A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what is needed?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 22nd 07, 12:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul D. Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 160
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what is needed?

I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?

Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?

Thanks


  #3  
Old May 22nd 07, 04:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what is needed?

On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:27:04 +0000, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?

Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?

Thanks


I found that in looking through one (canon s31s and a couple of other
brands as well) and then comparing with a higher res model from Kodak that
the difference was striking - I strongly suggest you do a 'side by side'
at a camera store, best buy, whatever. For me the difference was enough
just looking through the viewfinder that I was not willing to find out if
I could live with the lower res versions. I bought a Kodak P850 (refurb)
from Kodak's online store for $250 and I'm quite pleased with the
purchase. If you decide to go Kodak, I'd suggest the P series as it has
quite a few more features than the Z series - saves raw, tiff, jpeg - has
full manual mode . . .

  #4  
Old May 22nd 07, 05:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what is needed?

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?

Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?

Thanks


Paul,

You can manage with "115K", but the VGA resolution EVF in the Minolta A2
(advertised as "900,000 pixels") was much nearer to something which
provided a comfortable view. I find that with auto-focus, and the much
larger depth-of-field of the small-sensor cameras, I don't tend to use the
EVF for precision focussing (and remember that DSLRs have long abandoned
the focussing aids like split-image and micro-prism used in earlier film
SLRs).

I am unsure why other manufacturers (or even Minolta themselves) did not
follow-up on the VGA resolution EVF. Cost and sensor readout bandwidth
may come into it.

Cheers,
David


  #5  
Old May 22nd 07, 05:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Grumps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what is needed?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things
preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in
performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.



You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.


Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are ways
around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice
bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how its
done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not
faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping
around
making all that noise.


Ah! I was just starting my search for a P&S with short shutter lag, to
replace an old Canon PS. What P&S do you have? Is it EVF only, or optical
too?
Ta.


  #6  
Old May 22nd 07, 06:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what is needed?

wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.



You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.


Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts.


Nonsense.

There are ways around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice bokeh
effects.


Yeah, use an SLR.

Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping around
making all that noise.


Which one is that? I know of SLRs that take 10 pictures per second.

Long exposures? Who needs them with a camera that can
shoot in the pitch dark at fast shutter speeds using IR light only.


What a stupid statement.

You dSLR folk sure are insecure about needing to hold onto why you wasted that
much money, aren't you. Your problem, not mine.


Look in the mirror.

--
Ray Fischer


  #7  
Old May 22nd 07, 06:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Cynicor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 477
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what isneeded?

wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.


You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.


Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are ways around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how its done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping around
making all that noise. Long exposures? Who needs them with a camera that can
shoot in the pitch dark at fast shutter speeds using IR light only.


Seriously? This is just dumb. And I don't say that too often. This isn't
even a worthy troll.
  #8  
Old May 22nd 07, 06:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Cynicor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 477
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what isneeded?

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:

Long exposures? Who needs them with a camera that can
shoot in the pitch dark at fast shutter speeds using IR light only.


What a stupid statement.


I wouldn't say that. I would say that this was actually one of the more
hilariously stupid things I've ever seen.
  #9  
Old May 22nd 07, 06:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what isneeded?

Grumps wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things
preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in
performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.

You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.

Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are ways
around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice
bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how its
done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not
faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping
around
making all that noise.


Ah! I was just starting my search for a P&S with short shutter lag, to
replace an old Canon PS. What P&S do you have? Is it EVF only, or optical
too?


Most P&S *these days* have very short delays from half-press to
full-press. The problem is, they still focus slowly (contrast-detection
autofocus driven off the sensor is much slower than phase-detection
autofocus with a dedicated specialized sensor). If something holds
still, you can half-press and then wait for the right moment. But this
isn't very effective, I find, for children, cats, dogs, or sports.

dpreview measures the various delays, check their reviews. My Fuji F11
has a *very* short half-press to full-ress delay, but I find the slow
focus annoying (and there's no manual focus as an alternative).
  #10  
Old May 22nd 07, 06:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Cynicor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 477
Default EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what isneeded?

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Grumps wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:49 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things
preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in
performance
and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as
real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.

You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.
Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are
ways around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create
nice bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how
its done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not
faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit
flapping around
making all that noise.


Ah! I was just starting my search for a P&S with short shutter lag, to
replace an old Canon PS. What P&S do you have? Is it EVF only, or
optical too?


Most P&S *these days* have very short delays from half-press to
full-press. The problem is, they still focus slowly (contrast-detection
autofocus driven off the sensor is much slower than phase-detection
autofocus with a dedicated specialized sensor). If something holds
still, you can half-press and then wait for the right moment. But this
isn't very effective, I find, for children, cats, dogs, or sports.

dpreview measures the various delays, check their reviews. My Fuji F11
has a *very* short half-press to full-ress delay, but I find the slow
focus annoying (and there's no manual focus as an alternative).


There's a good chart he
http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutte...ort=ShutterLag

How long does it take your F11 to take five photos? I see it's got a
shutter lag of 0.01 second according to dpreview.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Needed ColynG© Other Photographic Equipment 0 February 12th 05 06:37 PM
Needed ColynG© General Equipment For Sale 0 January 30th 05 12:52 AM
Needed ColynG© 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 January 30th 05 12:52 AM
help needed John and Chris Digital Photography 1 June 23rd 04 11:36 PM
NEEDED photonhero Darkroom Equipment For Sale 1 September 12th 03 12:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.