Biggest camera fail of past couple years: The contestants

Robert Coe wrote:
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.

I'd have said it predated digital. Olympus did a load
of bridge super zooms.

BugBear

Bowser wrote:

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.

And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
either. :-)

-Wolfgang

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:

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.

And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
either. :-)

You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

Paul Ciszek wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:

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.

And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
either. :-)

You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.

Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF.

Colour me not very impressed.


Canon (EF (full format)):
f/1.8: 28mm, 50mm (cheapest lens from Canon), 85mm
f/1.4: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm
f/1.2: 50mm, 85mm

Nikon seems to have at least (but I don't know much about
Nikon):
f/1.8: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm
f/1.4: 24mm, 35mm, 85mm
f/1.2: 50mm

And of course there are further lenses from third parties for
both systems.

-Wolfgang

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Paul Ciszek wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:

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.

And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
either. :-)

You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.

Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF.

Colour me not very impressed.\

Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus
than *out* of focus, and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering
ability.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

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.

And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
either. :-)

You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.

Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF.

Colour me not very impressed.\

Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus
than *out* of focus, and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering
ability.

except that the smaller sensor on m43 means more noise.

f/0.95 on m43 is equivalent to f/1.9 on full frame for the same image
quality and dof, but on full frame you can go wider and gather even
more light (but with shallower dof).

Paul Ciszek wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Paul Ciszek wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:

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.

And you don't do very shallow DOF and low light and so on
either. :-)

You can get f/0.95 lenses for m4/3.

Which is about f/1.9 for full format in DOF.

Colour me not very impressed.\

Whatever. Some people are more interested in getting things *in* focus
than *out* of focus,

Of course. *They* can use f/8 on FF (or f/4 on 4/3rds). :-

and for them, f/0.95 means nice light gathering
ability.

And yet f/1.4 on FF is a better light gatherer than f/0.95 on
4/3rds: important is the amount of light on the whole sensor.


And if you like it that way: Assume the same pixel count.
Each pixel gets more light, because it's "more larger" than
the f/1.4 is smaller compared to the f/0.95. (Oh, and
there's f/1.2, too.)

So the FF sensor can use more pixels at the same quality per
pixel, or use the same pixel count and a lower ISO and hence
more quality (or a shorter exposure time).


If you need smaller size and weight more than you need
very shallow DOF and extreme light gathering ability, you may
be much better served with 4/3rds or (if you want even smaller
and don't need an OVF) m4/3.

-Wolfgang

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.


A recent conversation with a person who knows, has led me to the
conclusion that your predictions have not fallen on deaf ears. There are
some serious engineering issues involved.


--
PeterN