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.

"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

In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

One of the reasons for that is that so many experts like yourself
spend so much time boasting about your skills and experience and
telling us what amateurs we are, and so little time telling us
anything useful which might help us improve.

No boasting...just statement of fact.

Then there are all those people here who do exactly the same without
actually having the skills, just pretending, because if you never
communicate any of your skill it's so easy to pretend.

I told you the "secret." There is no secret. It all comes from time and
experience.

I sometimes wonder why a real professional would want to post anything
here, if all they ever wanted to post was sneers at the incompetence
of amateurs.

I *do* wonder sometimes.

"Deep Reset" wrote in message
...
"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.

I don't think the 9.2 megapixel resolution would be necessary.....That would
be overkill in a viewfinder.....After all, it's overkill for a wallet sized
photograph. The only reason one would need more than about 2 or 3 megapixels
is if one wanted to print a blow-up of the scene that is larger than around
8 x 10 inches. So to devote much more than that to a viewfinder would be a
waste of technology. Even in my F5, the viewfinder attracts much more dirt,
cat hairs and crap than the lens-to-film path, so the view I get through the
mirror viewfinder is never very good.....I don't worry about it because I
know the finished slide will be much cleaner, and I'm certainly not a
fanatic about keeping the mirror clean for that reason.
With all this in mind, the guy who is claiming that slr's are getting
obsolete is beginning to sound better and better to me. (read: he is looking
less and less like a troll....:^)

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

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.

I dug out a Kodak DX7590 last weekend whose electronic eyepiece
I liked when I used the camera. The electronic eyepiece has 311K pixels
(about 640*480) at 30frames/sec and the LCD back is 640/240 (153K pixels)

Two things the eyepiece on this camera has very good contrast which helps
and it isn't as good as I remembered it from a couple years ago. The one
thing that I do like about EVF is in low light conditions it beats optical
eyepieces. In a daylight setting optical is better.

Second thing I remember why I stopped using the camera. There was detail
I could see in the eyepiece was better than the captured at the highest JPEG
resolution. There is no raw mode on that camera.

w..

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



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.

I don't think so. The A2 was an 8MP camera. You really think its viewfinder
had higher resolution than its sensor?


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.

I think they would have if they could have. Coolpix cameras like the 8400
and 8800 were real prosumer models and designed to handle the SB-600
and -800 flash units. But they still didn't have all the features with those
flash units that the DSLRs had. Nikon would not have deliberately crippled
them.


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,

Yes, that is definitely 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.

I'll bet the near future is just going to see more of the same: low- and
medium-priced DSLRs taking more and more market share away from the EVF
prosumer models. The Four Thirds system seems to be an obvious route for
this.

Neil

In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
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.

My typo.

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.

You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP, which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.

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

Chris Malcolm wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
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.

My typo.

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.

You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP, which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.


But most digicams' electronic viewfinders have been stuck at 0.3 MP
for several years now. In spite of Konica Minolta's 0.92 MP, there
doesn't seem to be any trend towards better EVFs with more resolution.

Even the EVF on our beloved Sony DSC-R1 has only 242,000 pixels. The
top mounted swivel LCD has only 140,000, but it is much easier to use
than the EVF, which is gritty, grainy and very unpleasant to use, in
my opinion.

On 6 Dec 2007 09:18:20 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
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.

My typo.

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.

You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP, which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.

Why all this stupid speculation and argument? Just do the math. (And here they
keep wanting to believe how bright they are, yeah, right.) The resolution
doesn't have to be any higher than human perception. The absolute highest level
of detail perceivable by any human is no smaller than 28 seconds of arc. Most
people have a hard time trying to discern details with 1 minute of arc. Just ask
any of them to split Epsilon Lyrae (the famous double-double star) with their
eyes alone. 2.6 seconds separation for the 2 binary-pairs. They can't do it. It
was even used as an eyesight test for Roman military. If they couldn't see it as
2 stars they were rejected. Do the math on the EVF display angle of view wanted
and then you know what pixel resolution is needed.

30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40 degree FOV
(let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision) with 2.6
seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average
person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I have been
using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the finely
pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area micro-prism screen
I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I could if
it was higher resolution.

Until you actually learn to use them properly you're all talking out of your
asses. The answer does not lie in resolution alone. But you'll never know this
because the only cameras that any of you have ever used are virtual cameras to
go along with your useless virtual lives and useless virtual advice.

On 6 Dec 2007 09:18:20 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
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.

My typo.

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.

You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP, which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.

Why all this stupid speculation and argument? Just do the math. (And here they
keep wanting to believe how bright they are, yeah, right.) The resolution
doesn't have to be any higher than human perception. The absolute highest level
of detail perceivable by any human is no smaller than 28 seconds of arc. Most
people have a hard time trying to discern details with 1 minute of arc. Just ask
any of them to split Epsilon Lyrae (the famous double-double star) with their
eyes alone. 2.6 minutes separation for the 2 binary-pairs. They can't do it. It
was even used as an eyesight test for Roman military. If they couldn't see it as
2 stars they were rejected. Do the math on the EVF display angle of view wanted
and then you know what pixel resolution is needed.

30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40 degree FOV
(let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision) with 2.6
minutes of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average
person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I have been
using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the finely
pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area micro-prism screen
I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I could if
it was higher resolution.

Until you actually learn to use them properly you're all talking out of your
asses. The answer does not lie in resolution alone. But you'll never know this
because the only cameras that any of you have ever used are virtual cameras to
go along with your useless virtual lives and useless virtual advice.


(seconds/minutes typo corrected post)