One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

Mike GW8IJT wrote:
The compartment that holds the lifting mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera.

Not necessarily:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7622595498100/

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman writes:
The compartment that holds the lifting mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera.

Not necessarily:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7622595498100/

Yeah, looking at some SLRs from the glory-days of film is very
instructive for people that think that DSLRs are bloated because of the
mount/mirror-box/pentaprism. They're not.

They're bloated for various reasons -- big battery, focusing motor (tho
not canon!), big screen, lots of electronics, freeping-creaturism
(e.g. pretty much every DLSR has a bad-quality flash wedged in on top of
the pentaprism), etc -- but in part it seems that people sort of
_expect_ DSLRs to be big and bloated (maybe they somehow think it makes
them seem "professional"?). Making something smaller is harder, but if
fashion dictated that DSLRs all be small and svelte, you can be damned
sure the manufacturers would be trying harder to make them that way...

-Miles

--
Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of
this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

"Miles Bader" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman writes:
The compartment that holds the lifting mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera.

Not necessarily:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7622595498100/

Yeah, looking at some SLRs from the glory-days of film is very
instructive for people that think that DSLRs are bloated because of the
mount/mirror-box/pentaprism. They're not.

They're bloated for various reasons -- big battery, focusing motor (tho
not canon!), big screen, lots of electronics, freeping-creaturism
(e.g. pretty much every DLSR has a bad-quality flash wedged in on top of
the pentaprism), etc -- but in part it seems that people sort of
_expect_ DSLRs to be big and bloated (maybe they somehow think it makes
them seem "professional"?). Making something smaller is harder, but if
fashion dictated that DSLRs all be small and svelte, you can be damned
sure the manufacturers would be trying harder to make them that way...


Shape is mainly because its been retained from film days, and the first
DSLR's were film camera's with digital backs.. all my camera choices were
made on feel of the camera in the hand.. now I am sure some of these
"credit card" camera's (i.e. Canon Ixus) are brilliant, but in my hand they
felt too small.. I felt too clumsy to operate it..

however, I have a canon G9, and older canon P n S (A520) and am awaiting a
replacement DSLR (see other post). the A520 is a light and small pocket
camera, a little dated now, but works well, and is my take anywhere camera,
the G9 is Much better, but limited in some things it can do, but again,
can go places I'd not get the DSLR in.. (many museums nowadays don't like
people taking camera's in etc.. but a camera that fits in a pocket..
(weather you sneakily use it of not)). churches and cathedrals have similar
rules..

however, the DSLR in its current shape (not the smaller ones). feels right,
its "balanced". several manufacturers have tried alternative shapes (Sony
amongst them).. but the DSLR buying public saw them as inferior.. purely
because they didn't look right.. the shape is not really a fashion, its a
dictate.

so is the shape down to the manufacturer.. or the consumer, and.. if you
had the choice.. would you be the first to stray into a new shape of
camera, that differed from what you were used too?

change is not always good.. (especially the smaller = assumed better
changes)..


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Bruce" wrote
...
........................................
Some good points, but it simply isn't true that there aren't any small
and svelte DSLRs. Look at anything from Pentax, plus the Nikon
D40(X), D60, D80, D90, D3000 and D5000. I haven't held the Canon 500D
but that looks small too.

All the cameras listed are quite tiny, and light. Small and svelte!


I've got the D80.
"Quite tiny, light, small and svelte" ????????????????????
Have you even been NEAR any one of the cameras you mention??

In uk.rec.photo.misc loopy livernose wrote:
however, I have a canon G9, and older canon P n S (A520) and am awaiting a
replacement DSLR (see other post). the A520 is a light and small pocket
camera, a little dated now, but works well, and is my take anywhere camera,
the G9 is Much better, but limited in some things it can do, but again,
can go places I'd not get the DSLR in.. (many museums nowadays don't like
people taking camera's in etc.. but a camera that fits in a pocket..
(weather you sneakily use it of not)). churches and cathedrals have similar

Raining, snowing, just keep the camera under your hat. .... or did
you mean 'whether'?

rules..

--
Chris Green

wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.photo.misc loopy livernose
wrote:
however, I have a canon G9, and older canon P n S (A520) and am
awaiting a
replacement DSLR (see other post). the A520 is a light and small pocket
camera, a little dated now, but works well, and is my take anywhere
camera,
the G9 is Much better, but limited in some things it can do, but again,
can go places I'd not get the DSLR in.. (many museums nowadays don't
like
people taking camera's in etc.. but a camera that fits in a pocket..
(weather you sneakily use it of not)). churches and cathedrals have
similar

Raining, snowing, just keep the camera under your hat. .... or did
you mean 'whether'?

oops.. that will teach me to trust the spell checker to correct a typo!!

:-S


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Miles Bader says...
but in part it seems that people sort of
_expect_ DSLRs to be big and bloated (maybe they somehow think it makes
them seem "professional"?)

A few years ago I was using an Olympus 8080 with the 1.4x teleconverter.
To connect the teleconverter you have to screw on the 8080 an adapter
tube. The Olympus 8080 may be a compact, but the combination of camera,
extension tube and teleconverter is really big.

If it's the TCON-14D 1.4x teleconverter lens, the the combination is
rather large for a "compact":
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...80_tcon14d.jpg
From the design and size, I wouldn't really lump the C-8080 in with the
compacts (what sort of monster-sized pocket does it fit into?), rather
more of a "bridge" camera (large zoom lens & vaguely SLR shaped) just
like a Minolta Dimage A2 or something similar.

I was taking some
pictures at the local club and this woman approaches me and says "... oh
... professional camera ..."

To some people: big lens + eye-level viewfinder + black coloured body =
professional camera.
I personally would say that if the camera is used to earn an income,
then it's a "professional" camera.

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:00:14 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote in
:

In article , dj_nme
says...
If it's the TCON-14D 1.4x teleconverter lens, the the combination is
rather large for a "compact":
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...80_tcon14d.jpg
From the design and size, I wouldn't really lump the C-8080 in with the
compacts (what sort of monster-sized pocket does it fit into?), rather
more of a "bridge" camera (large zoom lens & vaguely SLR shaped) just
like a Minolta Dimage A2 or something similar.
It's a compact meaning that it uses a small sensor. ...

Compact means, well ... compact.
Sensor sizes in compact cameras vary considerably,
just as they do in dSLRs.

Leaving aside the minor players in the DSLR game, there's full frame,
the Nikon 1.5 multiplier, the Canon 1.6 and 1.3 multipliers. That's not
a lot.

--
john mcwilliams

oh, yeah.

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:44:48 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:00:14 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote in
:

In article , dj_nme
says...
If it's the TCON-14D 1.4x teleconverter lens, the the combination is
rather large for a "compact":
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...80_tcon14d.jpg
From the design and size, I wouldn't really lump the C-8080 in with the
compacts (what sort of monster-sized pocket does it fit into?), rather
more of a "bridge" camera (large zoom lens & vaguely SLR shaped) just
like a Minolta Dimage A2 or something similar.
It's a compact meaning that it uses a small sensor. ...
Compact means, well ... compact.
Sensor sizes in compact cameras vary considerably,
just as they do in dSLRs.
Leaving aside the minor players in the DSLR game, there's full frame,
the Nikon 1.5 multiplier, the Canon 1.6 and 1.3 multipliers. That's not
a lot.

Denial again. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Please be specific this time, John.
Are you claiming that by adding 4/3 (used by Olympus and Panasonic) that
having 5 different sensor sizes for DSLR cameras is a lot?
This is rather a lot less than what was available for film SLR cameras.
At least 5 major roll & cartridge film formats, plus quite a few more
obscure ones.
Plus a variety of frame sizes, depending on which camera the film is
loaded into and leads to at least 30 or 40 different formats, depending
on which ones you want to count.

What is your point, or is that you wish to argue merely for the sake of
making noise?
Again: please be specific.

I'm still waiting, John.
Where is your "witty" reply?