DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

Helmsman3 wrote:

The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when looking
back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its inherent
faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up with
those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard.


I see you made no mention of the small sensor size of P&S cameras.
Otherwise I would agree with everything you said. I would rather have a
Nikon P&S with the swiveling LCD viewfinder than a DSLR any day but
first it has to match a DSLR image quality and due to the smaller sensor
it doesn't.

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:44:42 +0900, "Wilba"
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

Current EVF have gotten very good, and can now do things that can't be
done with an optical viewfinder, including 100% image, visible image in
very low light, and magnification while focusing, not to mention image
replay.

You left out the best one of all - histogram preview. :-)

True -- thanks!

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Troglodyte wrote:

I see you made no mention of the small sensor size of P&S cameras.
Otherwise I would agree with everything you said. I would rather have a
Nikon P&S with the swiveling LCD viewfinder than a DSLR any day but
first it has to match a DSLR image quality and due to the smaller sensor
it doesn't.

I love those swiveling LCDs like on the old Canon G series. Too bad
Canon dropped them on the G7 and G9, as well as worsening the lens and
not making it wide angle.

On my G2 I used some of those conversion lenses, with the adapter tube,
but the reality is that those adapter lenses are not good quality (they
vary from poor, to barely acceptable), plus it's a real pain to deal
with screwing on the adapter tube, removing and storing the ring that
has to come off the camera to install the tube, then screwing the
conversion lens onto the tube. Before I had a D-SLR, when I needed the
longer or wider zooms I simply used by film SLR (EOS-5 QD), as it's so
much more convenient to swap lenses on a bayonet mount. You can swap an
SLR lens in a few seconds, while the conversion lenses take a lot longer
to install and remove.

But you're right about the sensor size and the image quality, and
unfortunately you can count the number of large sensor point and shoots
on one hand, with several fingers left over.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"GeraldG." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington"

wrote:

"Helmsman3" wrote in message
...

BTW, how many different names are you posting under?

Haven't hit on one you really like yet?

LOL, at least he keeps making everyone's kill-files longer and longer.
Hasn't been this much crap since "George Preddy" was around.

Here's my most current list:

























lid


















lid















lbo

































lid


















lid















lbo

On 2007-11-16 23:24:37 -0700, John Navas said:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:26:01 -0700, Serge Desplanques
wrote in
2007111616260116807%desplanques@volumeen:

On 2007-11-16 14:45:24 -0700, John Navas said:

Since the lens is designed by Leica and built to Leica standards, I'd
personally say it's a Leica (without quotes).

I have a distant friend of long standing who was bitching about the
difference between modern "Leica" lenses versus the twehty- to
forty-year-old ones he still uses on his RFs (I think he has about six
bodies from the screw mounts up through an R8 digital) ...

With all due respect, I think that's just good old days syndrome --
current Leica lenses consistently score excellent in tests.
I guess I didn't express that very well...the subject came up in an
exchange of emails because I had been disappointed in the lack of
detail and sharpness of my Sony DSC-H2 compared to a Carl Zeiss lens
that I had used a while ago on a studio (view) camera, and Angelo said
he had tried a few "Leica" P&S cameras but had returned every one
because he found the lenses to be "crap" compared to the other Leitz
lenses he owned...not making any claim about modern Zeiss or Leica SLR
lenses, except that buying a Zeiss 85 or 50 for a Nikon D80 would be
overkill and a waste of money compared to a Nikkor 85 or 50 (but that's
a whole 'nother thread)...I do understand what you mean, though, it's
easy to fall into the trap of "backward-vision" as there are lenses
made today that are just as good design-wise, with far better AF, and
zooms have certainly come a long way since the 1970s


Current EVF have gotten very good, and can now do things that can't be
done with an optical viewfinder, including 100% image, visible image in
very low light, and magnification while focusing, not to mention image
replay.

How's the view in strong sunlight?

Just fine -- it's in an eyepiece -- but even the display on the back of
the camera is clearly viewable.


--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

Wilba wrote:
John Navas wrote:
Current EVF have gotten very good, and can now do things that can't be
done with an optical viewfinder, including 100% image, visible image in
very low light, and magnification while focusing, not to mention image
replay.

You left out the best one of all - histogram preview. :-)



Oh my!!!

That's the killer, at least for some people. Does the 40D have it???

I would dearly love to have it.

Doug McDonald

Calling a Crapasonic Lumix lens a "Leica" is kinda like calling a VW
bug a Porsche.

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:48:14 GMT, John Navas
wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:31:54 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
:

Apparently the lenses were not designed by Leica, but by Panasonic.
Leica suggested some improvements to the designs and helped put in
place a quality control system that would ensure a consistent product,
but that is all.

Any proof of that? Industry people I respect tell me the lenses are in
fact designed by Leica, and that Leica monitors the quality control.

Moreover tests of these lenses confirm that they do measure up to Leica
standards; e.g., "everything you'd expect from Leica glass"
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4597/lens-test-panasonic-leica-d-summilux-25mm-f14-af.html

It seems you are right and my information was incorrect.
I've now found what would seem to be the definitive story.
The original page is missing (at the moment at least),
but is archived at
http://web.archive.org/web/20070624160310/http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/popup/behind_the_scenes/vol3.html
or http://tinyurl.com/3ble8x
In short:
* Lumix Leica lenses are designed by Panasonic
* Designs are reviewed and accepted or rejected by Leica
* Leica demands Leica level performance for acceptance
* Leica specifies manufacturing quality control
* Lumix Leica lenses exhibit Leica level performance
I personally think that makes them "real" Leica lenses,
but as always, YMMV.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:31:54 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
:

"Neil Harrington" wrote:

Well, "designed by Leica" is one thing and "built to Leica standards" is
another. You think E. Leitz has real Leitz employees scrupulously
inspecting
every "Leica" lens made somewhere in eastern or southeastern Asia?

These issues were discussed on a Leica forum about a year ago and
answers were obtained from Leica in Solms.

Apparently the lenses were not designed by Leica, but by Panasonic.
Leica suggested some improvements to the designs and helped put in
place a quality control system that would ensure a consistent product,
but that is all.

Any proof of that? Industry people I respect tell me the lenses are in
fact designed by Leica, and that Leica monitors the quality control.

Moreover tests of these lenses confirm that they do measure up to Leica
standards; e.g., "everything you'd expect from Leica glass"
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4597/lens-test-panasonic-leica-d-summilux-25mm-f14-af.html

That's "everything you'd expect from Leica glass" by Julia Silber, who in
the first paragraph uses "prime" when she means fixed focal length. I think
she's the only columnist in Pop Photo who does employ that popular but
ignorant misusage. (Herbert Keppler certainly never does.) Someone that
careless with language is not to be taken very seriously.

And she does not say that the lens was "designed by Leica" or that "Leica
monitors the quality control." She says, "Made in Japan by Panasonic to
Leica's specifications," which is all but meaningless.

Neil

"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"GeraldG." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington"

wrote:

"Helmsman3" wrote in message
...

BTW, how many different names are you posting under?

Haven't hit on one you really like yet?

LOL, at least he keeps making everyone's kill-files longer and longer.
Hasn't been this much crap since "George Preddy" was around.

Here's my most current list:

























lid


















lid















lbo

































lid


















lid















lbo











GOOD GRIEF!

He must have a lot of time on his hands, and nothing to do with it but
troll. How pathetic is that?

Neil