Full frame.
20 MP (too high, but what can you do)
1080 HD video inbuilt useable while taking 35mm shots.
'Almost proper' live view, at last.
(Unlike SONY who brain-deadedly left it out of their new A900 because 'real people' don't use live view (auto / stick shift comparision)
Up to ISO 25,600 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
(Expect 'some noise')
Waterproof to "10 mm of rain in 3 minutes" ! :-)
Does *NOT* include an integral vertical (a real plus)
Audio (in a full frame DSLR)
Optional WiFi/LAN/USB vertical grip.
And rather more ...
Canon's attempt to desperately leap the rapidly closing competition.
:: Possibly the real-est 35mm camera (just) on the market
I was lucky enough to buy one of the last EOS20D's, the biggest
problem with this range of cameras is their size and weight, my nice
(film) Ricoh vintage 1984 and my no name Dixon's badged Cosina (a real
basic camera) were much easier to handle and use.
Just in passing, the hugely expensive Leica DC160 camera that comes
ready to attach to microscopes, is in reality a Panasonic, with Leica
firmware and a slightly better quality lens.
> Canon's attempt to desperately leap the rapidly closing competition.
>
>
> Russell
Nikon appears to be slightly ahead but it can change anytime. Anyway, the wise
man invests in good lenses, camera body is another matter
(I am a Canon man)
> Nikon appears to be slightly ahead but it can change anytime
I'll say. I'm looking to buy an entry-level / low-midrange DLSR and in
just the 2 months since I started comparing, even more models have
been introduced, all with their own pros and cons. And it pays to shop
around. Although it's out of my price range, I see the Canon EOS 1D
Mark III offered at anywhere between NZ$5999 and NZ10,500. And
in that time the price of a Canon EOS 1000D, which I initially considered,
has dropped NZ$400 to $899. That's just amazing
What worries me is that I'll get so flustered that I'll give in to an impulse
and just buy "something". But I like to think patience is one of my virtues
You don't appear to have looked at that page then :-).
HD video (with sound of course) and 35mm full frame 20 MP DSLR
simultaneously.
2 non mirror flip live view modes (catching up with Sony on that).
Much more.
Nikon will have to start running again.
(I'm a 'Minolta man' by historic accident and it can't be helped that Sony
bought their soul).
> >> Possibly the real-est 35mm camera (just) on the market
>
> >> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/
>
> > Nikon appears to be slightly ahead ...
>
> You don't appear to have looked at that page then :-).
>
> HD video (with sound of course) and 35mm full frame 20 MP DSLR
> simultaneously.
> 2 non mirror flip live view modes (catching up with Sony on that).
> Much more.
> Nikon will have to start running again.
> (I'm a 'Minolta man' by historic accident and it can't be helped that Sony
> bought their soul).
Not this link but this one:
www.eos-numerique.com/index.php?ind=news&op=news_show_single&ide=19
with an early announcement ;-)
Actually the product ranges of Canon and Nikon do not overlap and the 5DMkII is
not quite a D3 and a D3 is not quite a 1DsMKIII....
(and there are rumours about a new Nikon to be confirmed)
But do not forget, the important feature of any camera is the man behind the
eye-piece ;-)
What do you think of that 300fps video capability in the casio?
(1200fps if you give up "full frame." Not DSLR, though.)
I want one, but I don't think I'm willing to spend $1000 on a
casio to get it; I figure it MIGHT trickle across into other
cameras...
> What worries me is that I'll get so flustered that I'll give in to
> an impulse and just buy "something".
I bought a low-end canon recent on the basis of "it's time to jump in."
I'm glad I did; I have a MUCH better feel now for some things I like
and don't like about DSLRs, not to mention their relative merits
compared to the non-SLR versions.
I bought a Canon DSLR a couple of years ago and so far I think it was a
good choice.
Previously in film cameras I have used Minolta, and I don't think it was
the best decision, but once you get started buying lenses it's really
too late.
I like Canon's choice to put the stabilization in the lens. It seemed
like a stubborn decision of quality over commercialism and I admire
that. Canon has always been very popular for sports photographers, too.
Cheerful regards,
Bob
Apptech wrote:
> Possibly the real-est 35mm camera (just) on the market
>
> www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/
>
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 3:53 AM, Apptech wrote:
>
> Possibly the real-est 35mm camera (just) on the market
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/
>
> Full frame.
> 20 MP (too high, but what can you do)
> 1080 HD video inbuilt useable while taking 35mm shots.
> 'Almost proper' live view, at last.
> (Unlike SONY who brain-deadedly left it out of their new A900
> because 'real people' don't use live view (auto / stick shift
> comparision)
> Up to ISO 25,600 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> (Expect 'some noise')
> Waterproof to "10 mm of rain in 3 minutes" ! :-)
> Does *NOT* include an integral vertical (a real plus)
> Audio (in a full frame DSLR)
> Optional WiFi/LAN/USB vertical grip.
> And rather more ...
>
> Canon's attempt to desperately leap the rapidly closing competition.
>
>
> Russell
>
>> Possibly the real-est 35mm camera (just) on the market
>> www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/
...
>> Does *NOT* include an integral vertical (a real plus)
> What is "integral vertical" ???
a)
Vertical grip - feature to allow camera to be held naturally in portrait
mode.
Integral - Can't remove it.
b)
A 'nornal' 35mm camera is can usually be held in landscape mode in one hand
with the shutter release under one's index finger. While it can be rotated
into portrait mode while being held this way, the operation is unnatural and
usually requires a two handed grip. While one often operates the camera two
handed in either orientation, being able to 'wave it around essentially in
one hand is a major operating convenience.
A "vertical grip" is (usually) an optional add on to a "standard" camera
that connects beneath the basic camera and allows it to be held in one hand
(if your arm is strong enough) with the camera in portrait mode. Rather than
just being a handle and shutter release these usually also go the whole hog
and replicate various other controls. They then usually add a second hog as
well and add a battery box or maybe capacity for two batteries. As they
often plug into the existing battery box for mechanical and electrical
connection they may either make the original battery box inaccessible or
displace the original battery. In film 35mm cameras they usually also
contained a motor drive.
All up they add convenience but about never add to actual camera
functionality. They also substantially increase camera volume and also add
weight. The end result is a camera that gores from being a pig to carry
around into being a big fat overweight oversized pig to carry around. If
you are impressed by huge cameras or your subjects are then the addition is
worthwhile. If the ability to use the camera with much more ease in portrait
mode is a great bonus then it may be worthwhile. If having two batteries in
the camera (or 3) is far better for you than having them in your pocket
then it may also be worthwhile.
If you want to carry the camera everywhere, have it as unobtrusive as a big
camera can be etc, then being able to choose to add or remove the grip is a
bonus. If you would like to carry the camera in a belt bag (front or rear)
then an integral vertical grip is a major pain.
Canon and Nikon and people who want to make cameras that are visually
stupidly impressive build the vertical grip into their top cameras. The
Canon EOS1D series is one such. The EOS 5D has resisted the temptation to do
so.
c.) An unnecessary piece of useful flim flammery built into some top end
cameras rather than being an optional add on.
> I bought a low-end canon recent on the basis of "it's time to jump in."
> I'm glad I did; I have a MUCH better feel now for some things I like
> and don't like about DSLRs, not to mention their relative merits
> compared to the non-SLR versions.
Although non-DSLR is considerably cheaper than DSLR I'm not tempted.
Well, maybe as a secondary snap-shot camera
What I've rationalised re cost is that I've decided on and accepted a price
range, and the decision to mull over is how far above that I go if I have to
eg if I've accepted I'll spend $1000, can I live with another $300 to get a
better one or a bundle on the $1000 model
But I don't want to get fussy to the point where a decision is never made
because there's a never-ending examination of pros vs cons vs $$$. Which
could quite easily happen because there's so much information on so many
models
> Although non-DSLR is considerably cheaper than DSLR I'm not tempted.
My previous camera was a KM A2, which was very SLR-like (manual
zoom!), and cost more than the entry level SLR I got. It doesn't seem
to be easily replaceable, either.
The non-SLR cameras feature better zoom range and faster lenses,
mostly due to their smaller sensor. Worse noise, for the same
reason... Manual modes used to be a big issue, but most of the high-
end P&S cameras have them as well, and many DSLRs are just as
impossible to manually focus as a P&S...
It's tough call. I figure that ideally I need three cameras:
1) DSLR
2) super-zoom P&S.
3) Pocket-size P&S.
The SLR is the least "important" of those for my purposes, I think.
The Canon SLR did allow me to use my old OM1 lenses, but see above
about "impossible to manually focus." I have to bracket my focusing,
which is very annoying.
One thing that I have decided is a NON-issues is flash media type.
For a while I was trying to be able to move my flash cards forward to
new cameras. But flash has gotten cheaper faster than picture size
has gone up, and it no longer makes much sense, IMO.
> > Although non-DSLR is considerably cheaper than DSLR I'm not
> > tempted
>
> My previous camera was a KM A2, which was very SLR-like
> (manual zoom!), and cost more than the entry level SLR I got
Yes, I meant the P&S in the < $300 range, not prosumer gear
I'm leaning towards the Canon 1000D. It seems to be the one with
the best performance and fewest flaws or missing features for the
average user. There's a bit of a price war and a twin-lens bundle is
affordable
> I'm leaning towards the Canon 1000D. It seems to be the one with
> the best performance and fewest flaws or missing features for the
> average user. There's a bit of a price war and a twin-lens bundle is
> affordable
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/page34.asp
>
> Maybe the Sony A300, although reviewers aren't kind about the
> image quality with the kit lens
If DPREVIEW give an opinion on the lens, take what they say as near holy
writ. Take almost any other web review comment as suspect until proven
otherwise. Luminous Landscape is OK. DYXUM will provide in depth comment and
specs on specific lenses (DYXUM = DYnax maXUM)
You can buy Minolta AF lenses on Trademe (local NZ auction site) at good
prices when the kit lens palls (or before).
In-body antishake means ALL lenses are antishake. In lens antishake *MAY*
show a commitment to quality - but may just show a lateness to the patent
queue and a desire to charge more N times rather than just once.
Fast shutter response live view makes vast sense. Having a 1 second shutter
delay in live view (as some have) is worse than pathetic.
I have a 500mm auto-focus mirro lens. The ONLY AF mirror lens ever sold
(apart ftom the thousands of identical ones :-).) If you ever want AF and a
compact light weight long lens (750 mm equivalent) then the Sony may be more
attractive.
I'd buy an A300 over an A350, probably (Lower MP is better and shooting rate
is higher. 10 MP is enough - 14MP largely just gets you more noise in an
APSC frame size).
>I'm leaning towards the Canon 1000D. It seems to be the one with
>the best performance and fewest flaws or missing features for the
>average user. There's a bit of a price war and a twin-lens bundle
>is affordable
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/page34.asp
I bought a Canon 450D about 3 weeks ago, and am impressed with the 18-55mm
IS lens that came with it. I have long been a Canon fan, and have a couple
of EOS film cameras, one being one of the two original EOS models that they
brought out 20 years ago. I got that with a 35-105mm lens, and took a couple
of pictures of the trees in the lab car park starting to get autumn
colouring in their leaves.
Got a bit of a shock when looking at the pictures on a nice new LCD monitor.
The 20 year old lens looks quite 'soft focus' in the brilliance of the
colours compared to the new lens.
I got a little tired of DPREVIEW or its look alike steve digicams or even Bob
Galbraith
Anyway there is plenty of material about.
Concerning Minolta/Konica-Minolta/Sony; I have given up a long time ago, athough
my first 35 mm camera was a Minolta SRT101 and a full set of exceptional lenses
(I am getting old ....)
> If DPREVIEW give an opinion on the lens, take what they say as near holy
> writ. Take almost any other web review comment as suspect until proven
> otherwise. Luminous Landscape is OK. DYXUM will provide in depth comment and
> specs on specific lenses (DYXUM = DYnax maXUM)
> I got a little tired of DPREVIEW or its look alike steve digicams or even
> Bob
> Galbraith
We all get tired of the same old same old given enough of it.
But I have found DPR far more rigorous and consistent than any other.
SDC is OK but they have been less prone to say bad things about a bad
camera. With SDC you need to read the superlatives and decide whether they
are damning with faint praise. With DPR they will say they think that
afeature is bad, and why. And they test in a consistent and detailed
manner - given that performance is in many parts somewhat subjective.
> Concerning Minolta/Konica-Minolta/Sony; I have given up a long time ago,
> athough
> my first 35 mm camera was a Minolta SRT101 and a full set of exceptional
> lenses
> (I am getting old ....)
I've had SRT303B, others ... , 7Hi, A2, 7D, 5D.
I've a 500mm AF mirror and 18-200 and lovely 18-35.
Plus many more that fill in that range but get far less use.
For a long time it's seemed to me that the mirror in a DSLR was sort like a
buggy whip (long obsolete). With a film camera the mirror made sense, but
doesn't with a digital camera where in low light situations the imaging chip
can see better than human eyes.
There are Point and Shoot cameras that are very similar to DSLRs but they have
a Live View LCD on the back so your eye needs to be able to focus at maybe 2
feet or closer to see it. That conflicts with viewing the real subject at
infinity.
What's needed is a Live View camera where the LCD is viewed through an eyepiece
like on a SLR camera and there's no mirror. Your eye is focused at infinity
just like in a SLR.
Note the Hasselblad 500 series film cameras have mirror flop so severe that it
will blur the image when the camera is mounted on a heavy tripod. The only way
around it is to use the mirror release, wait, then the shutter release. In the
new Hasselblad DSLR they RETAINED THE MIRROR! But you will not see the mirror
mentioned on the data sheet.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Brooke Clarke <brookespam_OUTpacific.net> wrote:
> What's needed is a Live View camera where the LCD is viewed through an eyepiece
> like on a SLR camera and there's no mirror. Your eye is focused at infinity
> just like in a SLR.
A good quality visual display (OLED, LCD, etc) with very good image
processing and optics still has the following problems:
- Cost - much more expensive than a screen, prism, and mirror
- Latency - even a high end camera has a live view that is
perceptibly behind the actual light coming in - would make sports and
other high speed trigger finger photographers annoyed, preventing some
shots, although in most cases they'll be able to get used to it.
- Still won't be able to approach the resolution and color gamut of
the sensor, nevermind what the eye sees through a mirror assembly
- Will have a greater cost in battery life
- Requires different AF and other sensor mechanisms than what are
currently used (a good AF sensor isn't just looking at the contrast of
a few pixels - it uses a split prism type system in front of a few
pixels worth of sensors.)
It is unlikely that one can design a system which has none of these
drawbacks, and therefore the mirror system isn't an old idea past it's
time - it remains the best solution to a number of issues. There are
cameras (as you point out) without a mirror, so you can optimixe the
body for the situation, and most DSLRs can flip the mirror up, delay,
and then take the picture to eliminate that concern altogether, except
for fast paced situations (and in that case mirror shake is probably
not going to matter).
Still, I'm sure these will be overcome in time. Would be interesting
to see the camera bodies that come out of that, though - the rebels
are already small. Get rid of the mirror, and it'll be a flat pack
with a lens on it...
-Adam
--
EARTH DAY 2008
Tuesday April 22
Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org
>Still, I'm sure these will be overcome in time. Would be interesting
>to see the camera bodies that come out of that, though - the rebels
>are already small. Get rid of the mirror, and it'll be a flat pack
>with a lens on it...
>
>-Adam
You still have to deal with the optics and that drives the size of
the black box:
- one depth for APS-C sensors
- one depth for APS-H sensors
- one depth for full frame ;)
> What's needed is a Live View camera where the LCD is viewed through an
> eyepiece
> like on a SLR camera and there's no mirror. Your eye is focused at
> infinity
> just like in a SLR.
My much loved Minolta A2 (~2003 vintage) works like that. My original one
died and I bought another second hand. It;s the next best thing to a DSLR
BUT a DSLR which also has this feature would be even better. And they will
be here "soon". I also have 2 x DSLR with APSC (half frame) sensors. The
DSLR's are about 9 x better (by measurement) noise and sensitivity wise than
the 7Hi and this corresponds more or less to sensor and pixel size ratios.
> Does the Cannon EOS 5D have a mirror?
Yes.
And you will not see mirror shake in the photos either hand held or on a
decent tripod.
It seems to me that if you have a digital camera, (DSLR or otherwise),
that would display on an electronic viewfinder
the scene you are shooting, then you don't need a mirror at all. The
sensor would be looking at the scene constantly,
and displaying same on the electronic viewfinder. When the photo is
like you want it, and you press the shutter release,
you would be commanding the camera to "capture" the current scene and
save it to memory.
However, if you are looking at an optical viewfinder, the the mirror
would be necessary. But in that case, it would
seem to me that you would want to see the scene as it actually is from
the sensor point of view, so an optical viewfinder
would sort of get in the way.
If I have this all wrong, I'm sure someone (or many) will let me know,
but it just seems to me that using the camera sensor
and an electronic viewfinder would give the benefits of sn SLR without
the mirror, and the corresponding potential shake from
the mirror moving out of the way.
Of course I'm not a camera mfg, so I may be full of it, I don't know.
The main digital camera I have is a Fujifilm S1000FD. 10MP, 12x zoom,
and many other features. Cost is about $250.00 USD.
I usually operate this camera in full manual mode. The only exception is
that there is no manual focus. It's always motor
driven. But it does a very good job, and I am pleased with it's
performance. Granted, it won't really compete with a good
DSLR, but then is doesn't cost $1000.00 or more either. And I'm not a
professional photographer, so this camera does what
I need it to do at a reasonable cost.
> It seems to me that if you have a digital camera, (DSLR or otherwise),
> that would display on an electronic viewfinder
> the scene you are shooting, then you don't need a mirror at all.
Religious debates are not allowed on PICList :-)
ie this is a very very time honoured and debated subject liable to lead to
violence, bloodshed, death and war :-).
For most of the life of digital cameras the optical path as superior to the
electronic one for various reasons.
It is now *PERHAPS* arguable that this is the case in the top line cameras.
I have 2 x what are now trailing edge Minolta DSLR's.
I have 2 x excellent prosumer fixed lens cameras (Minolta 7Hi, A2)
The A2 has a VGA display viewed through an eye level infinity effective
focus viewer. ie works like a DSLR but you view a tiny screen. The 7Hi has
the same arrangement but less resolution. Both have electronic magnification
allowing you to blow up part of the scene for focusing. I think the A2 is
solely 2X ma - but that's the equivalent of 1.3 MP at eye level.
The electronic system has vast advantages. BUT the optical DSLR system has
too.
I longingly wait the day when the camera makers finally get their act
together and roll both together properly.
It is hard to beat the optical path system. Part of this is due to mother
hen syndrome and decades of herd experience. But my A2 is about as good as
most electronic systems (even much newer ones) and while better in many ways
than anoptical system, it does not replace it.
Re some comment on refresh rates and action shots - My 7Hi has an almost
negative shutter lag - you have to try it to believe it. Viewfinder refresh
speed is never an issue.
> The
> sensor would be looking at the scene constantly,
> and displaying same on the electronic viewfinder. When the photo is
> like you want it, and you press the shutter release,
> you would be commanding the camera to "capture" the current scene and
> save it to memory.
My 7Hi (arguably the best prosumer camera ever made all things
considered )(now ther's a religious statement)(eg as one example - having
almost 100 MB of RAM buffer internally makes a vast difference to some sorts
of shooting) ALSO has an mechanical shutter to go with the elctronic !!!. In
some modes it just does auto capture seamlessly - in most the whisper quiet
shutter can be heard at work. You can shoot in a quiet room and the shutter
isn't heard.
> However, if you are looking at an optical viewfinder, the the mirror
> would be necessary. But in that case, it would
> seem to me that you would want to see the scene as it actually is from
> the sensor point of view, so an optical viewfinder
> would sort of get in the way.
There are ways that don't need a traditional mirro but they are not rare or
not used. eg imagine a rotating half disk at an angle to the light path with
a mirrored surface - balancing is a matter of engineering. Spin the disk and
shoot through the hole. Viewfinder gets to see half the light. Optical
challenges exist - es[pecially for the eye. Disk could be sped up and down
or stopped. Or spun up from rest to take a photo -still more gently than a
mirror. (Eye view via mirror - action - disc spins up from rest until sensor
fully open - shoot - disk is already spinning down to rest for eye. OR
continues to spin with eye seing flickering half level scene allowing
tracking of the yumping rallky car etc. Shots per second are solely sensor
and processing limited. Size is an issue - but few care too too much at top
level. As long as it hasn't got an integral vertical grip :-).
>
> If I have this all wrong, I'm sure someone (or many) will let me know,
> but it just seems to me that using the camera sensor
> and an electronic viewfinder would give the benefits of sn SLR without
> the mirror, and the corresponding potential shake from
> the mirror moving out of the way.
>
> Of course I'm not a camera mfg, so I may be full of it, I don't know.
>
> The main digital camera I have is a Fujifilm S1000FD. 10MP, 12x zoom,
> and many other features. Cost is about $250.00 USD.
> I usually operate this camera in full manual mode. The only exception is
> that there is no manual focus. It's always motor
> driven. But it does a very good job, and I am pleased with it's
> performance. Granted, it won't really compete with a good
> DSLR, but then is doesn't cost $1000.00 or more either. And I'm not a
> professional photographer, so this camera does what
> I need it to do at a reasonable cost.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
I wonder for the viewfinder application specifically.
Rather than trying to make a teensy screen (although if you make LED's
on a silicon wafer that shouldn't be so bad).
do a scanned optical setup with lasers/LED's
you can get little crystals that vary their refractive index with audio
frequency or perhaps a piezo electric mirror system might work.
That should let you get pretty much whatever resolution you need.
Stack several systems if the scan rate is too low.
>> It seems to me that if you have a digital camera, (DSLR or otherwise),
>> that would display on an electronic viewfinder
>> the scene you are shooting, then you don't need a mirror at all.
>>
>
> Religious debates are not allowed on PICList :-)
>
> ie this is a very very time honoured and debated subject liable to lead to
> violence, bloodshed, death and war :-).
>
> For most of the life of digital cameras the optical path as superior to the
> electronic one for various reasons.
> It is now *PERHAPS* arguable that this is the case in the top line cameras.
> I have 2 x what are now trailing edge Minolta DSLR's.
> I have 2 x excellent prosumer fixed lens cameras (Minolta 7Hi, A2)
> The A2 has a VGA display viewed through an eye level infinity effective
> focus viewer. ie works like a DSLR but you view a tiny screen. The 7Hi has
> the same arrangement but less resolution. Both have electronic magnification
> allowing you to blow up part of the scene for focusing. I think the A2 is
> solely 2X ma - but that's the equivalent of 1.3 MP at eye level.
> The electronic system has vast advantages. BUT the optical DSLR system has
> too.
> I longingly wait the day when the camera makers finally get their act
> together and roll both together properly.
>
> It is hard to beat the optical path system. Part of this is due to mother
> hen syndrome and decades of herd experience. But my A2 is about as good as
> most electronic systems (even much newer ones) and while better in many ways
> than anoptical system, it does not replace it.
>
> Re some comment on refresh rates and action shots - My 7Hi has an almost
> negative shutter lag - you have to try it to believe it. Viewfinder refresh
> speed is never an issue.
>
>
>> The
>> sensor would be looking at the scene constantly,
>> and displaying same on the electronic viewfinder. When the photo is
>> like you want it, and you press the shutter release,
>> you would be commanding the camera to "capture" the current scene and
>> save it to memory.
>>
>
> My 7Hi (arguably the best prosumer camera ever made all things
> considered )(now ther's a religious statement)(eg as one example - having
> almost 100 MB of RAM buffer internally makes a vast difference to some sorts
> of shooting) ALSO has an mechanical shutter to go with the elctronic !!!. In
> some modes it just does auto capture seamlessly - in most the whisper quiet
> shutter can be heard at work. You can shoot in a quiet room and the shutter
> isn't heard.
>
>
>> However, if you are looking at an optical viewfinder, the the mirror
>> would be necessary. But in that case, it would
>> seem to me that you would want to see the scene as it actually is from
>> the sensor point of view, so an optical viewfinder
>> would sort of get in the way.
>>
>
> There are ways that don't need a traditional mirro but they are not rare or
> not used. eg imagine a rotating half disk at an angle to the light path with
> a mirrored surface - balancing is a matter of engineering. Spin the disk and
> shoot through the hole. Viewfinder gets to see half the light. Optical
> challenges exist - es[pecially for the eye. Disk could be sped up and down
> or stopped. Or spun up from rest to take a photo -still more gently than a
> mirror. (Eye view via mirror - action - disc spins up from rest until sensor
> fully open - shoot - disk is already spinning down to rest for eye. OR
> continues to spin with eye seing flickering half level scene allowing
> tracking of the yumping rallky car etc. Shots per second are solely sensor
> and processing limited. Size is an issue - but few care too too much at top
> level. As long as it hasn't got an integral vertical grip :-).
>
>
> Russell.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> If I have this all wrong, I'm sure someone (or many) will let me know,
>> but it just seems to me that using the camera sensor
>> and an electronic viewfinder would give the benefits of sn SLR without
>> the mirror, and the corresponding potential shake from
>> the mirror moving out of the way.
>>
>> Of course I'm not a camera mfg, so I may be full of it, I don't know.
>>
>> The main digital camera I have is a Fujifilm S1000FD. 10MP, 12x zoom,
>> and many other features. Cost is about $250.00 USD.
>> I usually operate this camera in full manual mode. The only exception is
>> that there is no manual focus. It's always motor
>> driven. But it does a very good job, and I am pleased with it's
>> performance. Granted, it won't really compete with a good
>> DSLR, but then is doesn't cost $1000.00 or more either. And I'm not a
>> professional photographer, so this camera does what
>> I need it to do at a reasonable cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that if you have a digital camera, (DSLR or
>> otherwise), that would display on an electronic viewfinder the
>> scene you are shooting
The big problem with this seems to be that most "electronic
viewfinder" displays have REALLY CRAPPY resolution, sharpness, and
etc. The Minolta A2 that Russell and I like so much features an
"extra resolution" electronic viewfinder: VGA resolution (640x480);
most are worse than that. It also has magnification that is very
useful for manual focusing...
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Brooke Clarke <@spam@brookeKILLspampacific.net> wrote:
> With a film camera the mirror made sense, but
> doesn't with a digital camera where in low light situations the imaging chip
> can see better than human eyes.
>
Is it really true that the imaging chip (uncooled and not operating
with a very long integration time) is really more sensitive than
dark-adapted eyes? Our eyes, after well adjusted to the dark, need
only a few tens of photons to detect light.
> Is it really true that the imaging chip (uncooled and not operating
> with a very long integration time) is really more sensitive than
> dark-adapted eyes? Our eyes, after well adjusted to the dark, need
> only a few tens of photons to detect light.
The human eye can "detect" light in amazingly small amounts, but the
imaging chips can integrate similar levels over a longer time to
create actual images...
>I wonder for the viewfinder application specifically.
> Rather than trying to make a teensy screen (although if you make LED's
> on a silicon wafer that shouldn't be so bad).
> do a scanned optical setup with lasers/LED's
> you can get little crystals that vary their refractive index with audio
> frequency or perhaps a piezo electric mirror system might work.
> That should let you get pretty much whatever resolution you need.
> Stack several systems if the scan rate is too low.
Cost is a major driver. Bear in mind that the eye has an immense effective
resolution due to the ability to move the highly detailed centre area. A
display could do this too - especially a projection one, using eye
tracking, but nobody does it yet.
BUT resolution is not the only thing that optical does better. The dynamic
range of the eye is far far better than most displays. And there are various
other things that get down to the equivalent of 'a smidgen of mains hum from
the filaments' - but still needing to be accounted for.
Yes, but in this context we were talking about viewfinders versus LCD
live view. As I understand it, unless you want you live view to be
very slow in updating, the sensor cannot be doing much integration.
While it may be able to outdo the eye with a long exposure shot (say,
several seconds), I don't think it is doing that when it is showing
you what it is seeing on the LCD live.
>
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:37 PM, Sean Breheny wrote:
>
>> Is it really true that the imaging chip (uncooled and not operating
>> with a very long integration time) is really more sensitive than
>> dark-adapted eyes? Our eyes, after well adjusted to the dark, need
>> only a few tens of photons to detect light.
>
> The human eye can "detect" light in amazingly small amounts, but the
> imaging chips can integrate similar levels over a longer time to
> create actual images...
>
> BillW
>
This implies that if the shutter is set for 1 second it will be seeing a lot of
stars.
As far as the dynamic range question goes I'd rather see how the image looks on
an LCD with whatever dynamic range the system can handle than see a nice image
in an optical system then get a very different result.
> As far as the dynamic range question goes I'd rather see how the image
> looks on
> an LCD with whatever dynamic range the system can handle than see a nice
> image
> in an optical system then get a very different result.
As I noted earlier on, it's a religious question, and a complex one.
It does help to have used equipment extensively with both sets of attributes
to get a feel for why both have good and bad points. People are welcome to
be wed to one aspect or another, and many are.
Focusing on any one aspect or set of aspects can lead you to a different
conclusion than others who focus on different aspects, or who (try to) take
a holistic view. eg seeing how an image looks on an LCD would only be useful
as an indication of dynmaic range if the LCD could handle the dynamic range
that the sensor can provide, AND if it handles it in the same way, AND if it
handles it in the same manner as the ultimate output device does, AND if the
eye can perceive the result in the same manner on the lCD in a camera a sit
can in the ultimate output device. The current (in)ability to render the
full colour gamut on an LCD display has already been mentioned. The fact
that a "RAW" data dump allows of subsequent proessing capabilities not
available in a rendered display also needs noting. And there are, of course,
more relevant factors. As a general rule, an "8" x 10" wedding photo on top
class paper is going to look better than anything you can see in any LCD or
other display that anyone is going to put in even the top mass market
cameras. The day this isn't true is welcome to arrive, but it's not here
yet.
So, for now, the optical path through a lens to a trained and experienced
eye (overlapping qualifications) provides an image closer to the original
than is easy to get by other means. The T&EE and brain can take that
information and decide how it will look on the ultimate output device,
knowing how good (or not) the various aspects are of the system that affect
storage of the sensor data, and adjusting for the display attributes that it
knows are present. AND having a 'live view' or even dead view LCD display
also provides information not available directly optically (as in my beloved
7Hi - it's beloved for a reason). The proper combination will lead to the
awesome cameras we will begin to see a year or two from now. I'm looking
forward to it.
On 10/3/08, Brooke Clarke <RemoveMEbrookeTakeThisOuTpacific.net> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> My interest is in astronomical and scientific photography where low light is a
> big factor.
>
> Panasonic is a digital imaging company, not a classical camera outfit. They
> say for the G1:
> "It lets you see in the LCD how adjusting the exposure, white balance, aperture
> and even the shutter speed will affect the photo."
> <http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Cameras/model.DMC-G1K_11002_7000000000000005702>
>
> This implies that if the shutter is set for 1 second it will be seeing a lot of
> stars.
>
> As far as the dynamic range question goes I'd rather see how the image looks on
> an LCD with whatever dynamic range the system can handle than see a nice image
> in an optical system then get a very different result.
I don't know this particular camera but I can tell the Panasonic DMC TZ3
www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/panasonic-dmc-tz3.cfm
can't be used for taking proffesional pictures to the stars, even
indeed some options allows you to clearly see the difference on the
LCD between various settings.
Maybe you should take a look to a peltier cooled camera (quasi identic
prices with G1, for less performance), used with a proper telescope.
> Was looking at a remote shutter switch, specifically the Canon
> RS-60E3, which has mixed reviews/user comments
>
> Am I right in thinking this is simply a passive two-stage push-
> button and a stereo plug ?
Yes. Probably, anyway; things might vary on type of camera.
There are numerous tutorials on how to make your own. Here's a search
that should turn up several:
> Was looking at a remote shutter switch, specifically the
> Canon RS-60E3, which has mixed reviews/user comments
>
> Am I right in thinking this is simply a passive two-stage
> push-button and a stereo plug ?
I believe so. The only difference between models is the
camera end connector used -- higher end Canon cameras (e.g.
EOS 5D) use a uncommon 3-pin female round connector.
Given that the polarity and required inter-pin resistance
may vary, I'd use a small relay with low-current contacts
(instead of semi-conductors) to make & break connections.
> > Am I right in thinking this is simply a passive two-stage
> > push-button and a stereo plug ?
>
> I believe so
Lee,
that seems to be the impression I'm getting from the Instructables link,
with their instructions for raiding various small gadgets for the pushbutton
and plug. I noticed that one person was having a problem which sounds
to me like he'd used a mono plug. That suggests the ring and tip are
successively connected to the barrel. I'd have to experiment to find out
if it's ring then tip, and if ring disconnects when tip connects
> Given that the polarity and required inter-pin resistance may vary, I'd
> use a small relay with low-current contacts (instead of semi-conductors)
> to make & break connections
Depending on the results of the experiment, that might mean two relays.
Which I'd be reluctant to use if a couple of small FETs or even a 4066
or similar will do it. There were one or two comments that the Canon
original started misbehaving, something you might expect if the contacts
get dirty but are still intermittently less than a few 10's of ohms. I doubt
there would be much power through the switch, for the well-being of the
camera
Josh
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
-Douglas Adams
Lee Jones wrote:
>> Was looking at a remote shutter switch, specifically the
>> Canon RS-60E3, which has mixed reviews/user comments
>>
>> Am I right in thinking this is simply a passive two-stage
>> push-button and a stereo plug ?
It is indeed. It's a two-position pushbutton switch with a "running lock"
(push it down, slide the tag across to lock the remote in the "on" state)
coupled to 60cm of cable, terminated in a 2.5mm stereo jack plug. IIRC, barrel
is ground, ring is focus, tip is shutter.
I built a clone out of a jackplug not so long ago.. mainly because at the time
the RS60 was in very short supply. Two month leadtime from nearly everywhere...
> I believe so. The only difference between models is the
> camera end connector used -- higher end Canon cameras (e.g.
> EOS 5D) use a uncommon 3-pin female round connector.
That would be the N3 connector (or the T3 if you're looking at older Canon
kit). I've got a TC-80N3 (the all singing all dancing timer remote control)
that's been modified to add a jack plug/socket between the remote and the N3 plug.
I did that because I wanted to use it on my EOS 33V *and* the 40D. 40D has an
N3 socket, 33V has the E3 (2.5mm mini-jack). By cutting the cable and
soldering in the in-line jack connectors, I can extend the cable with a
standard 2.5mm extension cable (instead of Canon's £40 monstrosity) or use the
adapter on its own to connect an E3-type remote (or a sound/light trigger) to
the 40D.
> Given that the polarity and required inter-pin resistance
> may vary, I'd use a small relay with low-current contacts
> (instead of semi-conductors) to make & break connections.
Probably a good idea, but transistors would likely be faster...
Switching is basically 3.3V to ground, which isn't that difficult to handle..
Jinx wrote:
> successively connected to the barrel. I'd have to experiment to find out
> if it's ring then tip, and if ring disconnects when tip connects
The connection sequence for an RS60E3 is:
Shield
Shield -> Ring
Shield -> Ring, Shield -> Tip
The switch has two positions -- half-travel and full-travel. At full travel,
both contact pairs are closed. At half travel, only the focus pair is closed.
I could swear I'd seen a copy of the internal schematic of the camera, at
least as far as the shutter circuitry goes. Maybe try camerahacker?
Cut to the chase, they devised the attached circuit to reduce > 300V
to a very much safer 7.5V
The article quotes several links as being misleading about the true
voltages, as they were often made using DMM's and analogue meters
without considering Kirchoff calculations
btech-online.co.uk on 1/10/2008
