Is the best camera 100% sealed ?

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: David Dyer-Bennet
Date: 9/14/2004 11:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) writes:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom
lens instead?

I don't think so; far too limiting. Just shooting casually around the
Renaissance festival Saturday I used lenses from 17mm to 300mm (before
applying crop factor)
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2004/09110-Renfest/. If
I could afford it I'd have a wider lens. A couple of weeks earlier I
stacked a 1.5x teleconverter on a 500mm, so 750mm before crop factor
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/gallery/Familiar%20Places/
(specifically the heron picture). A 10x zoom would be *far* too
limiting; and probably slow, as well. I'm at f2.8 out to 300mm.

Instead, I've learned to clean the sensor (which I probably need to do
again).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/


I am now using a Kodkak DX 6490 which igves me 38 to 380. If I add the WA I
will get about 28 to 380. Not bad.I am considering a D-70 but here in the
desert there is a lot of blowing dust. So I don't know.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: David Dyer-Bennet
Date: 9/14/2004 11:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) writes:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom
lens instead?

I don't think so; far too limiting. Just shooting casually around the
Renaissance festival Saturday I used lenses from 17mm to 300mm (before
applying crop factor)
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2004/09110-Renfest/. If
I could afford it I'd have a wider lens. A couple of weeks earlier I
stacked a 1.5x teleconverter on a 500mm, so 750mm before crop factor
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/gallery/Familiar%20Places/
(specifically the heron picture). A 10x zoom would be *far* too
limiting; and probably slow, as well. I'm at f2.8 out to 300mm.

Instead, I've learned to clean the sensor (which I probably need to do
again).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/


I am now using a Kodkak DX 6490 which igves me 38 to 380. If I add the WA I
will get about 28 to 380. Not bad.I am considering a D-70 but here in the
desert there is a lot of blowing dust. So I don't know.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Ron Hunter
Date: 9/14/2004 11:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:
DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it make
more
sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens instead?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


I am sure the DSLR fanatics will disagree, but:

The main strength of SLR cameras has alway been that when you focus, and
compose the image, you are seeing exactly what the film will see. Since
the sensor in ALL digital cameras provides the image you see on the LCD,
any digital camera with a display is a DSLR, it just doesn't need a
mirror to redirect the image, since it falls on the analog of the film
in a film camera. Given that I can get that same image, expanded to
about 2 inches in newer compact cameras LCDs, that an SLR will deliver
to the film, I can't see what an SLR has over even a compact digital
camera. That said, I haven't seen any focus mechanisms that work like
those in a film SLR, for those who feel they just HAVE to do that chore
for themselves. Also, DSLR cameras are quite a bit larger than
compacts, and thus can have more bells and whistles added, weigh more,
and take up a LOT more space. Those who need interchangeable lenses,
and those who want to awe everyone with that foot long lens, will feel
much better with the larger camera. I suspect that the pictures will be
much the same.


I tend to agree. I have spent a lifetime (and a war) with Leicas, Nikons
Rolleis and view cameras. But I love the small,light digitals and hate to throw
it all away going back to a big, fat heavy SLR with a ton of lenses. Less is
more.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Ron Hunter
Date: 9/14/2004 11:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:
DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it make
more
sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens instead?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


I am sure the DSLR fanatics will disagree, but:

The main strength of SLR cameras has alway been that when you focus, and
compose the image, you are seeing exactly what the film will see. Since
the sensor in ALL digital cameras provides the image you see on the LCD,
any digital camera with a display is a DSLR, it just doesn't need a
mirror to redirect the image, since it falls on the analog of the film
in a film camera. Given that I can get that same image, expanded to
about 2 inches in newer compact cameras LCDs, that an SLR will deliver
to the film, I can't see what an SLR has over even a compact digital
camera. That said, I haven't seen any focus mechanisms that work like
those in a film SLR, for those who feel they just HAVE to do that chore
for themselves. Also, DSLR cameras are quite a bit larger than
compacts, and thus can have more bells and whistles added, weigh more,
and take up a LOT more space. Those who need interchangeable lenses,
and those who want to awe everyone with that foot long lens, will feel
much better with the larger camera. I suspect that the pictures will be
much the same.


I tend to agree. I have spent a lifetime (and a war) with Leicas, Nikons
Rolleis and view cameras. But I love the small,light digitals and hate to throw
it all away going back to a big, fat heavy SLR with a ton of lenses. Less is
more.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Eric Gill
Date: 9/14/2004 11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses.

Not "usually" in my experience, Art - unless it is an unusually dusty
environment. More like "occasionally." The sensor is underneath the mirror
or prism, and I don't get great amounts of dust there either.

Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens
instead?

There is no fixed zoom to match, for example, the 70-200 F/2.8 Canon L
Series. And there are a boat load of limitations - speed, for one - that
DSLRs don't have that digicams do.

I've used a variety of digicams, and the only real advantages I've found
a

Cost.

Silence (occasionally very handy - I missed it very much shooting a
fiddling champoinship).

Depth of field. If you don't like bokeh or have a situation that requires
focus throughout the field, it's easier to get in a digicam.

BTW - I occasionally follow a.b.p.m. really appreciate the shots from your
time getting shot at in a B-26, Art. Thanks for sharing.


Glad you like the shots. Visit any time. The website has just exceeded 60,000
hits. I never thought it would ever get so many.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Eric Gill
Date: 9/14/2004 11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses.

Not "usually" in my experience, Art - unless it is an unusually dusty
environment. More like "occasionally." The sensor is underneath the mirror
or prism, and I don't get great amounts of dust there either.

Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens
instead?

There is no fixed zoom to match, for example, the 70-200 F/2.8 Canon L
Series. And there are a boat load of limitations - speed, for one - that
DSLRs don't have that digicams do.

I've used a variety of digicams, and the only real advantages I've found
a

Cost.

Silence (occasionally very handy - I missed it very much shooting a
fiddling champoinship).

Depth of field. If you don't like bokeh or have a situation that requires
focus throughout the field, it's easier to get in a digicam.

BTW - I occasionally follow a.b.p.m. really appreciate the shots from your
time getting shot at in a B-26, Art. Thanks for sharing.


Glad you like the shots. Visit any time. The website has just exceeded 60,000
hits. I never thought it would ever get so many.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Eric Gill
Date: 9/14/2004 11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses.

Not "usually" in my experience, Art - unless it is an unusually dusty
environment. More like "occasionally." The sensor is underneath the mirror
or prism, and I don't get great amounts of dust there either.

Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens
instead?

There is no fixed zoom to match, for example, the 70-200 F/2.8 Canon L
Series. And there are a boat load of limitations - speed, for one - that
DSLRs don't have that digicams do.

I've used a variety of digicams, and the only real advantages I've found
a

Cost.

Silence (occasionally very handy - I missed it very much shooting a
fiddling champoinship).

Depth of field. If you don't like bokeh or have a situation that requires
focus throughout the field, it's easier to get in a digicam.

BTW - I occasionally follow a.b.p.m. really appreciate the shots from your
time getting shot at in a B-26, Art. Thanks for sharing.


Glad you like the shots. Visit any time. The website has just exceeded 60,000
hits. I never thought it would ever get so many.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Roger
Date: 9/14/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 14 Sep 2004 17:17:54 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it make
more
sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens instead?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Art,

I think in another generation or two the answer would be yes, but only
if the zoom range and speed meets your needs.

I think for your situation (e.g. Las Vegas) you can certainly make the
point that changing lenses is problematic. When I used to live in
Idaho and spent a lot of time in the mountains and motorcycling in
sage strewn high arid deserts I had a system just reserved for the
situation - that was a Nikon F with no meter and a 35mm f2.8 lens for
compactness. The whole thing could be "field stripped" around the camp
fire and washed out with a bit of left over coffee :-).

In the future I hope the development of the super zoom platforms with
the image stabilization built into the platform will continue to
mature. Something like that might end up being high on your list. I
also understand the desire/need to travel light as it is getting much
more difficult for me to tote all the gear I used to.

FWIW, my solution has been to not rush to digital but take what it
gives me. Recently it gave me the 28m lens I was waiting for in a
compact, the Canon S60. That camera and a zip-loc bag has given me a
lot of freedom and some very excellent pics. Before I go to the next
step, I'm waiting for Nikon to finally introduce the body to go with
the 17-55mm f2.8 lens (and of course the lens must be available). It
will be bulky but that's my answer to not changing lenses as I traipse
here and there.

I recently was on a trek with a friend with a new D70 and the kit
lens. The lens offers great quality for the price and what for me is
excellent coverage. The whole kit went easily into a small belt bag.
Another option, that may be a mid-term solution till you get what you
want.

BTW: used to enjoy your columns.

Regards,
Roger


Glad you enjoyed the columns. I enjoyed writing them


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Roger
Date: 9/14/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 14 Sep 2004 17:17:54 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it make
more
sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens instead?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Art,

I think in another generation or two the answer would be yes, but only
if the zoom range and speed meets your needs.

I think for your situation (e.g. Las Vegas) you can certainly make the
point that changing lenses is problematic. When I used to live in
Idaho and spent a lot of time in the mountains and motorcycling in
sage strewn high arid deserts I had a system just reserved for the
situation - that was a Nikon F with no meter and a 35mm f2.8 lens for
compactness. The whole thing could be "field stripped" around the camp
fire and washed out with a bit of left over coffee :-).

In the future I hope the development of the super zoom platforms with
the image stabilization built into the platform will continue to
mature. Something like that might end up being high on your list. I
also understand the desire/need to travel light as it is getting much
more difficult for me to tote all the gear I used to.

FWIW, my solution has been to not rush to digital but take what it
gives me. Recently it gave me the 28m lens I was waiting for in a
compact, the Canon S60. That camera and a zip-loc bag has given me a
lot of freedom and some very excellent pics. Before I go to the next
step, I'm waiting for Nikon to finally introduce the body to go with
the 17-55mm f2.8 lens (and of course the lens must be available). It
will be bulky but that's my answer to not changing lenses as I traipse
here and there.

I recently was on a trek with a friend with a new D70 and the kit
lens. The lens offers great quality for the price and what for me is
excellent coverage. The whole kit went easily into a small belt bag.
Another option, that may be a mid-term solution till you get what you
want.

BTW: used to enjoy your columns.

Regards,
Roger


Glad you enjoyed the columns. I enjoyed writing them


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Roger
Date: 9/14/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 14 Sep 2004 17:17:54 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it make
more
sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens instead?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Art,

I think in another generation or two the answer would be yes, but only
if the zoom range and speed meets your needs.

I think for your situation (e.g. Las Vegas) you can certainly make the
point that changing lenses is problematic. When I used to live in
Idaho and spent a lot of time in the mountains and motorcycling in
sage strewn high arid deserts I had a system just reserved for the
situation - that was a Nikon F with no meter and a 35mm f2.8 lens for
compactness. The whole thing could be "field stripped" around the camp
fire and washed out with a bit of left over coffee :-).

In the future I hope the development of the super zoom platforms with
the image stabilization built into the platform will continue to
mature. Something like that might end up being high on your list. I
also understand the desire/need to travel light as it is getting much
more difficult for me to tote all the gear I used to.

FWIW, my solution has been to not rush to digital but take what it
gives me. Recently it gave me the 28m lens I was waiting for in a
compact, the Canon S60. That camera and a zip-loc bag has given me a
lot of freedom and some very excellent pics. Before I go to the next
step, I'm waiting for Nikon to finally introduce the body to go with
the 17-55mm f2.8 lens (and of course the lens must be available). It
will be bulky but that's my answer to not changing lenses as I traipse
here and there.

I recently was on a trek with a friend with a new D70 and the kit
lens. The lens offers great quality for the price and what for me is
excellent coverage. The whole kit went easily into a small belt bag.
Another option, that may be a mid-term solution till you get what you
want.

BTW: used to enjoy your columns.

Regards,
Roger


Glad you enjoyed the columns. I enjoyed writing them


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer