DSLR, Are Behind the Times

[Alan T]

Kalypso wrote:

....real-time holographic histogram....behind the ball...

Very good! Well I suppose I used to take poor man's holograms (no histogram, sadly), by carrying a camcorder and walking round the subject.

It's back to 2-D now, because digicams give freer creative rein, and my assistants carrying the equipment have grown up into less amenable porters. When all these head-up displays are perfected, we'll keep banging our heads because of the bulky helmets, until the generation built into our spectacles arrives.

[amazingthailand]

tjsnaps wrote:

This is one of the things that urk me on this site...the SLR snobs (I am anDSLR user)

I take umbridge at this comment. I am no (D)SLR snob. I could care less what you or others use. I personally prefer an OVF over any electronic viewfinder. Note the word PERSONALLY.

As VTphotog said, the arrival of an EVF in a DSLR is inevitable, but that does not mean I have to embrace it. At present, EVF's fall far short of what an OVF offers. When it is as good (or better) than an OVF I will reform my opinion.

My main comment was that by losing the mirror, we will also lose the dedicated AF and exposure sensors that give the DSLR one of it's performance edges over other cameras. AND THAT is what I do not want to give up.

But I agree, that each person must choose the tool that fits their shooting budget, needs, style and skills.

Personally I have a p&s with an OVF, a p&s without an OVF, an SLR like camera with EVF (no OVF) - The Sony R1, and an excellent DSLR with an excellent OVF. The camera I choose to shoot depends upon what it is I am shooting and where.

But DSLR snob, no, not at all. I do not even care what brand as long as it suits my needs. Actually all of my cameras are different brands. The only area where I have been brand loyal (and not intentionally) is in my choice of camcorders. I use Sony.

[TCav]

Kalypso wrote:

I think the 1st real-time holographic histogram will be a historic achievment.

Yeah, but holographic displays are hard to see in bright sunlight. I have to limit the useof the holographic display of my R2 to indoors.[suB]:-)[/suB]

[peripatetic]

This is one of the things that urk me on this site...the SLR snobs (I am anDSLR user)

*waves* DSLR snob here.

Actually I'm not - I use a P&S, DSLR and Holga, occasionally 35mm film and will probably be buying a Mamiya 7 sometime fairly soon.

I did just want to point out though that "urk" is not a word. Did you mean "irk"? Probably best when climbing onto a high horse to make sure that you have a saddle, otherwise you just fall straight off the other side and everyone laughs.

[Greg Chappell]

If you shoot sports for a living, birds in flight (for fun or as a pro), or other fast moving objects, DSLR's still rule the roost, but I would say, for probably most everyone else, DSLR's are not a necessity as a means of taking the type images they shoot. They WANT one upposed to simply learning how to use something else that might do as good a job for what they shoot, and that's why they have one. Search PBase databases by whatever model you want. There are probably as many mediocre images created with DSLR's as there are with point & shoot digicams.

As one who got over the DSLR "gotta have this or that"sickness, I can say from experience the process of owning a DSLR and constantly pondering the next upgrade, or the next "neeed to have" lens, accessory of piece of software, it's one of the more expensive ways to "enjoy" what is for well over 90% of us, a hobby.

As long as I can get quality like this from a digicam with a set of features like the Panasonic FZ50, DSLR's are in my past, not my future..

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/3547385#200886345

[rjseeney]

As one who got over the DSLR "gotta have this or that" sickness, I can say from experience the process of owning a DSLR and constantly pondering the next upgrade, or the next "neeed to have" lens, accessory of piece of software, it's one of the more expensive ways to "enjoy" what is for well over 90% of us, a hobby.

Owning a DSLR does not require one to constantly ponder the next upgrade. P&S digicam users are just as likely to want the next big thing, whether its more megapixels, or a wider angle lens, or less shutter lag. The idea that DSLR users are snobs, or constantly worried about their equipment is ridiculous.

[Trojansoc]

Greg, you make a good point about the capability of high-end p&s cameras--they are capable of taking fabulous pictures, such as the ones you posted. I own a Fuji s6000fd with which I shot my son's wedding with fantastic results. Even p&s cameras below the top level can take magnificent pics (One of the best shots on my computer was an outdoor shot my wife took with a Pentax Optio 50.)

I now shoot almost exclusively with a Pentax K10d for two reasons--one is that I shoot do a lot of long-range nature shooting, including birds in flight, and low-light sports--both are jobs for which a DSLR is particularly well-suited. The second reason is that my wife has claimed the Fuji, which she greatly prefers.

I really don't like the EVF on the Fuji after getting used to the OVF on the Pentax, primarily because it's so slow compared to the Pentax. The EVF/LCD combo, however, is what my wife likes so much about the Fuji.

The bottom line is the overall quality of cameras on the market today is that good photographers will produce quality work with the camera with which they are most comfortable. If you have a camera that has the minimum capability of doing the kind of shooting you want, then it becomes a case of using the equipment with which you are most comfortable and most capable.

[tjsnaps]

amazingthailand wrote:

tjsnaps wrote:

I take umbridge at this comment. I am no (D)SLR snob. I could care less what you or others use. I personally prefer an OVF over any electronic viewfinder. Note the word PERSONALLY.

As VTphotog said, the arrival of an EVF in a DSLR is inevitable, but that does not mean I have to embrace it. At present, EVF's fall far short of what an OVF offers. When it is as good (or better) than an OVF I will reform my opinion.

My main comment was that by losing the mirror, we will also lose the dedicated AF and exposure sensors that give the DSLR one of it's performance edges over other cameras. AND THAT is what I do not want to give up.

But I agree, that each person must choose the tool that fits their shooting budget, needs, style and skills.

Personally I have a p&s with an OVF, a p&s without an OVF, an SLR like camera with EVF (no OVF) - The Sony R1, and an excellent DSLR with an excellent OVF. The camera I choose to shoot depends upon what it is I am shooting and where.

But DSLR snob, no, not at all. I do not even care what brand as long as it suits my needs. Actually all of my cameras are different brands. The only area where I have been brand loyal (and not intentionally) is in my choice of camcorders. I use Sony.

I'm not sure why you take umbridge after reading the rest of your comments. This was my piont different tool for different job bugit etc. But their are many here who think any one without a DSLR is not serious or incable of good photography. Thats what I have a problem with.

[tjsnaps]

peripatetic wrote:

*waves* DSLR snob here.

Actually I'm not - I use a P&S, DSLR and Holga, occasionally 35mm film and will probably be buying a Mamiya 7 sometime fairly soon.

I did just want to point out though that "urk" is not a word. Did you mean "irk"? Probably best when climbing onto a high horse to make sure that you have a saddle, otherwise you just fall straight off the other side and everyone laughs.

I don't think a mis-spelled word or a typo negates my piont.

I don't have a high horse. Just a pair of hiking boots.

[amazingthailand]

tjsnaps wrote:

I'm not sure why you take umbridge after reading the rest of your comments. This was my piont different tool for different job bugit etc. But their are many here who think any one without a DSLR is not serious or incable of good photography. Thats what I have a problem with.

And most of those are the technofreaks who spend more time fretting over camera specs and pixel peeping than actually taking photos.

Personally, I think they are harmless, as I am very unlikely to encounter them anywhere, other than on the net in one of these forums. LOL.