Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)

ray wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:49:57 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

ray wrote:
[]
I don't know - there may be some info on the panasonic web site. I use
a Kodak P850 which, as I recall, is about 330k - it's fine. I've also
looked at e.g. a canon s31s and it's so blocky I know I could not stand
it. I know that several makers have done a decent job - there was a
Minolta that was pretty decent, too. I've read that although Minolta
claimed 1mp for the EVF they were counting all of the red, green and
blue pixels separately so the res was only about 330k.
That was the Minolta A2 - nice viewfinder but I returned mine for other
reasons.

The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have
called it 4.2M G) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks like
in practice.

David

Or, are they doing the same thing and it's really 450k? In either event
that should be adequate.

If, that that is a big if, the color is accurate, and the sensor is able
to provide color in low light. Kinda makes a histogram display useless
if color isn't present in the display too.

ray wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:07:14 +0000, Bruce wrote:

ray wrote:

Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at a Kodak P series?


I can't imagine ever wanting to use a Kodak digicam, so no.

If you could ever lower yourself, you might find that the 330k EVF in the
Kodaks is quite useable.


That's like saying your Yugo has nice alloy rims.

ray wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:49:57 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

ray wrote:
[]
I don't know - there may be some info on the panasonic web site. I
use a Kodak P850 which, as I recall, is about 330k - it's fine.
I've also looked at e.g. a canon s31s and it's so blocky I know I
could not stand it. I know that several makers have done a decent
job - there was a Minolta that was pretty decent, too. I've read
that although Minolta claimed 1mp for the EVF they were counting
all of the red, green and blue pixels separately so the res was
only about 330k.

That was the Minolta A2 - nice viewfinder but I returned mine for
other reasons.

The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have
called it 4.2M G) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks
like in practice.

David

Or, are they doing the same thing and it's really 450k? In either
event that should be adequate.

No, they are not doing the same thing. They have a field-sequential
system, I believe, with 1.4MP of red, 1.4MP of green and 1.4MP of blue. I
would be most interested to see how that works in practice....

David

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor says...

The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have
called it 4.2M G) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks
like in practice.

Isn't it 800x600 full colour pixels, i.e. 0.48MP?

No, 1.4MP, field sequential. According to:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pana...mcg1/page2.asp

David

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:19:43 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

ray wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:49:57 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

ray wrote:
[]
I don't know - there may be some info on the panasonic web site. I
use a Kodak P850 which, as I recall, is about 330k - it's fine. I've
also looked at e.g. a canon s31s and it's so blocky I know I could
not stand it. I know that several makers have done a decent job -
there was a Minolta that was pretty decent, too. I've read that
although Minolta claimed 1mp for the EVF they were counting all of
the red, green and blue pixels separately so the res was only about
330k.

That was the Minolta A2 - nice viewfinder but I returned mine for
other reasons.

The Panasonic G1 has about 1.4MP viewfinder (so Minolta might have
called it 4.2M G) and I can't wait to see what it actually looks
like in practice.

David

Or, are they doing the same thing and it's really 450k? In either event
that should be adequate.

No, they are not doing the same thing. They have a field-sequential
system, I believe, with 1.4MP of red, 1.4MP of green and 1.4MP of blue.
I would be most interested to see how that works in practice....

David

Seems like overkill and rather expensive. Should be interesting to see
one.

In rec.photo.digital ray wrote:
| On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:12:25 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
|
| In rec.photo.digital ray wrote: | On Mon, 02 Mar 2009
| 22:52:04 -0800, Savageduck wrote: |
| | On 2009-03-02 20:26:36 -0800, ray said: |
| | On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:40:15 -0600, Rich wrote: |
| | Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR! |
| | http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09...stem.asp#specs
| |
| | Geez! What will they think of next!! A digital camera with an |
| Electronic ViewFinder!!! Absolutely REVOLUTIONARY!!!!! |
| | CoolPix 5700 redux
| |
| | For one thing - I see no information on the resolution of the EVF.
| That | has been the downfall of many an EVF, IMHO. Most of them are of
| such low | resolution that the image is far too 'blocky' to do any
| decent | photography - I think, typically, they are around 100k - 300k
| or more | seems to be adequate.
|
| If it includes an electronic zoom just for viewing, which lots of
| cameras do already have in some form for viewing from the back LCD, then
| it can be a reasonably convenient way to verify the focus was on the
| right part of the scene, or for manual focusing (don't know if this
| camera can do that). For more critical work, you would be on a tripod,
| using the back LCD, and probably not this camera.
|
| No LCD is going to have the resolution of the sensor without being a
| monster in size (think of hauling around a big 42" widescreen TV with
| computer display pixel size). If you want to see individual sensor
| pixels while composing, you will need the zoom.
|
| I'm not expecting the EVF to have the full resolution of the sensor. I'm
| hoping for something I can use. I've looked at a number of EVF cameras -
| my assessment, for my use - YMMV - is that I can't stand an EVF of 110k
| pixels while one with 330k is perfectly acceptable. I don't need or want
| to see individual pixels while composing - I don't see that it would be
| useful. I also don't want a stinking LCD on the back of the camera -
| again YMMV and most seem to come that way anyhow.

A lot of what I do involves camera on tripod, and the back LCD is much more
convenient for that. Some people want one. Some want the other. Some want
both. Camera makers will have to decide what to do. Having both seems to
be the simpler choice.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Bruce wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Bruce wrote:
ray wrote:
Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at a Kodak P series?

I can't imagine ever wanting to use a Kodak digicam, so no.


I find
the EVF on it to be quite usable - has about three times the pixels of
the lesser ones.

Such bias is irrational, and can be expensive. Especially with
accompanied by ignorance of the features of the other brand.
But, it's your money.


Buying junk is irrational and always expensive, because you end up
paying once for junk and a second time for the equipment that you should
have bought in the first place.

Some of us buy junk, learn from it, and try hard never to do it again.

Others buy junk and are happy with it. Go figure.

And some find that having spent a lot of money for a product, based on
bias against another product, their product really doesn't do the job
better.
After about 60 years using Kodak products, I have never had a negative
experience with their cameras. Given that they still sell more cameras
and photographic products than any other company (last time I checked),
I believe I have the weight of the world on my side in this one.

wrote:
In rec.photo.digital ray wrote:
| On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:12:25 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
|
| In rec.photo.digital ray wrote: | On Mon, 02 Mar 2009
| 22:52:04 -0800, Savageduck wrote: |
| | On 2009-03-02 20:26:36 -0800, ray said: |
| | On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:40:15 -0600, Rich wrote: |
| | Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR! |
| | http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09...stem.asp#specs
| |
| | Geez! What will they think of next!! A digital camera with an |
| Electronic ViewFinder!!! Absolutely REVOLUTIONARY!!!!! |
| | CoolPix 5700 redux
| |
| | For one thing - I see no information on the resolution of the EVF.
| That | has been the downfall of many an EVF, IMHO. Most of them are of
| such low | resolution that the image is far too 'blocky' to do any
| decent | photography - I think, typically, they are around 100k - 300k
| or more | seems to be adequate.
|
| If it includes an electronic zoom just for viewing, which lots of
| cameras do already have in some form for viewing from the back LCD, then
| it can be a reasonably convenient way to verify the focus was on the
| right part of the scene, or for manual focusing (don't know if this
| camera can do that). For more critical work, you would be on a tripod,
| using the back LCD, and probably not this camera.
|
| No LCD is going to have the resolution of the sensor without being a
| monster in size (think of hauling around a big 42" widescreen TV with
| computer display pixel size). If you want to see individual sensor
| pixels while composing, you will need the zoom.
|
| I'm not expecting the EVF to have the full resolution of the sensor. I'm
| hoping for something I can use. I've looked at a number of EVF cameras -
| my assessment, for my use - YMMV - is that I can't stand an EVF of 110k
| pixels while one with 330k is perfectly acceptable. I don't need or want
| to see individual pixels while composing - I don't see that it would be
| useful. I also don't want a stinking LCD on the back of the camera -
| again YMMV and most seem to come that way anyhow.

A lot of what I do involves camera on tripod, and the back LCD is much more
convenient for that. Some people want one. Some want the other. Some want
both. Camera makers will have to decide what to do. Having both seems to
be the simpler choice.

Saying that a back LCD is a bad thing is like saying view cameras should
have only had optical viewfinders. A back mounted LCD is a great thing
for certain purposes, pretty much useless for others. It depends on
where, and how, you take pictures.

wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Rich wrote:

| Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
|
| http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09...stem.asp#specs

Why was this originally crossposted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? It is
not an SLR. I deleted that newsgroup from my followup.

I'll be interested when a truly pro model comes out with a full line of lenses.
As discussed in other threads a while back, it would be possible to make this
kind of camera work compatibly with an SLR system. It will need either a leaf
shutter in the lens (preferred) or a focal plane shutter.

If the Samsung NX is similar in design to the Panasonic DMC-G1, then it
also has a focal plane shutter and can use almost any lens with a
register distance greater than the camera with a simple metal ring adapter.
Being only a "wooden block" mock-up means that this is all pretty much
just speculation about what the NX could be.

A hybrid system with
leaf shutters in most or all lenses could have camera bodies with optical view
(e.g. SLR, or classic rangefiner) or digital view (LCD, either on the back on
in the viewfinder, or even both).

It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
NX lenses.
If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.
What would be nifty is if Samsung produces an NX to KAF adapter which
has a screw drive for Pentax K AF lenses.
Even an adapter For using Pentax K SDM AF lenses on an NX seems like a
good idea (to me).

Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
plane shutter in SLRs).

There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
the Samsung NX cameras will have.
I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
built into the NX camera body.

While having the option for lightweight consumer grade cameras is good, for the
more intense photography, a serious camera, with at least enough size to hold
on to effectively, is desired. Having them use the same lens mount would be a
plus.

Interesting idea, but I'm not overly convinced about in-lens shutters.
It restricts the type of lenses which can be used, EG: no pinhole.

In article ,
dj_nme wrote:
[ ... ]
There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
the Samsung NX cameras will have.
I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
built into the NX camera body.
[ ... ]

All this talk about where the shutter should
be has me confused. This isn't an SLR. When
would the shutter be closed? It seems to me
that since it's not an SLR, it is intrinsically
shutterless. The shutter time would just be
the time between sensor dumps.

Bob