Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 28, 2008, 2:43 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Default

we talk about difference between "too small" and "too small enougn to not perform[insert taskname here]".
in my opinion, even 35 mm sensor - not enough.
but for mass-market and especially for everyday use digicams - 4/3 is ultimate solutions.


and about "choice" - choice available only in civilized-market-country's.
Russian consumer electronics market controlled-dominated, by VERY, VERY strange breed of people, both alienated to consumer and to vendors.
thus - no choice, no proper pricing, no promotions, not [normal]warranty, and almost no service at all(level of them - laughable, if not more, exept Canon maybe.
so "wide range of something" not reason for me at all.
i like Zoom Kit lens of Sony and Double Zoom Kit of Olumpis, but need something more tele :-) but not heavvies to much and not so expensibe as common "lens for pro"(just as it looks for me)

p.s. differences in DR/Sensivity between APS and 4/3 not soo high, both imperfect, but more of less acceptable for consumer usage.

p.p.s. i hate 16:9 screens, i hate 16:9 movies, i hate APS photos aspec ratios.
i like 4/3 sensor, also because it's not forcing me to brainwash seft to make EVERY shoots, because 4/3 correctly represent MY vision of World around, so i just CAN "Shoot on sight"(c) as i will, not fight yourself(4 what ?)


SkyShoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2008, 2:54 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

SkyShoot wrote:
Quote:
p.p.s. i hate 16:9 screens, i hate 16:9 movies, i hate APS photos aspec ratios.
BTW, the aspect ratio of the APS-C image sensor is 3:2 (the same as for 35mm film), not 16:9. Some cameras make the 16:9 aspect ratio available, but only by ignoring the pixels at thetop and bottom of the sensor.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2008, 3:01 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Default

:-)
i'm NOT saying APS-C is 16:9
im saying just about about strange, strange, strange wide aspect ratio, which is forces my brains and eyes , roars and crying, respectively.

p.s. and yeah 3/2 sensors image - interpolated, reinterpolated and etc to more or less ordinary proportioins with warious degree of suscess by digicam ic's.
i know, i know.

SkyShoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2008, 3:42 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Default

ohh, according to live feedback and samples,, Kit Zoom, more or less accptable for me, and even wide enough( i like to shoot "full-view" landscapes or naturemort(without spending half of life to auto-stitch images)).
but why, WHY, nobody produces, plastic-made(both-case, lens and drive), lightweight, cheap ultrzoom lens for DSLR's ???!! :-/


SkyShoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2008, 4:01 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

SkyShoot wrote:
Quote:
... but why, WHY, nobody produces, plastic-made(both-case, lens and drive), lightweight, cheap ultrzoom lens for DSLR's ???!! :-/
  1. As to 'Cheap': Making lenses for dSLRs is more complicated than for P&S digicams. The lens must be further away from the image sensor in order to make room for the mirror to flip up out of the way. That makes the design more complicated and the lens elements physically larger. That means there is a greater potential for imperfections in dSLR lenses than for P&S lenses, so the quality control must be higher. Since the biggest single cost associated with any product is labor, and QA/QC is labor intensive, that makes them more expensive. So in order to make a lens cheap, you must compromise quality. [/*]
  2. As to'Plastic':Plastic lenses are easier to damage, and since the lens elements in dSLR lenses are physically larger than those in P&S digicams, there is a much greater chance they will become damaged. So in order to make a lens cheap, you must compromise durability.
[/*]
So, even if someone did make a cheap superzoom lens for dSLRs, it would be poor quality and wouldn't last very long. I don't think anyone wants to risk their reputation by making a (for all intents and purposes) disposable lens.

... or was the question rhetorical?

TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2008, 3:54 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Default

not significant, because "more complicated", still perform average below.
anway, i don't buy complexity itself(among oher developer desires-dreams), i boy result.
so because most today DSLR itself singnificantly conpromise-ly designed, and "more complicated" Lens don't help them very much ....

and about "it would be poor quality and wouldn't last very long", it must sound " it might be poor quality and wouldn't last very long"
guessing in of world of digicam without reason - just waste of monety and time.
something definitely impossible yesterdays, now cam become hard-core reality and industry standart.
anway, it's not a issue at all.

and about compexity on SLR lens - it just because strange managements of digicam designdesign(artificaial brains?)
for simply example - complexity itself - primary source of image quality loss.
and easiest way to avoid them - correct them in digicam itself(with motorized lens with well-known specs it just "piece a cake" work), but saving on digicams IC's and Firmware, and raising lens complexity and cost, just better way to earn money.
like inks and cartridges for Ink printers and games for gamestations.
and then - lens complexity - resut not care about customer and image quality, maked by them, but just own wealth and power.


p.s. a little simplified, but True :-)


SkyShoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2008, 4:30 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
......BTW, the aspect ratio of the APS-C image sensor is 3:2 (the same as for 35mm film), not 16:9. Some cameras make the 16:9 aspect ratio available, but only by ignoring the pixels at thetop and bottom of the sensor.
Does this apply, TCav, to consumer camcorders as well as stills digicams?

I recently acquired a ridicuously cheap Samsung D371W DVC camcorder, to future-proof digitally my occasional movie-shooting (I have 132 90-min analogue family Video8 tapes slowly making their way on to DVD). Its quality is more than adequate, though its menu system is awkward, so I fear I'll forget it between successive uses.

I spent some time trying to decide whether the 16:9 or the 4:3 mode was its 'throwing away valuable pixels' mode.(I prefer 4:3, because my eyes are too close together for the movies). I noted that many enhancement functions are unavailable in 16:9 mode, and deduced that that one was the digitally modified one, and 4:3 was native. However, the only answer I got when I asked about the sensor format in the relevant forums round here was to the contrary.

So any knowledgeable advice is welcome.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2008, 4:59 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Default

can't get service manual on this model :/
availble only sensorsize and etc
according to manual and specs here
http://www.samsung.com/uk/support/do...sp_nm=VP-D371W
and here
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/d...d=VP-D371W/XEU

p.s. as llog as i known, no native 19:9 seour in productions.
most of smaller sensor(for digicam and P&S) - comes from same waffel, with some full-size 35 mm and APS-C and 4/3.
just defective places cut out and remains ilicon (by laser or otherways) selected, tested and packed(or vise versa ;P).

SkyShoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2008, 7:43 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Alan T wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
......BTW, the aspect ratio of the APS-C image sensor is 3:2 (the same as for 35mm film), not 16:9. Some cameras make the 16:9 aspect ratio available, but only by ignoring the pixels at thetop and bottom of the sensor.
Does this apply, TCav, to consumer camcorders as well as stills digicams?
The manual for your Samsung D371W (BTW, thanks for the link, SkyShoot.) states that it and its sister productshave an 800K pixel image sensor, but that one ofits sister products can take still images with a resolution of 800x600. (The D371W can't take still images, butthe D375W, can.)

The puzzle is that an 800K image sensor should be able to take 1024x768 still images, but that's not an option, and that 800K isn't enough for a 16:9 HD image at 1920x1080 or even 1280x720, but it's overkill for 704x480, yet there's no digital zoom available for 16:9.

It seems that the image sensor in the D371W (and it's sister products) have pixels that are being ignored whatever you do.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2008, 10:45 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

SkyShoot wrote:
Quote:
not significant, because "more complicated", still perform average below.
Just so we avoid any misunderstanding, are you saying that dSLRs have below average image quality?

I think you'd have to look long and hard to find someone (else?) that would agree with that.

SkyShoot wrote:
Quote:
anway, i don't buy complexity itself(among oher developer desires-dreams), i boy result.
... and if you want to buy good results, you're going to pay for complexity, because the laws of physics are unforgiving.

SkyShoot wrote:
Quote:
so because most today DSLR itself singnificantly conpromise-ly designed, and "more complicated" Lens don't help them very much ....
What I said about lenses applies to film SLRs as well as "singnificantly conpromise-ly designed" dSLRs. Interchangeable lenses are, by their verynature, complicated. Lenses forSingle Lens Reflex cameras (film or digital) are, by their verynature, complicated. These complicated lenses do better than the simple lenses in P&S digicams, just as they did better than the Kodak Instamatic and Pocket Instamatic film cameras. The most popular of the Instamatic cameras actually had a single element lens, with a fixed focal length, fixedaperture and a fixed focusing distance. (What could be simpler?) It actually produced many very acceptable photographs, but if youwanted a different focal length, a different aperture, or a different focusing distance, you had to get a more complicated lens (and a more complicated camera.) Those more complicated lenses helped a lot.

SkyShoot wrote:
Quote:
and about compexity on SLR lens - it just because strange managements of digicam designdesign(artificaial brains?)
No. Many of those same SLR lenses also worked just fine on film cameras. The complexity of SLR lenses has nothing to do with digital imaging technology.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:34 PM.