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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:38 +0100, Bruce wrote:
There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over. They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better than a traditional reflex viewfinder. However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue, Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems. Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any other AF system, including phase-detect. The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33 and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect. If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer DSLRs will suddenly disappear. They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if need be. [I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises. Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.] Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh. How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially. Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well. Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it better. 1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has been poisoning the water all along. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:46:57 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote: : On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:38 +0100, Bruce wrote: : : There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way : out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over. : They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the : quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better : than a traditional reflex viewfinder. : : However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer : because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue, : Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed : pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be : used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of : DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems. : : Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the : Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP : Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor : size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system : that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any : other AF system, including phase-detect. : : The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of : ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33 : and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect. : : If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop : similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that : Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer : DSLRs will suddenly disappear. : : They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short : live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously : noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor : grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the : zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical : system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if : need be. : : [I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game : when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for : the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises. : Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image : quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and : CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free : full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.] : : Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back : about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models : that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh. : How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's : right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or : intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've : thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially. : Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant : to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than : test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well. : Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more : important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered : old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job : over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it : better. : : 1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the : previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding : onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with : the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has : been poisoning the water all along. I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you, on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not? Bob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote:
I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you, on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not? http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...-shutters.html -- Bertrand |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:24:03 -0400, Mark F wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:37:50 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote: I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you, on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not? http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...-shutters.html But why not an electronic shutter? A Kerr cell as around in 30 or more years ago was too big and didn't block the light 100%, but you'd think that they could be made smaller, possibly piled two deep, and combined with electronic dumping of charge just before the exposure so that things would be quieter and less prone to damage than a mechanical shutter, in addition to being able to give short exposure times. (Combine with a slow moving mechanical shutter to keep light out between exposure.) Is too much power or too higher voltage required. A highly efficient high-speed leaf-shutter is in every lens of every compact and superzoom camera made today. With shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th second including perfect flash-sync at those shutter speeds when using flash durations even as short as 1/224,000ths of a second. Considering the cost of the whole compact or superzoom camera PLUS lens, the leaf-shutter module must be a miniscule portion of fabrication and materials costs. I'd bet on no more than US$5-10 per camera. It would be a trivial matter to put one in every lens for every interchangeable lens camera. It could be done without even changing the prices of lenses if they wanted to, considering the markup on dSLR lenses is in the region of 500-2500% of manufacturing costs. (Yes, it's a wonderful financial con-game that everyone is more than happy to play.) This, or course, still does not address all the other crippling DSLR design issues of dirty sensors, losing shots due to having to change lenses, intermittent easily worn body-to-lens electrical contacts, bulk, weight, and the obnoxiously loudly slapping easily damaged or dirtied/fogged mirror that induces a 90-150ms shutter-lag, optical viewfinders useless in low-light and useless for precision manual focusing, no information overlays in the viewfinder, no shutter-speed preview, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Ofnuts says... On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote: I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you, on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not? http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...-shutters.html That is the same explanation given years ago here why DSLRs could not offer live view: additional circuitry needed to read out the pixels, which would reduce the light sensitive area and worsen the high ISO performance. The real reason is that manufacturers like cameras to be more complex, expensive and easy to break down. Especially P&S cameras, where you'd better buy a new one every year or two. Like that answer better? -Wolfgang |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:35:04 +0200, Puppygang Weaselburp the role-playing
pretend-photographer wrote: Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Ofnuts says... On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote: I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you, on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not? http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...-shutters.html That is the same explanation given years ago here why DSLRs could not offer live view: additional circuitry needed to read out the pixels, which would reduce the light sensitive area and worsen the high ISO performance. The real reason is that manufacturers like cameras to be more complex, expensive and easy to break down. Especially P&S cameras, where you'd better buy a new one every year or two. Like that answer better? -Puppygang No. The truth would be better. Not some role-playing pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL's fabrication. http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=10&topic_id=2549&m esg_id=2549 Down in the thread you find out that someone can't get their MECHANICALLY COMPLEX, EXPENSIVE, and EASY TO BREAK-DOWN DSLR camera repaired while still under warranty after only 31,834 shots. One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need of one bit of repair, in some of the most extreme environmental conditions from mountain-top to 'gator infested swamp and everything in between. NO DSLR in the world would hold up to the conditions I've put that superzoom camera through. It's precisely why I switched from D/SLR CRAP and found designs that are FAR better and FAR MORE reliable. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 23:31:32 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote: One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need of one bit of repair, Amazing! You would think the odds would be that at least one of those would have been an in-focus shot of an interesting subject, yet the best you can come up with is something that could be - as you claim - a never-discovered-before rare moth or it could be a photo one of Sam Donaldson's old toupees that has been dropped in the slush of a New York City gutter in February. in some of the most extreme environmental conditions from mountain-top to 'gator infested swamp and everything in between. But probably 399,245 of those shots were taken in the playground down the street from your house where you tried to get panty shots of little girls on the swings. The rest were taken in your neighborhood miniature golf course on the Gator Swamp hole, the Mt Rushmore hole, and the dreaded Dutch Village hole where the slow shutter response never did catch your ball making it by the windmill blades. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:44:21 -0400, tony cooper
wrote: On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 23:31:32 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need of one bit of repair, Amazing! You would think the odds would be that at least one of those would have been an in-focus shot of an interesting subject, yet the best you can come up with is something that could be - as you claim - a never-discovered-before rare moth or it could be a photo one of Sam Donaldson's old toupees that has been dropped in the slush of a New York City gutter in February. in some of the most extreme environmental conditions from mountain-top to 'gator infested swamp and everything in between. But probably 399,245 of those shots were taken in the playground down the street from your house where you tried to get panty shots of little girls on the swings. The rest were taken in your neighborhood miniature golf course on the Gator Swamp hole, the Mt Rushmore hole, and the dreaded Dutch Village hole where the slow shutter response never did catch your ball making it by the windmill blades. Awww... what's the matter you balding and ignorant senile fool. Still upset that I outted you for lying about diving in a tourists fish tank and only being 5 ft. underwater with your Bozo the Clown hairdo? Or was it because each time you post this **** you are proving to the world what a lying, slanderous, and libelous psychotic gaping-**** of a troll that you really are. Because by now they have probably all already searched for these fictitious posts that you keep whining on about and finding NONE. Finding out, resolutely, that you are one hugely ****ed up **** of an idiot TROLL. Haven't you noticed that you're the ONLY ONE still claiming this ****? The rest have already decided to back off from continuing their slanderous and libelous farce. Even they don't want to look as glaringly stupid and ignorant as you. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
On 03/10/2010 06:31, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need Hmmm. So over the last ten years (because it's hard to have a real digital camera older that that): 10*365*24=87600=110 pictures a day, with that camera alone (and LOL knows how many with the others). If all these are of rare animals, they must not be so rare after all. -- Bertrand |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentax K7 the beginning of the end? | Me | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | July 31st 09 10:58 PM |
It Starts from the Beginning | Talal | Digital Photography | 6 | May 2nd 09 04:50 AM |
Megapixel war just beginning with DSLRs | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | January 30th 08 03:44 AM |
Battery types for consumer DSLRs; 3rd party lenses? | PossumTrot[_3_] | Digital Photography | 42 | July 17th 07 11:04 PM |
It's A Beginning---- | GRC | Digital Photography | 6 | December 4th 04 09:11 AM |