trains are bad
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Posts
- 2,221
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
Very true, that is, the results are much different.
Quote:
No it's not.
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
I don't want one.
Quote:
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.
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.