Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: Canon:
:
: M: Camera too expensive for a non-EVF body. Their lack-luster, last-
: to-the-party "commitment" to mirrorless. But I hear they are about to
: redeem themselves on this.

Really? The only one I've heard predict that is me, and my predictions have
fallen on deaf ears. (Justifiably, I suppose, since I have no inside
information and am just guessing.)

: Their entire line of low to mid-end, cookie-cutter DSLRs. Time to
: retire the Rebels.

They're successful because they take good pictures and some people really like
them. My wife, for example, loves her T2i because of its light weight. She
won't hear of replacing it with, say, a 7D because the latter is considerably
heavier.

Bob

On 3/23/2013 8:52 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: Canon:
:
: M: Camera too expensive for a non-EVF body. Their lack-luster, last-
: to-the-party "commitment" to mirrorless. But I hear they are about to
: redeem themselves on this.

Really? The only one I've heard predict that is me, and my predictions have
fallen on deaf ears. (Justifiably, I suppose, since I have no inside
information and am just guessing.)

: Their entire line of low to mid-end, cookie-cutter DSLRs. Time to
: retire the Rebels.

They're successful because they take good pictures and some people really like
them. My wife, for example, loves her T2i because of its light weight. She
won't hear of replacing it with, say, a 7D because the latter is considerably
heavier.


I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
to sit down.


--
PeterN

On 24/03/2013 01:47, PeterN wrote:
[]
I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
to sit down.

Couldn't agree more. I've been using a DSLR with lenses from 10 to 300
mm, but I've taken more casual photos since buying (once again) a bridge
camera with a 27 - 810 mm (equivalent) range. Not for everyone, of
course, but I'm not taking images for exhibition 18 x 20 prints.

I'm keeping the DSLR, but likely its greatest use will be in low-light
situations where the greater sensitivity of its larger sensor and 35 mm
f/1.8 lens will help.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 3/24/2013 1:30 PM, David Taylor wrote:
On 24/03/2013 01:47, PeterN wrote:
[]
I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
to sit down.

Couldn't agree more. I've been using a DSLR with lenses from 10 to 300
mm, but I've taken more casual photos since buying (once again) a bridge
camera with a 27 - 810 mm (equivalent) range. Not for everyone, of
course, but I'm not taking images for exhibition 18 x 20 prints.

I'm keeping the DSLR, but likely its greatest use will be in low-light
situations where the greater sensitivity of its larger sensor and 35 mm
f/1.8 lens will help.

I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
"bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 24/03/2013 19:02, James Silverton wrote:
[]
I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
"bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.

There was quite a discussion at one time about what to call them -
"bridge cameras" now seem to be a generally accepted term.

Yes,the body size may seem similar to the DSLR, but there is no extra
lens to add! What size and weight for a DSLR with the same equivalent
focal length as the 800 - 1000 mm equivalent focal length on some of the
bridge cameras? Mine weighs under 600 grams, and that's body /and/
27-810 mm equivalent lens.

Of course, you sacrifice something, and its absolute image quality won't
match a DSLR, but as most of my images are displayed on the 3 MP screen
of an iPad, that's not as important to me as it might be to others.
Size, and in particular, weight, is.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 3/24/2013 3:43 PM, David Taylor wrote:
On 24/03/2013 19:02, James Silverton wrote:
[]
I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
"bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.

There was quite a discussion at one time about what to call them -
"bridge cameras" now seem to be a generally accepted term.

Yes,the body size may seem similar to the DSLR, but there is no extra
lens to add! What size and weight for a DSLR with the same equivalent
focal length as the 800 - 1000 mm equivalent focal length on some of the
bridge cameras? Mine weighs under 600 grams, and that's body /and/
27-810 mm equivalent lens.

Of course, you sacrifice something, and its absolute image quality won't
match a DSLR, but as most of my images are displayed on the 3 MP screen
of an iPad, that's not as important to me as it might be to others.
Size, and in particular, weight, is.

You hit on the reason I use a DSLR. I make 12x18 prints, both for
exhibition and camera club competition. I also mine the image so that I
may very well take a small crop and blow it up.
Just ran across this interesting app for my iPhone. It allows one to
slow down the shutter speed, for slow motion effects.

http://appmodo.com/75587/slow-shutter-1-0-for-ios-long-exposure-camera-free-for-few-days-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+appmodo+%28Appmodo%29

https://twitter.com/Appmodo/status/315834197791080448

--
PeterN

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:30:48 +0000, David Taylor
wrote:

On 24/03/2013 01:47, PeterN wrote:
[]
I can relate to that. My next camera will most likely be much lighter.
One of my friends carries a lot of equipment. Problem is that after a
short walk, he is too tired from carrying the gear around, that he has
to sit down.

Couldn't agree more. I've been using a DSLR with lenses from 10 to 300
mm, but I've taken more casual photos since buying (once again) a bridge
camera with a 27 - 810 mm (equivalent) range. Not for everyone, of
course, but I'm not taking images for exhibition 18 x 20 prints.

I'm keeping the DSLR, but likely its greatest use will be in low-light
situations where the greater sensitivity of its larger sensor and 35 mm
f/1.8 lens will help.

I made the move to m4/3 over the last few months. All the Canon FF
gear is gone, and I haven't missed it. Just too damned heavy,
obtrusive, and expensive. I don't shoot sports any more, so I miss
nothing.

On 24/03/2013 20:37, PeterN wrote:
[]
You hit on the reason I use a DSLR. I make 12x18 prints, both for
exhibition and camera club competition. I also mine the image so that I
may very well take a small crop and blow it up.

Yes, it's great that there is a range of camera types to suit us all!

Just ran across this interesting app for my iPhone. It allows one to
slow down the shutter speed, for slow motion effects.

http://appmodo.com/75587/slow-shutter-1-0-for-ios-long-exposure-camera-free-for-few-days-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+appmodo+%28Appmodo%29


https://twitter.com/Appmodo/status/315834197791080448

Thanks for that, Peter, I've downloaded it and will play!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 25/03/2013 02:08, RichA wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, David Taylor david-
wrote:
On 24/03/2013 19:02, James Silverton wrote:
[]

I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
"bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.

There was quite a discussion at one time about what to call them -
"bridge cameras" now seem to be a generally accepted term.


That used to refer to cameras with reasonable-sized sensors that could
"kind of" emulate DSLR output, not superzooms.

It referred more to the shape of the camera and the presence of an
electronic viewfinder (EVF) providing the "reflex" than the zoom range
of the lens. The first bridge camera I owned was the Lumix FZ5, with
more than 10:1 zoom range.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:40:38 +0000, David Taylor
wrote:
: On 25/03/2013 02:08, RichA wrote:
: On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, David Taylor david-
: wrote:
: On 24/03/2013 19:02, James Silverton wrote:
: []
:
: I live and learn tho' I had to go to Wiki to find out out that the term
: "bridge camera" had been around since before digital days. Some of them
: look nearly as bulky as DSLR's.
:
: There was quite a discussion at one time about what to call them -
: "bridge cameras" now seem to be a generally accepted term.
:
:
: That used to refer to cameras with reasonable-sized sensors that could
: "kind of" emulate DSLR output, not superzooms.
:
: It referred more to the shape of the camera and the presence of an
: electronic viewfinder (EVF) providing the "reflex" than the zoom range
: of the lens. The first bridge camera I owned was the Lumix FZ5, with
: more than 10:1 zoom range.
:
: See:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_camera

I'd have said (Back me up here, guys!) that the term "bridge camera" predated
by several years the widespread use of any EVF.

Bob