuggled into opera houses
and
night clubs, but for general photography, why wouldn't it be a better
(more
versatile) machine? IOW, why would leaving off a mirror provide the
machine
with any better electronics than not leaving off a mirror?

It doesn't necessarily provide the machine with more sophisticated
electronics, but having a mirror in front of the sensor prevents you
from using those extra sophistications, because they depend on having
the lens focussing the image on the sensor instead of through the
viewfinder. In other words, the mirror literally gets in the way.

The few very expensive DSLRs which do offer such facilities do so
either by offering a dual mode of operation, such as mirror up and
mirror down, with mirror up losing you the valued optical viewfinder,
or they compromise on optical efficiency by using a half silvered
mirror, etc.. In other words, if you want a mirror *and* those
facilities, getting round the mirror problem involves further costly
engineering and compromises.

The SLR mirror is a carry over from clockwork film camera technology
some of whose advantages haven't yet quite been duplicated by purely
digital technology. In fact digital technology can do it, just not yet
at an marketable price. We won't have to wait long. In other words
the SLR design concept is already obsolescent. There are huge
investments in the technology which will prevent it from becoming
obsolete for a long time yet, however.

OK. I understand that the mirror can be a pain. the same thing is/was
true
for film cameras. but the alternative is the electronic viewfinder, and
I
haven't seen any that measure up to the "real" image view that you get
with a mirror yet. These tiny screens on the back of the cameras just
won't cut it. Maybe a combination....You look in the hole just like an
optical viewfinder, but instead of a mirror, you see a huge view of an
electronic image that is as spectacular as the one you will eventually
see
on your desktop 20 inch monitor.....


Which would mean an EVF resolution of more than a megapixel, maybe two
megapixels. I don't expect to see anything like that marketed for a long
time, if ever.


Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there
isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it
shouldn't be long in coming.


9.2M pixel?
Get real.


  #1027  
Old December 5th 07, 03:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

In article , Tony Polson
wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004.


Surely that cannot be right? The review of this camera on the Steve's
Digicams web site suggests that the EVF has only VGA resolution:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2.html

VGA implies 640x480 resolution, or 0.3 MP, which is a very long way
from the 9.2 MP you suggested.


apparently, konica/minolta is using the sigma method of how to count
pixels. it's a 640 x 480 pixel display and they are counting each
component as a full pixel, for a total of '922,000 pixels.' it may be
higher than other cameras, but even with the inflated count, he's still
off by a factor of 10.

http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products...era/dimage/dim
age-a2/specifications.html

11 mm / 0.44 inch TFT liquid crystal microdisplay, VGA size, Equivalent
visual resolution: 922,000 pixels, Field of view: approx. 100%,
Diagonal view angle: approx. 32°

dpreview, however, at least makes it clear in the counting:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/page2.asp

0.44" Type TFT, 922,000 pixels (640 x 480 x 3 primary colors)

imaging resource gets it right:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A2/A2A.HTM

There's also a new electronic viewfinder which can either provide a
whopping 640 x 480 pixels of resolution, or trade half of that
resolution off for an impressive 60 frames per second refresh rate at
640 x 240 pixels.
  #1028  
Old December 5th 07, 03:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?


"nospam" wrote:
In article , Tony Polson
wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004.


Surely that cannot be right? The review of this camera on the Steve's
Digicams web site suggests that the EVF has only VGA resolution:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a2.html

VGA implies 640x480 resolution, or 0.3 MP, which is a very long way
from the 9.2 MP you suggested.


apparently, konica/minolta is using the sigma method of how to count
pixels. it's a 640 x 480 pixel display and they are counting each
component as a full pixel, for a total of '922,000 pixels.' it may be
higher than other cameras, but even with the inflated count, he's still
off by a factor of 10.


Actually, it's the Minolta method. They pioneered it years before Sigma with
the Dimage 7. (Which happens to be one of the crappiest viewfinders I've
ever put my eye to.)

dpreview, however, at least makes it clear in the counting:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/page2.asp

0.44" Type TFT, 922,000 pixels (640 x 480 x 3 primary colors)


Interestingly, at least some of the camera companies use "dots" instead of
"pixels" in their Japanese advertizing for this, and so the dishonesty comes
in in the English documentation.

But the bottom line is that if you A/B compare the best EVF to the worst
dSLR, the EVF looks sick.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #1029  
Old December 5th 07, 04:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
acl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,389
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Dec 5, 8:49 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:
sgtdisturbed wrote:

[]

If any of you see wild comparisons about how "a DSLR kicks the sh*t
out of all P&S cameras", just ignore it. We all know what's really
going on with today's cameras, so let the idiots just throw their
tantrums and they will tire out.


Except these days there is more likelihood of a false posting the other
way round. The posters go quiet when the image defects are pointed out.
Let people compare the images for themselves.

Cheers,
David



Well, in two of the cases I did observe before I worked out what was
going on, when defects were pointed out (eg "this is heavily noise
reduced and grossly oversharpened"), the reply was, one time, "no it's
not" and the other "it is sad that some dslr owners etc". That's not
going quiet, is it?
  #1030  
Old December 5th 07, 04:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,151
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

acl wrote:
[]
Well, in two of the cases I did observe before I worked out what was
going on, when defects were pointed out (eg "this is heavily noise
reduced and grossly oversharpened"), the reply was, one time, "no it's
not" and the other "it is sad that some dslr owners etc". That's not
going quiet, is it?


G

David


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Film lenses on dslr quess who Digital Photography 4 September 22nd 06 10:07 PM
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR Jens Mander Digital Photography 0 August 13th 06 11:06 PM
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels arifi Digital Photography 11 May 25th 06 09:21 PM
Film lens on DSLR? [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 9 January 3rd 05 03:45 PM
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR Ged Digital Photography 13 August 9th 04 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.