Very pocketable?

David J Taylor wrote:
SMS wrote:
[]
Too bad Ricoh left IS and an optical viewfinder off the Caplio R6.
The R6 is almost the ideal ultra-compact, with a very good macro
mode, and the 7x 28-200mm lens. While Ricoh doesn't sell into the
U.S. anymore, some NYC stores are grey-marketing the R6.
[]
Steve

But do take a careful look at the images from the R6 and decide if the
small size justifies any image qualtiy compromises you see. If you
can go a little larger the Panasonic TZ3 is much better.

David

I got an R6 a couple of weeks ago to replace my Kodak EasyShare DX4530.
There were several reasons for choosing the R6; the main three were a
remarkable macro mode, 28 mm equiv wide angle, and small size. The IS would
also be useful.

I was also interested in the claimed improvement in white saturation, as
overexposed light areas were an annoyance with the Kodak. Unfortunately, I
see little difference between the R6 and the Kodak, and indeed with my
wife's Pentax Optio L30. As far as I can tell reading through comments in
this group and elsewhere, the dynamic range of the digital sensors used even
in high-range DSLRs is still lacking somewhat when compared to film. I used
50, 100, and even 200 ASA transparency film (Agfa) for 20 years in an SLR,
taking around 4000 slides (mainly of plants, hence the interest in macro).
It was said that its exposure latitude was, at best, little more than 1/3 of
a stop, but I got hardly any overexposed shots when compared to those from
my digital cameras. If I want to be certain, I underexpose light flowers by
0.3EV with the R6. I haven't tried its autobracketing option yet; maybe
that would be simpler than resetting the exposure each time.

The lack of an optical viewfinder with the R6 doesn't bother me. I thought
it would, but WYSIWYG with the LCD is really just what you'd get with a
film-based SLR. And how would you deal with macro shots using an optical
viewfinder on a compact camera?

Overall, I am quite impressed with the R6.

--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)

Ron Hunter wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
NOt very likely. First, I mentioned not buying a camera with no
OPTICAL viewfinder. I hate EVFs as much as I hate using the LCD.
Second, a camera must fit in my pocket comfortably or I am not going
to buy it. Heavy is certainly NOT something I consider a benefit.
Now a small, light camera with 6x optical zoom, 7mp, and a
opto/mechanical IS and good high ISO performance might interest me
for my next camera, in a few years.

I suspect that the requirement for small size, together with a
relatively large zoom ratio, will make the optical viewfinder
something which is more difficult to find. We all hope for
improvements in sensitivity of course, but there are limits imposed
by the laws of physics. Were I buying today to your spec, which I
very nearly did, I would have to forego the optical finder and get
the 232g Panasonic TZ3. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/

Cheers,
David


No thanks. NOT going to do without an optical viewfinder. LCDs,
whether in the 'viewfinder', or on the back are just not conducive to
good pictures, and drain batteries faster. Putting in a viewfinder
doesn't markedly increase camera size, it is just a money-saving ploy.
Every time I see someone taking a picture with their camera extended
at arms length, I cringe.

As for the laws of physics. Every time I have read about something
not being possible due to the laws of physics, someone seems to find
a way to skirt the law, or someone seems to outright 'repeal' it. Grin.
I recall some years ago a 'guru' on the design and function of modems
on telephone lines claiming the laws of physics didn't allow speeds
faster than 450 baud on phone lines.... Oh well.

There is a problem, though, designing an optical viewfinder for a
wide-range zoom, making it heavier, bigger and more complex, and perhaps
that is one of the factors eliminating it from any reasonable-cost camera.
Does any 7:1 or greater zoom amateur camera possess an optical finder?

The highest speed of current modems are only possible where you have a
digital interface at the exchange, although certainly analog modems can go
up to 9600 baud using modulation techniques not developed or considered
earlier. The recent Microsoft paper describing combined short and long
exposure pictures may appear, to some, to defeat the laws of physics, but
the idea does not. It may provide sharp, low-noise images from
small-sensor cameras, but only for stationary subjects. So it has it own
limitation.

G

Cheers,
David

Jeff Layman wrote:
[]
I got an R6 a couple of weeks ago to replace my Kodak EasyShare
DX4530. There were several reasons for choosing the R6; the main
three were a remarkable macro mode, 28 mm equiv wide angle, and small
size. The IS would also be useful.

I was also interested in the claimed improvement in white saturation,
as overexposed light areas were an annoyance with the Kodak.
Unfortunately, I see little difference between the R6 and the Kodak,
and indeed with my wife's Pentax Optio L30.
[]
Overall, I am quite impressed with the R6.

As am I, for a pocket camera, but I tend to leave it set at -0.3 stops
exposure compensation. You might like to try that.

Fuji have a sensor with dual pixels providing an improved dynamic range -
the smaller pixels capturing just the highlights - and it seems to work
well. I'm not aware of that sensor being used in any IS camera, but I
don't know if it may be in a wide-angle camera somewhere.

Cheers,
David

T i m wrote:

Could it be possible that someone could take perfectly good (or even
outstanding) picture by using a 'non traditional' method Ron?

Sure it is. That's one of the big reasons for image stabilization, it
helps solve a problem that the loss of the optical viewfinder helped
create. Of course there's always a tripod as well. In bright sunlight,
you can use a hood over the LCD, they sell them in sizes to fit most
LCDs. Plus, IS is something you can market and charge extra for, while
an optical viewfinder is too mundane to be able to market as a feature
worth paying for.

The decontenting of the optical viewfinder was to save money. It's
complicated to do an optical viewfinder on a zoom lens.

I'm big into bicycling, where the decontenting is a big problem as well.
What they also do is some good marketing to convince naive purchasers
that the decontenting is somehow a good thing. I don't see that in the
camera marketing, no one has claimed that the loss of the optical
viewfinder is a good thing, it just kind of disappeared as the LCDs got
larger. They would probably claim, correctly, that most purchasers look
more at LCD size than the presence of absence of a viewfinder.

John Turco wrote:

Hello, Ron:

If you're referring to the C875, it appears to be a real bargain, yet
lacks an optical viewfinder.


Cordially,
John Turco

It's okay, but the lack of an optical viewfinder, and the lack of a
Li-Ion battery are two big strikes against it.

T i m wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:20:18 -0700, SMS
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Like trainers or cars sometimes we buy stuff because we just like the
style or image or because they are the best or the cheapest etc. Some
always buy one brand or model (no matter how good or bad it may be).
What makes my decision more difficult is that I'm actually buying the
camera for someone else (our daughter) and the sort of money we are
talking about (~£150) is not an insignificant sum for us at the moment
so I want to tick as many of the boxes as possible .. if only I knew
what they were!
I'm big into "box ticking" when making a purchase such as this.

I was told. ;-)
I usually is make up a list of "no compromise" features," "strongly
desired" features," and "nice to have" features. The list of course
varies by individual, each person has different requirements, but for
products for which the person is unfamiliar, there are often a lot of
issues that don't even occur to the buyer before the purchase.

Ah, and that's a good point isn't it. So sometimes one has to get a
toe in the water with *something* and maybe make some mistakes before
we can fully appreciate some of the more subtle aspects.

Fortunately, there is a tremendous body of knowledge available to the
newbie to help them make an intelligent decision. It helps reduce the
number of mistakes. You couldn't reasonably go out and test every camera
on the market for noise, shutter lag, fringing, red-eye, etc. but others
have. Narrowing down your choices based on the features you want is much
easier than in the past as well.


Lens with 28mm min at wide end

(not that common I read?)

Fairly uncommon. One Canon, and a bunch of Panasonics.

Powerful flash

(is that possible on any compact?)

"Powerful" is relative, but there are some compacts with much better
flashes than others.

Strongly Desired
----------------
Li-Ion or Li-Po Battery (no AA)

(I would actually prefer AA's as long as they gave a good shot count
because we often go cycle / motorcycle camping and often are nowhere
near a mains source).

Isn't there 12 volts available somewhere on the motorcycle?

And that's the problem isn't it. Until *most* compact's tick all your
boxes (and I guess that won't happen if optical viewfinders are being
phased out because they are not considered good selling points for the
masses) then you are gonna be without a camera?

Obviously you have to be practical. If a feature is just not available
anywhere, you live without it. I'd like a new car with structural steel
rain gutters and steel bumpers, but I know that this isn't going to happen.

If I had to get an ultra-compact with no optical viewfinder, then it
would have to have image stabilization.

Ron Hunter wrote:
SMS wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

snip

My current camera has a very bright (and adjustable) LCD display, and
short of direct sun, it is usually quite visible enough to check a
picture. Just turning to put my shadow on the camera enables seeing
it well. My previous camera was definitely NOT bright enough, which
was one reason I switched.

The problem with the lack of an optical viewfinder goes well beyond
the LCD being visible or not in direct sun. Checking how a picture
came out has never been the problem, because as you state, you can
always put the display in your shadow.

IS has helped to at least mitigate one of the problems with using the
LCD instead of a viewfinder.

Yes, at extra cost, and complexity.

I expect that the IS costs no more than the optical viewfinder, and
possibly less, considering the complexity of an optical viewfinder on a
camera with a zoom lens that has a 3x or greater range.

In article , SMS
writes
Plus, IS is something you can market and charge extra for, while an
optical viewfinder is too mundane to be able to market as a feature
worth paying for.

In a few years "comes complete with 'direct view'(tm) to enhance the
experience of using your camera, and easing use on your summer
holidays!".
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:26:11 -0700, SMS
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Could it be possible that someone could take perfectly good (or even
outstanding) picture by using a 'non traditional' method Ron?

Sure it is. That's one of the big reasons for image stabilization, it
helps solve a problem that the loss of the optical viewfinder helped
create. Of course there's always a tripod as well. In bright sunlight,
you can use a hood over the LCD, they sell them in sizes to fit most
LCDs. Plus, IS is something you can market and charge extra for, while
an optical viewfinder is too mundane to be able to market as a feature
worth paying for.

Seems about right ...

The decontenting of the optical viewfinder was to save money. It's
complicated to do an optical viewfinder on a zoom lens.

So my little F420 is quite well spec'd?

I'm big into bicycling, where the decontenting is a big problem as well.
What they also do is some good marketing to convince naive purchasers
that the decontenting is somehow a good thing.

Such as (out of interest, as a cyclist ..). Are we talking bell,
pump, lights, stand, mudguards. racks etc or just lower spec kit in
general?

I don't see that in the
camera marketing, no one has claimed that the loss of the optical
viewfinder is a good thing, it just kind of disappeared as the LCDs got
larger.

Ok ..

They would probably claim, correctly, that most purchasers look
more at LCD size than the presence of absence of a viewfinder.

;-)

We were in the camera shop just now and while I was waiting I
overheard another punter asking about a basic camera ..

Salesman, "This is a good starter camera .. 3.2 M pixels"

Punter "Woss that then"?

S: "And takes xD cards"

P: "Woss that then"?

S: "And can connect to yer PC via a USB cable"

P: "Woss that then" ...

etc. ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:46:06 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Ah, and that's a good point isn't it. So sometimes one has to get a
toe in the water with *something* and maybe make some mistakes before
we can fully appreciate some of the more subtle aspects.

Fortunately, there is a tremendous body of knowledge available to the
newbie to help them make an intelligent decision. It helps reduce the
number of mistakes. You couldn't reasonably go out and test every camera
on the market for noise, shutter lag, fringing, red-eye, etc. but others
have. Narrowing down your choices based on the features you want is much
easier than in the past as well.

I guess in some respects it is, like if you know how to 'use' the
Internet re Yahoo groups / Usenet / Google etc. Many don't (like my
Dad who was an semi-amateur photographer (studio in London etc) and
has owned a Mac for ages and been using the Internet for 5 years when
told our daughter 'he didn't have Google on his Mac' ..) and who may
not 'think' to buy DC Mags etc. Then it's just down to what pops up on
offer at the local sheds or what the local camera shop sell them.


Lens with 28mm min at wide end

(not that common I read?)

Fairly uncommon. One Canon, and a bunch of Panasonics.

Ok ..

Powerful flash

(is that possible on any compact?)

"Powerful" is relative, but there are some compacts with much better
flashes than others.

Understood ..

Strongly Desired
----------------
Li-Ion or Li-Po Battery (no AA)

(I would actually prefer AA's as long as they gave a good shot count
because we often go cycle / motorcycle camping and often are nowhere
near a mains source).

Isn't there 12 volts available somewhere on the motorcycle?

Yes there is, and that would probably be quite straightforward for a
basic std cell charger, not so easy for the on-camera chargers with
'special' packs. I could arrange a regulated output (5V etc) for say a
F31fd but it's not so 'straight forward'. I really mean when we were
cycle camping as the F420 takes std AAA's.


Obviously you have to be practical. If a feature is just not available
anywhere, you live without it.

Indeed ..

I'd like a new car with structural steel
rain gutters and steel bumpers, but I know that this isn't going to happen.

Land Rover? (are the gutters so you keep dry or make fitting of cycle
racks easier .. how I miss the Thule roof bars that I used to fit on
my fully-guttered Sierra Estate) ;-(

If I had to get an ultra-compact with no optical viewfinder, then it
would have to have image stabilization.

Ok ..

All the best ..

T i m