RSS News Feedtried an electronic viewfinder camera
Message-ID:<b9f53488-1a13-4edb-a97d-112f31968ee5@k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Subject:
tried an "electronic viewfinder" camera ?
Date:Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:52:42 +0100
Saw, for the first time, yesterday, several
articles about the "electronic viewfinder" cameras...
these are claimed to produce as good an image as a DSLR,
but in a very compact camera (tho everything Ive read
emphasizes the price of these is anything but "compact").
Ill probably have better luck in a strictly camera
oriented group, but thought Id ask here to see if any GIMP
users had one of the four or five cameras of this type
currently available ? If so... any pictures to share ? :-)
Is it worth saving for, or just the convenience of
a smaller camera with improved resolution ?
Message-ID:<4b54492d$0$23902$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Subject:
Re: tried an "electronic viewfinder" camera ?
Date:Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:42:35 +0100
On 18/01/2010 08:52, stu seven wrote: > Saw, for the first time, yesterday, several > articles about the "electronic viewfinder" cameras... > these are claimed to produce as good an image as a DSLR, > but in a very compact camera (tho everything Ive read > emphasizes the price of these is anything but "compact"). > > Ill probably have better luck in a strictly camera > oriented group, but thought Id ask here to see if any GIMP > users had one of the four or five cameras of this type > currently available ? If so... any pictures to share ? :-) > > Is it worth saving for, or just the convenience of > a smaller camera with improved resolution ? Resolution isn't better than P&S (same number of pixels). Sensor quality (noise) is presumably better (though not as good as what you find on current entry-level Canon/Nikon). IMHO, compared to DSLR: - very restricted choice of lenses & accessories - significantly more expensive than a DSLR of similar capabilities - EVF still far from equaling optical VF - I've tried the G1 and the AF is faster than on a P&S, but I couldn't try it on anything faster than a pedestrian. -- Bertrand
Message-ID:<slrnhl9o17.npr.nospam-abuse@powdermilk.math.berkeley.edu>
Subject:
Re: tried an "electronic viewfinder" camera ?
Date:Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:26:47 +0100
On 2010-01-18, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote: >> Is it worth saving for, or just the convenience of >> a smaller camera with improved resolution ? In dpreview.com, look in the news, then in the reviews. Also you may go to forums (HUGE) and look for what people write there. > Resolution isn't better than P&S (same number of pixels). Resolution has very little to do with number of pixels. These half-frame compacts give the same resolution as dSLRs (about 1.5x more "resolved pixels" than good 1/2"-sensor compacts with the same pixel count). > Sensor quality > (noise) is presumably better (though not as good as what you find on > current entry-level Canon/Nikon). IIRC, it is on par as well... > - very restricted choice of lenses & accessories Not if they accept adapters for some standard mount (do they already?). > - significantly more expensive than a DSLR of similar capabilities At least with R1, it was not very much so if you counted equivalent-quality lenses... > - EVF still far from equaling optical VF But VGA EVF + instant-magnification is much better than optical VF in many situations. IMO, when EVF reach about 1200x800 resolution, they would beat OVF in all but a handful of specialized situations... > - I've tried the G1 and the AF is faster than on a P&S, but I couldn't > try it on anything faster than a pedestrian. This is the only objection which may last - IMO, currently, the only reason for existence of dSLR is absense of mirror-less quick focussing technology... All the rest is just marketing (like choosing shitty EVF to lower the price...). Yours, Ilya
Message-ID:<4b561fec$0$21882$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Subject:
Re: tried an "electronic viewfinder" camera ?
Date:Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:11:06 +0100
On 18/01/2010 23:26, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > On 2010-01-18, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote: >>> Is it worth saving for, or just the convenience of >>> a smaller camera with improved resolution ? > > In dpreview.com, look in the news, then in the reviews. Also you > may go to forums (HUGE) and look for what people write there. > >> Resolution isn't better than P&S (same number of pixels). > > Resolution has very little to do with number of pixels. These > half-frame compacts give the same resolution as dSLRs (about 1.5x more > "resolved pixels" than good 1/2"-sensor compacts with the same pixel > count). Agreed, for the (Micro) 4/3 ones. > >> Sensor quality >> (noise) is presumably better (though not as good as what you find on >> current entry-level Canon/Nikon). > > IIRC, it is on par as well... In theory yes, since the pixel density is a bout the same. But Nikon & Canon have on the whole better sensors than the rest of the DLSRs, so the current crop of EVF cameras is likely to be only as good as Olympus DSLRs. >> - very restricted choice of lenses& accessories > > Not if they accept adapters for some standard mount (do they already?). If you are looking for adapters that support full exposure and focus automation, you might be disappointed. Likewise for external flash wit full automation. >> - significantly more expensive than a DSLR of similar capabilities > > At least with R1, it was not very much so if you counted > equivalent-quality lenses... At B&H: Canon EOS Rebel T1i (500D) with 18-135mm IS Lens: $1,099.95 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 with 14-140mm Lens: $$1,299.95 >> - EVF still far from equaling optical VF > > But VGA EVF + instant-magnification is much better than optical VF in > many situations. IMO, when EVF reach about 1200x800 resolution, they > would beat OVF in all but a handful of specialized situations... Th "instant magnification" is OK when the camera is on a tripod (otherwise the EVF isn't usable to track the subject). And in that case the rear screen available on modern DSLRs works just as well. And there is also this very annoying EVF blackout when shooting in burst mode. >> - I've tried the G1 and the AF is faster than on a P&S, but I couldn't >> try it on anything faster than a pedestrian. > > This is the only objection which may last - IMO, currently, the only > reason for existence of dSLR is absense of mirror-less quick focussing > technology... All the rest is just marketing (like choosing shitty > EVF to lower the price...). > > Yours, > Ilya -- Bertrand
Message-ID:<slrnhlcbt4.85f.nospam-abuse@powdermilk.math.berkeley.edu>
Subject:
Re: tried an "electronic viewfinder" camera ?
Date:Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:18:12 +0100
On 2010-01-19, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote: > In theory yes, since the pixel density is a bout the same. But Nikon & > Canon have on the whole better sensors than the rest of the DLSRs, so > the current crop of EVF cameras is likely to be only as good as Olympus > DSLRs. I've heard (did not check it yet) that this is over. Alpha 550 was reported to be on par with similarly priced Nikons (which were easily beating earlier Alpha's before - noisewise...). >> At least with R1, it was not very much so if you counted >> equivalent-quality lenses... > At B&H: > Canon EOS Rebel T1i (500D) with 18-135mm IS Lens: $1,099.95 > Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 with 14-140mm Lens: $$1,299.95 18-135 is kinda "standard" lens, right? R1's one was on par with L/G/whatever-marked optic, which costs thousands (and, what may be more important, not available in the corresponding zoom range)... [This is the price of "directing rays about the mirror box"...] Ilya
Message-ID:<4b563b5e$0$8701$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Subject:
Re: tried an "electronic viewfinder" camera ?
Date:Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:08:12 +0100
On 19/01/2010 23:18, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > On 2010-01-19, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote: >> In theory yes, since the pixel density is a bout the same. But Nikon& >> Canon have on the whole better sensors than the rest of the DLSRs, so >> the current crop of EVF cameras is likely to be only as good as Olympus >> DSLRs. > > I've heard (did not check it yet) that this is over. Alpha 550 was > reported to be on par with similarly priced Nikons (which were easily > beating earlier Alpha's before - noisewise...). > >>> At least with R1, it was not very much so if you counted >>> equivalent-quality lenses... It got indeed very good reviews. But it is no longer made. And it's a fixed lens camera, unlike the cameras we are talking about here if I'm not mistaken... > >> At B&H: > >> Canon EOS Rebel T1i (500D) with 18-135mm IS Lens: $1,099.95 >> Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 with 14-140mm Lens: $$1,299.95 > > 18-135 is kinda "standard" lens, right? Not really. I used these lens because I couldn't get the price of both the GH1 and 500D with the more "standard" 14-45 or 18-55. The 14-140/18-135 are the kind of lens favored by people who us a single lens (ans so could be better off using a fixed lens camera) > R1's one was on par with > L/G/whatever-marked optic, which costs thousands (and, what may be > more important, not available in the corresponding zoom range)... > [This is the price of "directing rays about the mirror box"...] Above the "kit lens" level of the times, possibly. At the same level as pro series lenses (that avoid these long ranges for a reason), I seriously doubt it. -- Bertrand
Message-ID:<b551610f-0417-48f2-b2bb-bfa9e46dac42@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
Subject:
Re: tried an "electronic viewfinder" camera ?
Date:Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:09:17 +0100
...thanks to both repliers, who, in different ways
affirmed what I had seen processing a few sample pictures
from these much hyped compacts.
The pictures I downloaded seemed to have a vastly
improved resolution... "color density"... maybe saturation
is what Im seeing... however, with all this apparent resolution
gain, the pictures I examined seemed somewhat "flimsy"
otherwise... this in fact is what occassioned my general
inquiry here.
To me its one of those... yes, Id keep it if
somebody threw one in the dumpster... but, no, Id
make a big effort to go out and get one... kind of
situations(!).
Thanks again for your replies