2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr)

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
Lionel wrote:
Deletions
I didn't look in any books, there is no need to. I know what the
hell an SLR is in todays context. The only book I have handy
that looks at various camera systems and their general
description is that which I quoted.



Sorry Alan, that sounds like the classical line, "I can't define
pornography but I know it when I see it"

Jim.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
Lionel wrote:
Deletions
I didn't look in any books, there is no need to. I know what the
hell an SLR is in todays context. The only book I have handy
that looks at various camera systems and their general
description is that which I quoted.



Sorry Alan, that sounds like the classical line, "I can't define
pornography but I know it when I see it"

Jim.

edward ohare wrote:


But it provides the same advantage as a reflex concerning the viewing
of the image for composition. It seems to me its the feature and the
benefit it provides that matters, not how its done.

It is most curious you're attacking this on a design issue while the
feature/benefit remains the same, while including rangefinders which
do not have the benefit of the SLR design that the G3 has.

We've stomped all over these issues already. The G3 as wonderful
as it is, cannot cover what can be covered with a DSLR.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

edward ohare wrote:


But it provides the same advantage as a reflex concerning the viewing
of the image for composition. It seems to me its the feature and the
benefit it provides that matters, not how its done.

It is most curious you're attacking this on a design issue while the
feature/benefit remains the same, while including rangefinders which
do not have the benefit of the SLR design that the G3 has.

We've stomped all over these issues already. The G3 as wonderful
as it is, cannot cover what can be covered with a DSLR.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

edward ohare wrote:


But it provides the same advantage as a reflex concerning the viewing
of the image for composition. It seems to me its the feature and the
benefit it provides that matters, not how its done.

It is most curious you're attacking this on a design issue while the
feature/benefit remains the same, while including rangefinders which
do not have the benefit of the SLR design that the G3 has.

We've stomped all over these issues already. The G3 as wonderful
as it is, cannot cover what can be covered with a DSLR.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

edward ohare wrote:

Years ago, the 35mm SLR crowd hauled around mutiple non-zoom lenses
because zooms weren't very good. Zooms got better. Oh, but they were
variable aperature, and that wasn't good enough. Finally, years
later, guess what? SLR people are hauling around multiple zooms.
Often with variable aperature. And now the argument is anything with
single zoom isn't good enough. Since the community has eventually
adopted what it once claimed was intolerable, wouldn't it be expected
to eventually figure a single zoom was OK? (Well, no, of course not,
history is no predictor of the future, eh?)

Hmm. There is some truth there, but certainly not the whole
truth. I would never use my zooms for portraits, macro, most
sport and landscape work. I use primes (or: fixed focal length
lenses if you prefer). I do use my two high quality,
non-variable-aperture zooms for some sports, for hiking, fairs,
parties and other less structured work. There's no hard line
here, but usually the right lenses for the job.

Having said that, when Minolta come out with their D7D, I will
consider ordering it with the 28-105 (var aperture) lens as it is
very good as zooms go, and very appropriate to the camera.
However, there are another lenses with higher priorities on my
list, inlcuding at least 2 primes and one (non-var aperture) zoom.

There remain in the SLR world people who swear by fixed-focal and
those who accept the quality limitations of zooms. One point is
that as the optics have improved for the zooms, they have
likewise improved for the better primes as well... so the primes
always come out ahead if that is important to the photog.

The "high quality" zooms rarely have a zoom ratio of more than
about 2.8:1 at that, most exhibit some quality limitations at
wide angle, fully open.

17-35 f/2.8, 28-80 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are the three
"professional" zooms you are likely to see carted around by pj's
and other folks with narrow time constraints on their work.
There is no "super zoom" that is regarded as having sufficient
optical quality for most professional work.

Could a pj use a super zoom? Probably, except for the limitation
in aperture (although the realtively noiseless high ISO help),
the mtf quality he's expected to deliver for a newspaper is not
exceedingly high... but I've seen no pj's to date with less than
the top end glass ... as recently as a few weeks ago at a sports
event.

Will there one day be a 28-300 f/2.8? Or better? I don't know.
One way is to make the sensor even smaller than on cameras like
the G3, but with higher res ---and--- lower noise. Quite an
objective g. In fact this is part of Olympus' approach with
the E-1... smaller sensor means smaller lens systems, and fast
apertures for the same FOV as a larger sensor... lower costs for
the best lenses. But are they breaking the zoom ratio wider?
Well so far ...almost, but all are var-aperture (ref: Oly site).

Back to the G3 (or other SLR-like cameras) ... are they any good?
Certainly. Do they meet the needs of people who are trying to
achieve specific results? Only if the specific results are
within the capability of the camera. Hence the G3 is limited.


Occasionally man will stumble over the truth. Usually, he will pick
himself up and carry on. -- Winston Churchill

"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read a book of
quotations."
--Winston Churchill



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

edward ohare writes:

Years ago, the 35mm SLR crowd hauled around mutiple non-zoom lenses
because zooms weren't very good. Zooms got better. Oh, but they
were variable aperature, and that wasn't good enough. Finally,
years later, guess what? SLR people are hauling around multiple
zooms. Often with variable aperature. And now the argument is
anything with single zoom isn't good enough. Since the community
has eventually adopted what it once claimed was intolerable,
wouldn't it be expected to eventually figure a single zoom was OK?
(Well, no, of course not, history is no predictor of the future,
eh?)

I've got 17mm through 500mm lenses for my 35mm cameras (film and
digital). I've got a 300mm f2.8. I've got a 135mm f2.
Better-financed photographers than me have 600 f4 lenses and things,
and 6mm fisheyes, and on and on.

In theory, I have no objection to a "single zoom". In practice, no
such lens is available that covers what I have and use frequently.
And if there were such a lens, it would weigh about a ton. The laws
of optics seem pretty firm on that last point.

The early objection to zooms was largely practical -- they weren't, in
fact, good enough. Some people objected to variable aperture, but it
never bothered me (my first zoom was from shortly before that era, but
after that I happily bought variable aperture zooms if they fit my
needs). And, if you're using studio flash say, a variable aperture
zoom *is* a problem -- the exposure isn't being controlled by
through-the-lens measurements.

So I think your examples aren't a good analogy to the concept of using
one lens for everything.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/