How thin can a sensor become - or could you live without a LCD?

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
Pretty much. It's funny to use the trolls tactics
against them

nospam:
you do that because you know you're wrong and won't admit it.

otherwise, you'd discuss the issue rather than play games.

Sandman:
"discussion" is not possible with you.

projection.

all you've done is attack and resort to to games, while completely
avoiding the issue. that makes *you* the one with whom discussion is
not possible.

Projection, as usual.

that's what i said. at least you admit you're doing it. that's a little
bit of progress.

I've participated in several discussion with several persons in this group
lately. You have not. You are not capable of it. You only enter a thread to
argue and troll.

nonsense.

the fact remains that you made an incorrect statement about live view
autofocus, which i corrected *with* *facts* and a *clear* explanation
of why you're wrong.

since you can't admit you're wrong, you are resorting to your usual
antics, games and attacks.

it's not particularly surprising because you're once again in well over
your head, so what else is there to do but turn it into an attack-fest.

In article , nospam wrote:

In article
,

Sandman:
Pretty much. It's funny to use the trolls tactics
against them

nospam:
you do that because you know you're wrong and won't
admit it.

otherwise, you'd discuss the issue rather than play games.

Sandman:
"discussion" is not possible with you.

nospam:
projection.

all you've done is attack and resort to to games, while
completely avoiding the issue. that makes *you* the one with
whom discussion is not possible.

Sandman:
Projection, as usual.

that's what i said. at least you admit you're doing it. that's a
little bit of progress.

Sandman:
I've participated in several discussion with several persons in
this group lately. You have not. You are not capable of it. You
only enter a thread to argue and troll.

nonsense.

the fact remains that you made an incorrect statement about live
view autofocus, which i corrected *with* *facts* and a *clear*
explanation of why you're wrong.

since you can't admit you're wrong, you are resorting to your usual
antics, games and attacks.

it's not particularly surprising because you're once again in well
over your head, so what else is there to do but turn it into an
attack-fest.

Nospam, getting everything wrong and then proclaiming victory, it's like
watching a small child running into an adult, throwing sand in his face and
then call him pooface and run away screaming "gotcha!!!"

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:


Sandman:
I've participated in several discussion with several persons in
this group lately. You have not. You are not capable of it. You
only enter a thread to argue and troll.

nonsense.

the fact remains that you made an incorrect statement about live
view autofocus, which i corrected *with* *facts* and a *clear*
explanation of why you're wrong.

since you can't admit you're wrong, you are resorting to your usual
antics, games and attacks.

it's not particularly surprising because you're once again in well
over your head, so what else is there to do but turn it into an
attack-fest.

Nospam, getting everything wrong and then proclaiming victory, it's like
watching a small child running into an adult, throwing sand in his face and
then call him pooface and run away screaming "gotcha!!!"

more projection.

what i wrote was correct and not a single thing you nor anyone else
said has shown it to be wrong.

all you've done is attack and run away because as usual, you're in over
your head and can't admit it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

any time you want to discuss autofocus, let us know.

In article , nospam wrote:

In article
,

Sandman:
I've participated in several discussion with several
persons in this group lately. You have not. You are not
capable of it. You only enter a thread to argue and troll.

nospam:
nonsense.

the fact remains that you made an incorrect statement about live
view autofocus, which i corrected *with* *facts* and a *clear*
explanation of why you're wrong.

since you can't admit you're wrong, you are resorting to your
usual antics, games and attacks.

it's not particularly surprising because you're once again in
well over your head, so what else is there to do but turn it
into an attack-fest.

Sandman:
Nospam, getting everything wrong and then proclaiming victory,
it's like watching a small child running into an adult, throwing
sand in his face and then call him pooface and run away screaming
"gotcha!!!"

more projection.

what i wrote was correct and not a single thing you nor anyone else
said has shown it to be wrong.

all you've done is attack and run away because as usual, you're in
over your head and can't admit it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

any time you want to discuss autofocus, let us know.

Again, "discussion" isn't possible with you. Believe me, I've tried. You enter
a thread, misunderstand what has been said, make incorrect statement based on
your misunderstanding and then declare victory after making some gracious
personal attacks. It's what you do. Carry on.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:



the fact remains that you made an incorrect statement about live
view autofocus, which i corrected *with* *facts* and a *clear*
explanation of why you're wrong.

since you can't admit you're wrong, you are resorting to your
usual antics, games and attacks.

it's not particularly surprising because you're once again in
well over your head, so what else is there to do but turn it
into an attack-fest.

Sandman:
Nospam, getting everything wrong and then proclaiming victory,
it's like watching a small child running into an adult, throwing
sand in his face and then call him pooface and run away screaming
"gotcha!!!"

more projection.

what i wrote was correct and not a single thing you nor anyone else
said has shown it to be wrong.

all you've done is attack and run away because as usual, you're in
over your head and can't admit it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

any time you want to discuss autofocus, let us know.

Again, "discussion" isn't possible with you. Believe me, I've tried. You
enter
a thread, misunderstand what has been said, make incorrect statement based on
your misunderstanding and then declare victory after making some gracious
personal attacks. It's what you do. Carry on.

that's what *you* do, as you've done once again in this thread.

i explained the differences with autofocus lenses, which you did not
understand, so you ignored it and instead attacked. you're not fooling
anyone.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
In article 2016010208294628742-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

David Taylor:
Size, weight, bulk - one of the major reasons I went to
micro-four-thirds from an APS-C DSLR. Not everyone needs the
extra capabilities of a full-frame camera.

Agreed. That is one of my reasons for my move to the Fuji X-system
(in my case an X-E2). I get an APS-C sensor in a camera which gives
me all I need without the bulk and weight of the DSLR system

True, but that has nothing to do with sensor size. I.e. you could have
moved to
Sony A7 and gotten a full frame mirrorless camera in the same size
bracket.


They are not in the same weight bracket. A Sony A7R II weighs almost
twice as much as a Fujifilm X-E2.

On Jan 4, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
In article2016010208294628742-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

David Taylor:
Size, weight, bulk - one of the major reasons I went to
micro-four-thirds from an APS-C DSLR. Not everyone needs the
extra capabilities of a full-frame camera.

Agreed. That is one of my reasons for my move to the Fuji X-system
(in my case an X-E2). I get an APS-C sensor in a camera which gives
me all I need without the bulk and weight of the DSLR system

True, but that has nothing to do with sensor size. I.e. you could have
moved to
Sony A7 and gotten a full frame mirrorless camera in the same size
bracket.


They are not in the same weight bracket. A Sony A7R II weighs almost
twice as much as a Fujifilm X-E2.

....and costs more than three times as much for the body only, so the A7RII
will lighten your wallet more than the X-E2.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
s.com...
On Jan 4, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
In article2016010208294628742-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

David Taylor:
Size, weight, bulk - one of the major reasons I went to
micro-four-thirds from an APS-C DSLR. Not everyone needs the
extra capabilities of a full-frame camera.

Agreed. That is one of my reasons for my move to the Fuji
X-system
(in my case an X-E2). I get an APS-C sensor in a camera which
gives
me all I need without the bulk and weight of the DSLR system

True, but that has nothing to do with sensor size. I.e. you could
have
moved to
Sony A7 and gotten a full frame mirrorless camera in the same size
bracket.


They are not in the same weight bracket. A Sony A7R II weighs almost
twice as much as a Fujifilm X-E2.

...and costs more than three times as much for the body only, so the
A7RII
will lighten your wallet more than the X-E2.

The lighter wallet may just make up for the difference.

In article ,
RichA wrote:

DSLR's are always going to be thick, but an FE is easily possible as an
sensor system could be as thin as the back of the camera and its film
pressure plate.

except for redesigning the mirror box, among other changes.

I think one experimenter got away with machining down the film rails and
simply mounting a sensor on the back of and old SLR.

they might have tried, but whatever they did would not have worked for
numerous reasons.

I've seen plans for
one.

none that would actually work.

But, hey, if Leica could do it what, 15 years ago, they could certainly do it again.

leica did not retrofit a digital sensor into a film camera.

however, there was a completely bogus company 15 years ago who called
themselves silicon film as well as many other names that supposedly had
a drop-in sensor cartridge for some slrs. they got a lot of publicity
but it was completely bogus.

kodak took nikon and canon bodies and retrofitted a sensor, but it was
cropped and required communication with the camera body.

In article , PAS wrote:

David Taylor:
Size, weight, bulk - one of the major reasons I
went to micro-four-thirds from an APS-C DSLR. Not everyone
needs the extra capabilities of a full-frame camera.

Savageduck:
Agreed. That is one of my reasons for my move to the Fuji
X-system (in my case an X-E2). I get an APS-C sensor in a
camera which gives me all I need without the bulk and weight of
the DSLR system

Sandman:
True, but that has nothing to do with sensor size. I.e. you could
have moved to Sony A7 and gotten a full frame mirrorless camera
in the same size bracket.

They are not in the same weight bracket. A Sony A7R II weighs
almost twice as much as a Fujifilm X-E2.

But the A7 does not.

--
Sandman