[trains are bad]

Quote:

A 50mm lens on a 35mm is not the same as that 50mm lens on a 6X6, or the same 50mm lens on a 24mm sensor.

Very true, that is, the results are much different.

Quote:

The focal length is different.

No it's not.

Quote:

No point using a mirror pentaprism? You're sooooo SILLY. Actually, saying that is stupid. So wrong

The point of the mirror and pentaprism and the entire SLR format camera was so that the photographer could look directly through the lens and see what was going to impinge on the film. Now that we have digital cameras, not only can we use the sensor itself to see the light coming through the lens in real-time, but we can see it AS the 'film' sees it, before capturing the shot. The mirror, focusing screen, the pentaprism, the shutter lag due to the aformentioned, the blanking out of the viewfinder during the shot, the mirror slap, the moving parts, and added weight are completely out of place on a digital camera. DSLRs are an offensive hodgepodge of technology.

Quote:

Using lenses that can be used with 35mm cameras on a smaller digital sensor is waste of material?

Yes. It's stupid to use such a giant lens for an APS-C sized sensor or smaller. It would never have been designed that way by a competent engineer, again, it's a clearly immature design for a digital camera. The olympus 4/3 system is the most honest and competent DSLR design as far as I can tell.

Quote:

There is no such thing as having too little glass.

Quote:

Well, to sum up, if you don't see the benefit of using a DSLR, you certainly don't deserve one.

I don't want one.
Quote:

Enjoy your P&S.

I don't have a point-and-shoot. I'll continue to enjoy my SLR cameras, thank you very much. If I did buy a digital camera, it would be a digikam, because that's the application that digital cameras are good for, and that's the technology that is, in my opinion, most mature right now. Digicams put out great images. I'll buy a more fancy digital camera in a few decades when companies have come up with reasonable designs for one that don't involve glomming together parts from old technology and pretending as if it's acceptable.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif The point of the mirror and pentaprism and the entire SLR format camera was so that the photographer could look directly through the lens and see what was going to impinge on the film. Now that we have digital cameras, not only can we use the sensor itself to see the light coming through the lens in real-time, but we can see it AS the 'film' sees it, before capturing the shot. The mirror, focusing screen, the pentaprism, the shutter lag due to the aformentioned, the blanking out of the viewfinder during the shot, the mirror slap, the moving parts, and added weight are completely out of place on a digital camera. DSLRs are an offensive hodgepodge of technology. Yes. It's stupid to use such a giant lens for an APS-C sized sensor or smaller. It would never have been designed that way by a competent engineer, again, it's a clearly immature design for a digital camera. The olympus 4/3 system is the most honest and competent DSLR design as far as I can tell. I don't want one. I don't have a point-and-shoot. I'll continue to enjoy my SLR cameras, thank you very much. If I did buy a digital camera, it would be a digikam, because that's the application that digital cameras are good for, and that's the technology that is, in my opinion, most mature right now. Digicams put out great images. I'll buy a more fancy digital camera in a few decades when companies have come up with reasonable designs for one that don't involve glomming together parts from old technology and pretending as if it's acceptable.

You, my friend, are so stuck in your mindset, that you let many good things pass you by. So sad.

 

[trains are bad]

I continue to use my 25+ year old cameras, which work absolutely fine, always have, and will continue to work to absolute mechanical perfection giving me marvelous images for many years.

So you are saying that, by not forking over for a new $600 DSLR camera every 2 years when it becomes obsolete, I'm letting some 'good thing' pass me by? What exactly is this 'good thing?' And how long will it be a 'good thing' until the next 'good thing' comes along and it's instead a 'old obsolete-thing'? Why should I buy one of these DSLRs which are practically disposable cameras? What's the benefit? Having the latest cool toys? Contributing to landfill sizes? Lightening my wallet?

All current DSLRs, in my mind, are already flawed and obsolete, by their very design philosophy if nothing else. If not now, they will be in two years, guaranteed. I will buy a digital camera when they invent one that replaces my SLR cameras. As of yet, they haven't. Clearly they don't have something right yet, because they come out with a new model every two years! I have mechanical SLR cameras that were produced unchanged for 15 years or more.

You're quite right, I'm letting many things 'pass by', and I will continue to do so until the development of the digital camera evolves beyond a cargo cult of analog mimicry. The humble digicam has achieved this, at least.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will buy a digital camera when they invent one that replaces my SLR cameras. As of yet, they haven't.

Just as I will buy a film camera as soon as they can make one that will surpass my 4 year old Nikon D50. As of yet, they haven't. ^_^!!!



Like I said before, you're stuck in your mindset. I know a professor that I work with who thinks the same as you.

If you're happy with it that's perfectly fine, but just because you don't see any use for a DSLR doesn't mean that it's wrong, messed up, or a hodgepodge of bad engineering. Most people see the superiority of the DSLR vs. a film SLR. Myself included. Even more people see the superiority of the DSLR vs. the digital P&S.

 

[turboflame]

Personally I have a Pentax K110D DSLR and a Canon A530. The Canon A series is almost always one of the best deals on the market from what I've read online and my own experience.

My Pentax might not be new or top of the line but it's a definite step above any current digicam IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you're happy with it that's perfectly fine, but just because you don't see any use for a DSLR doesn't mean that it's wrong, messed up, or a hodgepodge of bad engineering. Most people see the superiority of the DSLR vs. a film SLR. Myself included. Even more people see the superiority of the DSLR vs. the digital P&S.

Agreed 100%. Mainly just the convenience of digital photography integrated into a film style camera. I don't have to worry about the LCD getting washed out in sunlight, screen lag, shutter lag, etc. plus I have far more control than what my A530 offers. At the same time I get instant feedback on my pictures and I can take way more pictures than I would be able to on a film camera.

I'll admit that film vs. digital is still somewhat debatable depending on your style or experience, but a DSLR is definitely more capable than a digicam if you know how to use one.

 

[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif The mirror, focusing screen, the pentaprism, the shutter lag due to the aformentioned, the blanking out of the viewfinder during the shot, the mirror slap, the moving parts, and added weight are completely out of place on a digital camera. DSLRs are an offensive hodgepodge of technology.

Composing a shot through a viewfinder is much more natural than looking at a representation of your intended shot. Bringing a camera to your eye is much more ergonomic and stable than holding a screen at arms length. There's no point in trying to reinvent the wheel now, is there?

Quote:

Yes. It's stupid to use such a giant lens for an APS-C sized sensor or smaller. It would never have been designed that way by a competent engineer, again, it's a clearly immature design for a digital camera. The olympus 4/3 system is the most honest and competent DSLR design as far as I can tell.

There isn't much of a difference in size between APS-C lenses and 35mm ones. Canon and Nikon have a huge back catalogue of lenses from the film days, creating a entirely new design simply for digital isn't economically sound, both on the company's and customer's part.

Olympus's 4/3 system promised a lot, but all we got were slightly smaller cameras for worse noise, tiny viewfinders, an even more cropped sensor and a oddball image ratio.

 

[trains are bad]

Quote:

Composing a shot through a viewfinder is much more natural than looking at a representation of your intended shot.

Some people think so. The reasonable solution would be to design a digital camera with a digital viewfinder, instead of an archaic system of mirrors and prisms. This would have less moving parts, have no vibration, would not blank out during the shot, and would indicated exposure/wb errors instantly, instead of shooting with one eye closed (don't trip) through the viewfinder and then instantly staring at the back of the camera like an ape with a strange toy, like I always see DSLR shooters doing. Way to miss photo opportunities. A digital viewfinder would be much closer to WYSIWYG than an optical one.

Besides, I personally think the exact opposite. Composing a shot by looking at a flat representation (as with a view camera) of your intended shot is much more natural than peeping through an optical viewfinder....this is the ideal way to compose a picture, not a concession! The viewfinder would have never been invented if this technology existed! There is something about seeing your composition already projected onto a physical 2D plane, this is much closer to the ideal of instant feedback....much the same as using a view camera. Something about seeing the image already projected onto the ground glass just lends itself so well to composition.

Also, taking candid (or illegal) shots with a viewfinder is difficult, because it screams to people that you are taking their picture. It breaks eye contact. It's intimidating. It makes people reach up and fix their hair or smile unnaturally. Putting an SLR on idiot mode and shooting from the hip is sometimes the best solution.

 

[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, taking candid (or illegal) shots with a viewfinder is difficult, because it screams to people that you are taking their picture. It breaks eye contact. It's intimidating. It makes people reach up and fix their hair or smile unnaturally. Putting an SLR on idiot mode and shooting from the hip is sometimes the best solution.

It's never hindered me when doing street, shooting from the hip is easy once you can visualise your FOV at specific focal lengths (I've got 35mm/50mm/75mm literally burnt into whatever I see

). Sure there are times when a smaller (digital) camera would be a blessing, but none of them are responsive enough for street as a dSLR. But then I again I'm in the market for a rangefinder and I want to start using film since it has such a great appeal.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRacer /img/forum/go_quote.gif But then I again I'm in the market for a rangefinder and I want to start using film since it has such a great appeal.

Wait a few months for the new Nikon to be released. Gonna be a larger format, and claimed to be a rangefinder.
Well....... if you can afford it.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRacer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Olympus's 4/3 system promised a lot, but all we got were slightly smaller cameras for worse noise, tiny viewfinders, an even more cropped sensor and a oddball image ratio.

The image ration isn't all that oddball. If you're going to print out 5x7, 8x10 or 11x14 it's a better aspect ratio than 3/2. If you're going to print out 4 x 6, then you'll lose something, but if the image is good don't you want a bigger print than a "snapshot"? If you're going to post on the web then 4/3 is better for standard computer monitors.

Whether or not the size of the camera is important to you is a matter of personal taste.

As far as noise goes, yes, at high ISOs there are noise issues. So if you are going to shoot at ISO 1600 a lot then you want to look at a different camera. Otherwise, image qualty is superb under normal lighting conditions.

 

[trains are bad]

Even the small-sensor digital cameras compare favorably to film when it comes to light sensitivity. Plus with VR, you can shoot so much slower than with standard film SLRs, that I don't understand it when people worry about high ISO performance of digital cameras.

This Fuji P&S on steroids kinda looks right up my alley, and it's cheap too. I'd look hard at something like that If I was going to buy a digital camera. But really I don't understand why someone doesn't make a large, medium megapixel digicam, that lasts forever on batteries, with a nice clear viewfinder (with visual AF lock indication), low shutter lag, nice responsive shutter release, and interchangeable lenses or maybe just teleconvertors. It would be the spiritual sucessor to the 35mm rangefinders.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even the small-sensor digital cameras compare favorably to film when it comes to light sensitivity. Plus with VR, you can shoot so much slower than with standard film SLRs, that I don't understand it when people worry about high ISO performance of digital cameras.

I couldn't agree more. With image stabilization and a fast lens I am very happy to shoot at ISO 400 and not be concerned about noise.

If there is a camera out there that can shoot at 3200 ISO with no noise, there are people who are going to want it whether or not they actually need that level of performance and at whatever cost. Some of those same people may look down upon cameras that can't reach the same specs despite any other benefits "lesser" cameras may have.

This Fuji P&S on steroids kinda looks right up my alley, and it's cheap too. I'd look hard at something like that If I was going to buy a digital camera. But really I don't understand why someone doesn't make a large, medium megapixel digicam, that lasts forever on batteries, with a nice clear viewfinder (with visual AF lock indication), low shutter lag, nice responsive shutter release, and interchangeable lenses or maybe just teleconvertors. It would be the spiritual sucessor to the 35mm rangefinders.[/QUOTE]

Maybe the new Micro 4/3 system will deliver on some of those features.