Re: The main drawback of a digital camera

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:22:17 GMT, Owamanga wrote:

>> Still highly perturbed, eh? You seem to be taking this quite
>> personally.
>
> It's a mistake people often make when reading me.

Well. ShouId I believe you? . . . Nope.


>> Do you recall the recent discussion of P&S cameras that can't use
>>the highest shutter speeds at small apertures?
>
> No, I missed it. What was the reason?

See below.


>> If a standard high
>>speed mechanical shutter was added, it could close very quickly just
>>before the exposure begins, allowing the aperture to close to its
>>desired position. Then the shutter opens and closes very quickly,
>>giving the desired fast shutter speed (1/2000, 1/4000, etc.). So
>>during the entire time of exposure, the aperture would be constant.
>
> So, the aperture on a P&S *isn't* constant during the exposure right
> now?
>
> Wow, yet later you claim EVF users care about quality.

All cameras have limitations of some sort, including DSLRs. And
it's silly and perhaps clueless in the extreme to criticize EVF
users for not caring about quality. This requires them to know some
esoteric details about how cameras work that you apparently don't
know. I guess this makes you more clueless than EVF users that
don't care about camera quality. :)



>>No worry about a moving iris giving you in effect a varying aperture
>>during high speed exposures.
>
> Why does the iris move during high speed exposures, yet doesn't during
> slow ones? It's an electronic shutter, so it's not like the high
> speediness is creating wind or anything is it?

Talk about clueless. It takes time to close and open. Very
little time. So normally this amount of time is so much smaller
than the amount of time that the shutter is open that it's
insignificant and can be ignored. But when the shutter speed is
1/2000th of a second or less, the amount of time it is moving is too
large to ignore. So the camera manufacturers don't ignore it. The
disallow these combinations of shutter speed and aperture. All in
the name of preserving image quality, wouldn't you say?


>>> And what are these other amazing reasons to have a mechanical shutter
>>> that you've thought of?
>>
>> Is there really a need for the snotty sarcastic attitude?
>
> I enjoy it.

That's been obvious for a long time. Let's hope it's not one of
your more endearing qualities.


>>I'll
>>give you a hint and another chance to think of what the reason might
>>be. Once you add the fairly powerful motor (for its size) needed
>>to operate the shutter quickly, it could do double duty, positioning
>>some small objects in front of the sensor. Can you think of what
>>they are and why they might be useful?
>
> No, because I'm not crazy. Please, spill the beans, mad inventors are
> interesting.
>
> But, first, let me guess: Polarizing filter, removal of IR block
> filter, ND2, ND4, starburst, and some vignetting effect filters in
> various shapes: Keyhole, Star, Circle, Binoculars.
>
> But why stop there, a magical double duty motor could be a treble duty
> motor too right? Then the camera could have little wheels so it
> actually comes to you when you call it. Or even a quad-duty motor so
> it can energize small retractable fans and float above your head to
> take crowd shots. These fans would double as underwater propellers
> making it easy for the camera to be remote-controlled in your local
> lake for close up photos of fish.
>
> That same motor could also be used to make the camera spin round on
> it's tripod mount for taking automated panoramas.
>
> Battery life might become a problem, but EVF users are used to that.
>
> But the simple addition of a small offset counterweight could allow
> this amazing motor to make the camera vibrate in your pocket whenever
> the batteries are about to expire.
>
> ...am I outside the box yet?

Not really. Perhaps in a warped sense, but not a very useful one.


> > It's not only arrogant but grossly inaccurate to say that
> >purchasers of EVF cameras are not concerned with quality compared
> >with features. The same argument could be made just as incorrectly
> >that DSLR owners are not concerned with quality compared to
> >features, otherwise they would have purchased a more expensive MF
> >camera with a digital back.
>
> That same argument *is* true. DSLR owners aren't as concerned with
> quality as Digital MF owners are, otherwise they'd buy a digital MF
> wouldn't they?
>
> This is certainly true in my case. A feature I want is for it to be
> 35mm style format/size, and not cost more than $3,000. MF doesn't fit
> that bill, so the DSLR wins. Features over quality.

And yet if MF owners ridiculed DSLR owners for preferring features
over quality the way you heap scorn on EVF users, they'd rightly be
told what jerks they are, in less diplomatic terms.


>> And you've gone into some sort of
>>fantasy land
>
> Well, hello to your world.

Amazingly sophisticated rejoinder. For a five year old.


>> by taking what I said about the shutter being used only
>> briefly at the time of exposure into it being used for some kind of
>> long term protection for quality reasons. Where did that come from
>> and what are you talking about???
>
> Because that is the main argument for keeping the mechanical shutter
> in the DSLR design.

But nobody suggested that a shutter in a P&S with EVF be used in
exactly the same manner as they'd be used in a DSLR.


>>> Aren't we discussing stuff outside of the box right now?
>>
>> Yep. But what you mean "we"? There's a telling difference. If
>>I'm thinking outside the box, you're doing all you can to discount
>>it.
>
> You live outside the box apparently.

Another silly insult.


> >The late Richard Feynman was well known for thinking outside
> >the box, and until he got the proofs to validate his theories, often
> >found them discounted.
>
> So you compare yourself to Richard Feynman do you? Who's being lofty
> and arrogant now?

I had a feeling you'd stoop that low if you couldn't rebut my
arguments. I used his example not to elevate myself to his status
but to show who you're emulating. But his critics at least did so
for reasons of self protection, not because they enjoyed doing so.
You seem to do it for kicks. Excuse me. Cross out "seem to".
You've already admitted that you enjoy this little game of yours,
which gives you ample opportunity to display the "snotty attitude"
that you enjoy so much.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
    ... I'm not attacking the quality of your ... All I'm saying is that given the same conditions, a dslr is capable of ... You've shown from your own experience as a p&s camera enhusiast. ... at some samples of pictures from the Sony A900 with one of the Carl ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: ATTN: Resident-Troll ASSAR, a.k.a. Stephen Bishop, heres your picture...
    ... Most any P&S camera will do much of what is on that P&S partial FAQs list. ... to pass the image quality of the Canon 50D. ... glass on that DSLR would help, but I doubt it will make it any better than the ... The DSLR kit-lens was so abysmal that any other glass would have to be ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: P & S cameras
    ... You left out the cost of all those lenses that would be needed to have the ... DSLR glass in existence. ... some dslrs can sync at any shutter speed, notably the nikon d50 and d70. ... to enjoy the vast benefits of P&S camera owners. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: ATTN: Resident-Troll ASSAR, a.k.a. Stephen Bishop, heres your picture...
    ... so you have the only camera in existance that can meet all of your ... at least you admit you're comparing the worst that a DSLR ... quality of DSLR cameras over a P&S isn't going to cost more. ... quality images because there are so many lenses available for DSLRs ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: European trip ?s
    ... top quality modern design. ... versatile as DSLR; but that does not imply they have no ... Camera which fits in a shirt ... > and perceivable impact on image quality. ...
    (rec.travel.europe)