Camera categories

Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.

"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 7:03 pm, "Charles" wrote:
Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.

In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".

Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.

My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down) and I
am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all that
will matter in the future?

Charles wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 7:03 pm, "Charles" wrote:
Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.

In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".

Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.

My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down) and I
am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all that
will matter in the future?

About the only way that I can see to categorise digicam types is to
describe either there size (EG: ultra-compact, compact & large),
viewfinder mechanism (EG: tunnel, LCD, EVF, SLR & RF), price-range (EG:
disposable, cheap, expensive), can it use interchangeable lenses, the
use that they're put to (EG: P&S, enthusiast or professional) or a
combination of all the above.
For example, I'd describe something like the Ricoh GX200 as a
compact/EVF enthusiasts camera that's moderately expensive.
Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an EVIL
camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.
But, I believe that it's really up to the person to decide how to
describe their gear.
If some-one's used to using a Hasselblad studio camera, then they could
quite easily describe a Canon 5D as a "compact".

The only thing which rankles me is if some twit describes his EVF
digicam as an DSLR camera, when it totally lacks any form of optical TTL
viewfinder (usually using a mirror and pentaprism, but it could use a
beamspiltter/pellicle mirror and/or pentamirror/porromirror instead).

dj_nme wrote:
Charles wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 7:03 pm, "Charles" wrote:
Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.

In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".

Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.

My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down) and I
am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all that
will matter in the future?

About the only way that I can see to categorise digicam types is to
describe either there size (EG: ultra-compact, compact & large),
viewfinder mechanism (EG: tunnel, LCD, EVF, SLR & RF), price-range (EG:
disposable, cheap, expensive), can it use interchangeable lenses, the
use that they're put to (EG: P&S, enthusiast or professional) or a
combination of all the above.
For example, I'd describe something like the Ricoh GX200 as a
compact/EVF enthusiasts camera that's moderately expensive.
Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an EVIL
camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.

What have you got against functional description?

--
Chris Malcolm

Charles wrote:
Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.

Sensor/film size is a significant distinction with laws of physics that
follow regarding exposure time and depth of field. THe following are
very different sorts of cameras to operate with very different prices,
depth of field and print size:
-Large format
-Medium format
-35mm
-P&S

Pixel count is really important for print size, especially in good
light. With that sorting factor, we can order the major camera types
like this:
-Large format
-Medium format
-35mm
-P&S

Cost is of course a major factor reflecting real value:
-Large format
-Medium format
-35mm
-P&S

Actual hand held size of the camera has a huge impact on how people use
a camera. With that priority, they sort this way:
-Large format
-Medium format
-35mm
-P&S

The functionality/flexibility of a camera system as a prime force might
sort the list like this though:
-35mm
-P&S
-Medium format
-Large format


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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Chris Malcolm wrote:
dj_nme wrote:
Charles wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 7:03 pm, "Charles" wrote:
Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.
In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".

Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.

My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down) and I
am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all that
will matter in the future?

About the only way that I can see to categorise digicam types is to
describe either there size (EG: ultra-compact, compact & large),
viewfinder mechanism (EG: tunnel, LCD, EVF, SLR & RF), price-range (EG:
disposable, cheap, expensive), can it use interchangeable lenses, the
use that they're put to (EG: P&S, enthusiast or professional) or a
combination of all the above.
For example, I'd describe something like the Ricoh GX200 as a
compact/EVF enthusiasts camera that's moderately expensive.
Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an EVIL
camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.

What have you got against functional description?

What functional difference?
They all take pictures: that is their function.

dj_nme wrote:

Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an
EVIL
camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.

I like that. And *not* in a derogatory sense.

dj_nme wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
dj_nme wrote:
Charles wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 7:03 pm, "Charles" wrote:
Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.
In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".

Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.

My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down) and I
am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all that
will matter in the future?

About the only way that I can see to categorise digicam types is to
describe either there size (EG: ultra-compact, compact & large),
viewfinder mechanism (EG: tunnel, LCD, EVF, SLR & RF), price-range (EG:
disposable, cheap, expensive), can it use interchangeable lenses, the
use that they're put to (EG: P&S, enthusiast or professional) or a
combination of all the above.
For example, I'd describe something like the Ricoh GX200 as a
compact/EVF enthusiasts camera that's moderately expensive.
Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an EVIL
camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.

What have you got against functional description?

What functional difference?
They all take pictures: that is their function.

So there's no functional difference between a 15mm lens and a 150mm
lens? I see your problem. But it's not a problem with functional
descriptions.

--
Chris Malcolm

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
dj_nme wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
dj_nme wrote:
Charles wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 7:03 pm, "Charles" wrote:
Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.
In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".

Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.

My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down)
and I
am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all
that
will matter in the future?

About the only way that I can see to categorise digicam types is to
describe either there size (EG: ultra-compact, compact & large),
viewfinder mechanism (EG: tunnel, LCD, EVF, SLR & RF), price-range (EG:
disposable, cheap, expensive), can it use interchangeable lenses, the
use that they're put to (EG: P&S, enthusiast or professional) or a
combination of all the above.
For example, I'd describe something like the Ricoh GX200 as a
compact/EVF enthusiasts camera that's moderately expensive.
Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an EVIL
camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.

What have you got against functional description?

What functional difference?
They all take pictures: that is their function.

So there's no functional difference between a 15mm lens and a 150mm
lens? I see your problem. But it's not a problem with functional
descriptions.

But there's no differnce between a 15mm lens and a 150mm lens.
Niether can take photos as they're just lenes

On 19 Feb 2009 11:28:38 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

dj_nme wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
dj_nme wrote:
Charles wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 7:03 pm, "Charles" wrote:
Consumer
Point and shoots
Bridge
Super zooms
Prosumer
Affordable SLRs
Pro
SLRs
Other
Cell phones, web cams, etc.
In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".

Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.

My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down) and I
am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all that
will matter in the future?

About the only way that I can see to categorise digicam types is to
describe either there size (EG: ultra-compact, compact & large),
viewfinder mechanism (EG: tunnel, LCD, EVF, SLR & RF), price-range (EG:
disposable, cheap, expensive), can it use interchangeable lenses, the
use that they're put to (EG: P&S, enthusiast or professional) or a
combination of all the above.
For example, I'd describe something like the Ricoh GX200 as a
compact/EVF enthusiasts camera that's moderately expensive.
Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an EVIL
camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.

What have you got against functional description?

What functional difference?
They all take pictures: that is their function.

So there's no functional difference between a 15mm lens and a 150mm
lens? I see your problem. But it's not a problem with functional
descriptions.

I see that your problem is that you don't realize you're always wrong.
There really is no difference between a 15mm and a 150mm lens. Both can
image the same content out of any scene, DOF (CoC) included. It all depends
on how much you want to enlarge or reduce the details in the image from
each and how far away you are from the subjects in that image. This is
often difficult for the layman/amateur to believe and comprehend but
nonetheless is perfectly true.

The only thing that makes them different is the size of image recording
plane used with each and the subject distances.