Rob Studdert:
I suspect people don't realize just how low resolution video (even HD) is
compared to even the most basic digicams.
American TV: 0,3 Mpix.
European TV: 0,4 Mpix.
I think HDTV is somewhere about 2 Mpix, but I'm not sure of that.
--
anders
-
: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
Rob Studdert:
I suspect people don't realize just how low resolution video (even HD) is
compared to even the most basic digicams.
American TV: 0,3 Mpix.
European TV: 0,4 Mpix.
I think HDTV is somewhere about 2
provides really
only 540 lines in any one image. How many MP are we talking about here?
- Original Message -
From: Peter Loveday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
Depends how you
alex wetmore wrote on 17.08.04 3:07:
I expect that the CCD used by the Nikon D70, *ist D, and most other
6mp non-Canon D-SLRs has no movie mode because no manufacturer asked
Sony for it, and Sony didn't think that anyone would use it in
anything but a D-SLR.
CCD used in D70 is not the same as
On 17/8/04, fra, discombobulated, offered:
BD Not that they couldn't be overcome, but I haven't heard great things
BD even about the best of the EVF's.
I agree. Have you ever tried one of the professional TV cameras? From what I
have seen (they have BW EVF, which is inherently sharper than a
On 17/8/04, fra, discombobulated, offered:
I am more thinking that with increasing sensor sensitivity, we could
see a pellicle mirror DSLR. Imagine it - very fast, very quiet, no
dust on the sensor,... Is it possible to have AF in pellicle mirrror
one? Where would be the sensors?
Can anyone
Does the CRT display its data from the sensor, or does it read back what
has been written to the tape/media?
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 August 2004 12:47
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
On 17/8
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 6:49 AM
To: pentax list
Subject: Pellicle Mirrors (was: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new
digicams...)
On 17/8/04, fra, discombobulated, offered:
I am more thinking that with increasing sensor
Don Sanderson wrote on 17.08.04 14:04:
Not that big a deal Cotty, it's also called a semi-silvered mirror.
Lets some light thru, reflects some.
A lot like the one way mirrors you've seen.
Here's a page on the Canon F-1 that shows some advantages and disadvantages:
ERN:
Now that would be an interesting discussion. For the moment they're about
same price same size, with the prosumers having fixed lens and high
sensor noise as main disadvantages. But there's a conceptual difference
there. Electronic viewfinders vs. optical with mirror and
Rob Brigham:
Does the CRT display its data from the sensor, or does it read back what
has been written to the tape/media?
It has to be data from the sensor, or else the tape player must have
separate playback heads after the record heads. I don't think that is
the case in either Betacam SP or
ERN:
Didn't some of the prosumer Olympus digitals (SLR-style but with
permanently
attached lenses) have optical viewfinders?
Yes, the 2020 and the 5060 both have it that way.
Are those SLR-like models? I was thinking E-10, E-20, but only what I remember
reading about them as I've never
Subject: Pellicle Mirrors (was: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new
digicams...)
On 17/8/04, fra, discombobulated, offered:
I am more thinking that with increasing sensor sensitivity, we could
see a pellicle mirror DSLR. Imagine it - very fast, very quiet, no
dust on the sensor,... Is it possible
Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. august 2004 20:32
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: two new digicams...
--- Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO a camera of the 750Z
On 17 Aug 2004 at 8:16, Keith Whaley wrote:
Steve Desjardins wrote:
There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really
don't want or need the advantages. For those folks the prosumer cams
are a better choice. These cameras existed for film (remember those
Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really
don't want or need the advantages.
I agree that there are a lot of people who don't *need* the advantages,
but I'd bet a lot of them buy a DSLR for the image factor.
For those folks
a hotshoe.
Alex Sarbu
- Original Message -
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: two new digicams...
Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote on 17.08.04 16:24:
I thought I'd really like a pointshoot with hotshoe, until
Keith Whaley posted:
Steve Desjardins wrote:
There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really
don't want or need the advantages. For those folks the prosumer cams
are a better choice. These cameras existed for film (remember those
Olympus cameras?) but never really
I think he was talking about the ZLR's (fixed non-interchangale Zoom Lens Reflex).
Keith Whaley wrote:
Steve Desjardins wrote:
There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really
don't want or need the advantages. For those folks the prosumer cams
are a better choice. These
On 17/8/04, Rob Brigham, discombobulated, offered:
Does the CRT display its data from the sensor, or does it read back what
has been written to the tape/media?
Straight from the sensor. It is possible to playback in the camera as on
a domestic machine.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
On 17/8/04, graywolf, discombobulated, offered:
Strangely enough, a lot of the professional videocams have a BW viewfinder
monitor because it is easier to evaluate focus on them.
Very true Tom. Which can be fun if you get tricky lighting situations
with mixed sources casting (say) horrible blue
I shamefacedly admit, that never crossed my mind!
They never entered my scope of interest, and I must have totally ignored
their existence!
No, they never caught on with me, either! g
Thanks for clearing that up for me, Rob...
keith
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 17 Aug 2004 at 8:16, Keith Whaley
Of course... I had absolutely forgotten about those. Case in point, no? g
keith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith Whaley posted:
Steve Desjardins wrote:
There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really
don't want or need the advantages. For those folks the prosumer cams
are a
Steve Desjardins wrote on 17.08.04 16:11:
There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really
don't want or need the advantages. For those folks the prosumer cams
are a better choice. These cameras existed for film (remember those
Olympus cameras?) but never really
I didn't say they were bad cameras, just that they never caught. If
they had, Canon and Nikon would have made then too.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/17/2004 11:16:17 AM
Steve Desjardins wrote:
There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really
don't want or need the advantages.
(was Re: two new digicams...)
There are many folks that have enough money to buy a DSLR but really
don't want or need the advantages. For those folks the prosumer cams
are a better choice. These cameras existed for film (remember those
Olympus cameras?) but never really caught
On 17 Aug 2004 at 12:43, John Francis wrote:
BD Not that they couldn't be overcome, but I haven't heard great things
BD even about the best of the EVF's.
I agree. Have you ever tried one of the professional TV cameras? From what I
have seen (they have BW EVF, which is inherently
On 16/8/04, Christian, discombobulated, offered:
http://www.pentaxusa.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=199
http://www.pentaxusa.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=200
--
Christian
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pics here:
http://www.dpreview.com/
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
On 16/8/04, Cotty, discombobulated, offered:
On 16/8/04, Christian, discombobulated, offered:
http://www.pentaxusa.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=199
http://www.pentaxusa.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=200
--
Christian
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pics here:
http://www.dpreview.com/
Hey that
IMO a camera of the 750Z class should have a flash shoe, and preferably a
2.0 lens :-/.
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. august 2004 19:58
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: two
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.pentaxusa.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=199
http://www.pentaxusa.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=200
--
Christian
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interesting. The 750Z will have more megapixels than
the top of the line DSLR? A bit of a
On 16/8/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, offered:
Interesting. The 750Z will have more megapixels than
the top of the line DSLR? A bit of a marketing
conundrum?
Looks like two nice cams, though.
cheers,
frank
Yeah but Frank, because of the sensor size, even a 3MP D30 will blow away
the
On Aug 16, 2004, at 8:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.. and a flip-out LCD screen.
As it is, it would make a worthy successor to the 555, I think. But
even better
if it had what you suggest.
Well ERN, you're absolutely right :-) 555 is a very good digicam in its
class. Two of my friends who
On Aug 16, 2004, at 8:23 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Interesting. The 750Z will have more megapixels than
the top of the line DSLR? A bit of a marketing
conundrum?
Just a marketing blah, blah. 7MPix on small-nail-sized CCD won't make
any wonders for image quality :-) At least in terms of
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: two new digicams...
I noticed they did carefully leave out the aperture range...
f/2.8-f/4.6
Its in the specifications at the bottom of the page.
Not bad for a 5X zoom lens.
A hot shoe would be nice, although I expect there are 3
On Aug 16, 2004, at 8:31 PM, frank theriault wrote:
A compact camera with a 5x zoom, and you want it to be
f2.0?
Okay...
That's perfectly possible in small CCD digicams and it happened
allready in even 7x zoom lens :-) Look here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page2.asp
--
Best
Frank quoted and posted:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well that's only 1/2 stop faster than the 550's (5x)
zoom's maximum, and
technology improves all the time (doesn't it?)
Eleanor,
I didn't realize that such lenses were that fast.
f2.8 is fairly impressive for such a small
Mr Robb quoted Mr Whaley and then replied, thus:
I noticed they did carefully leave out the aperture range...
f/2.8-f/4.6
Its in the specifications at the bottom of the page.
Not bad for a 5X zoom lens.
Seems they're using the same lens from the 450, 550, 555.
FWIW, I think it's a very
From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that would be an interesting discussion. For the moment they're about
same price same size, with the prosumers having fixed lens and high
sensor noise as main disadvantages. But there's a conceptual difference
there. Electronic viewfinders vs. optical
Caveman wrote:
Ha ! You caught me redhanded An hour ago I was in the business of
recording the shutter sound of my LX, uploading it to the Canon S60 and
assigning it as shutter sound. Now my PS sounds like an LX ;-) And I
even can adjust the volume ;-)
Caveman,
You have too much timeon
I'd love to see a TTL finder but with out the moving
mirror, no slap, no blacked out finders, I wonder if
they could put the sensor in the finder?
--- Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that would be an interesting discussion. For the
moment they're
about same price same size, with the
The Sony is that big because they wanted to make it long and fast. At
the long end it's 200/2.8 equivalent. Compared with the FA 200/2.8 it
ain't that big however.
If you keep decent at the long end (not so long or not so fast) you'll
get something like the Canon Powershot G3 or Pro1.
William
Great, now you have to learn how to use the C1 and C2 modes and you're
all set up! Just don't bother with the
Auto-Portrait-Sports-Landscape-Slow Shutter-Whatever modes (although the
Night one comes handy when in a hurry, otherwise you'll need to fiddle a
lots of settings in order to emulate
- Original Message -
From: Brendan
Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
I'd love to see a TTL finder but with out the moving
mirror, no slap, no blacked out finders, I wonder if
they could put the sensor in the finder?
And you are going to look through
On 16 Aug 2004 at 20:24, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Brendan
Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
I'd love to see a TTL finder but with out the moving
mirror, no slap, no blacked out finders, I wonder if
they could put the sensor
Ha ! Heat sink ! Look how fast technology went since then. IMHO in 2-3
years we'll have really good electronic viewfinders. Then bye bye mirror.
Rob Studdert wrote:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10/E10A3.HTM
On 16 Aug 2004 at 22:57, Caveman wrote:
Ha ! Heat sink ! Look how fast technology went since then. IMHO in 2-3
years we'll have really good electronic viewfinders. Then bye bye mirror.
Apart from an overlay display to show image areas in saturation I'm not
interested electronic view-finders
Good choice, but there's the bean counters. When a working EV becomes
much less expensive to manufacture and assemble than a mirror/pentaprism
assembly, guess what happens.
BTW, how many videocams have optical viewfinders these days ?
Rob Studdert wrote:
Apart from an overlay display to show
On 16 Aug 2004 at 23:30, Caveman wrote:
Good choice, but there's the bean counters. When a working EV becomes
much less expensive to manufacture and assemble than a mirror/pentaprism
assembly, guess what happens.
I don't know, I hope it doesn't come to that. Regardless of the technology
Good choice, but there's the bean counters. When a working EV becomes
much less expensive to manufacture and assemble than a mirror/pentaprism
assembly, guess what happens.
BTW, how many videocams have optical viewfinders these days ?
How many need one? What's the resolution of a video
Then there's the question of what exactly do you want to see through the
viewfinder. Compare Hollywoodian film cameras with TV cameras. These are
the ancestors. TV cameras were EV since day 1, as the operator wants an
accurate preview of what Joe Sixpack will see on his TV set instead of
making optical
viewfinders, brighter, larger, and a greater percentage of the actual frame.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
Ha
I ask you this, can you think of anything electronic made today, that comes
even close to what one sees with the human eye? I know I sure can't!
I daresay electron microscopes would give it a run for its money :)
Love, Light and Peace,
- Peter Loveday
Here Here!
Tom C.
From: David Miers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams...)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:53:43 -0400
I ask you this, can you think of anything electronic made today, that comes
even close
Ok, you got me there. When they fit that into a camera at a price that is
not insanemaybe..lol
-Original Message-
From: Peter Loveday [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 12:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Prosumer vs. DSLR (was Re: two new digicams
ERN:
Now that would be an interesting discussion. For the moment they're about
same price same size, with the prosumers having fixed lens and high
sensor noise as main disadvantages. But there's a conceptual difference
there. Electronic viewfinders vs. optical with mirror and pentaprism. ...
56 matches
Mail list logo
