Erilar

In article <[email protected]>,
The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

> Following up to erilar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> LCD screens are hopeless compared to the TTL view of an SLR,
> >> remarkably some people convince themselves an LCD is a way of taking
> >> other than hopeful snaps!
> >> I certianly cant see the one on my SLR in bright sun.
> >
> >Oh, I'm not arguing that it is.
>
> Yes, no saying *you* do
?? I'm not sure what you're saying here. I can see the LCD screen in
sunlight if I give it some shade, but when I'm in a hurry I use the tiny
viewfinder and edit later.
>
> >But since the viewfinder shows less than
> >what I'm actually getting, if it's in there, it's in the shot 8-)
>
> the glory of the digital darkroom, what an improvement!

Hey, after 18 years printing thousands of yearbook pictures in a real
one, sitting at my computer with a cup of coffee IS an improvement!

--
Mary, biblioholic

bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.

http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

William Black

"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Following up to erilar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I want a digital camera that take a picture when your press the button,
>>> as
>>> opposed to several seconds later.
>>>
>>> Anyone know of one?
>>
>>I don't know what kind, but I've read that they are really cutting down
>>the delay a LOT on some new ones. Mine is a lot faster than early ones,
>>but it still has a noticeable delay.
>
> are we tsalking a delay between pressing shutter and photo being
> taken, or a delay before the camera is ready to take another?

The first one.

The second can be solved by buying expensive batteries...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Erilar

In article <[email protected]>,
The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

> Following up to erilar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It took me a long time to convert to
> >digital, but I'm 73 and don't trust ANY airline not to lose checked
> >luggage given the opportunity.
>
> i wouldnt check a camera!

Oh, neither would I! but carrying a lot of camera gear would mean I'd
have to check other things I don't trust airlines with.

--
Mary, biblioholic

bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.

http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

Larry in AZ

Waiving the right to remain silent, "William Black"
<[email protected]> said:

> "The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Following up to erilar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I want a digital camera that take a picture when your press the
>>>> button, as opposed to several seconds later.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know of one?
>>>
>>>I don't know what kind, but I've read that they are really cutting down
>>>the delay a LOT on some new ones. Mine is a lot faster than early
>>>ones, but it still has a noticeable delay.
>>
>> are we tsalking a delay between pressing shutter and photo being taken,
>> or a delay before the camera is ready to take another?
>
> The first one.
>
> The second can be solved by buying expensive batteries...

Expensive batteries won't help. The delays are normally caused by the
time it takes to buffer and write the data to internal memory and/or
inserted memory cards. Also, it can be delayed by certain kinds of
"anti-shake" technology and auto-focus.

Batteries have nothing to do with any of the above, unless they're dead...

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."

Tim.....

"erilar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "tim....." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:52:28 -0500, erilar
>> > <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> "tim....." <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Or put another way, the one that costs circa 32.00 GBP for a
>> >>> new one and I wasn't spending that sort of money to find out if
>> >>> it was better after I'd discovered how rubbish the zoom lens
>> >>> was.
>> >>
>> >>zoom lens question: are you referring to optical zoom or digital zoom?
>> >>The latter is just what you can do on your computer; it doesn't give
>> >>you
>> >>more pixels, so I never bother with it.
>> >
>> > a zoom lens is an optical zoom, by definition.
>>
>> Optical zoom.
>>
>> The problem with small lense is that they simply cannot
>> be made with enough elements to provide a perfect picture
>> acroos the whole on the lens, across the whole of the
>> zoom range.
>>
>> SLRs have two advantages over compact cameras:
>> 1) the lenses can be swapped out so that when you get
>> to the point where the lens doesn't work properly you
>> stop using it, rather than having to persevere because
>> it's the only one you have.
>>
>> 2) SLR lenses, being bigger, can be made to 'create'
>> a bigger image of which only the centre, more perfect,
>> part is used as the actual image. Smaller lenses can
>> do this but at the expense of the amount of light that
>> creates the used image meaning that they are only
>> any use in good weather.
>>
>> Tiny little zoom lenses are never going to give as good
>> a picture as an SLR sized lens whatever the pixel count
>> of the camera.
>
> I will never argue that my little digital camera can do some of the
> things my old SLR can, but I'm not taking pictures for publication,
> competition, or slides to project for lectures. I don't settle for poor
> photography, but at 73, the weight/quality ratio works for me.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.

I was taking the opportunity to explain to those that
don't know, that there are genuine technological reasons
why SLR are going to be better than compact cameras
even if all the basic problem are eliminated.

tim

-Magda

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:50:54 -0500, in rec.travel.europe, erilar
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... In article <[email protected]>,
... Magda <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... > Four weeks in Europe without shopping? No new clothes, no presents for
... > family/friends, no
... > souvenirs?? NO BOOKS??
...
... The other secret: post offices 8-)

And lots of money and a shipload of luck... Valuables always "get lost" in the mail.

Erilar

In article <[email protected]>,
Magda <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:50:54 -0500, in rec.travel.europe, erilar
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like
> this:
>
> ... In article <[email protected]>,
> ... Magda <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> ... > Four weeks in Europe without shopping? No new clothes, no presents for
> ... > family/friends, no
> ... > souvenirs?? NO BOOKS??
> ...
> ... The other secret: post offices 8-)
>
> And lots of money and a shipload of luck... Valuables always "get lost" in
> the mail.

If they're not worth the money to ship home, I don't really need
them(books, that is, even addicted as I am). I trust post offices
further than I do airlines to get checked luggage to my destination.

--
Mary, biblioholic

bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.

http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

The Reid

Following up to "William Black" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> are we tsalking a delay between pressing shutter and photo being
>> taken, or a delay before the camera is ready to take another?
>
>The first one.

doesn't happen on my DSLR, I hadnt heard about it

>The second can be solved by buying expensive batteries

again, theres a short delay (mine has a rechareable pack).
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

The Reid

Following up to "tim....." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tiny little zoom lenses are never going to give as good
>a picture as an SLR sized lens whatever the pixel count
>of the camera.

too many people are hooked on pixel counts, they dont seem to realise
the lens is the thing.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

The Reid

Following up to erilar <[email protected]> wrote:

>I will never argue that my little digital camera can do some of the
>things my old SLR can, but I'm not taking pictures for publication,
>competition, or slides to project for lectures. I don't settle for poor
>photography, but at 73, the weight/quality ratio works for me.

sure, we all want different things.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

The Reid

Following up to erilar <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Yes, no saying *you* do

> ?? I'm not sure what you're saying here.


typo, i'm not saying *you* do (whatever it was) :-)

>I can see the LCD screen in
>sunlight if I give it some shade, but when I'm in a hurry I use the tiny
>viewfinder and edit later.

if im taking a shot downsun (the norm!) in bright light you can hardly
see the LCD, you couldnt compose or focus. You can just about see if
the exposure is roughly OK with your hand over it for shade.

>> >But since the viewfinder shows less than
>> >what I'm actually getting, if it's in there, it's in the shot 8-)
>>
>> the glory of the digital darkroom, what an improvement!
>
>Hey, after 18 years printing thousands of yearbook pictures in a real
>one, sitting at my computer with a cup of coffee IS an improvement!

it is, im looking at IIRC at bracketing exposure and combining in
digital droom to get High Dynamic Range (HDR) it can be impressive.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

The Reid

Following up to erilar <[email protected]> wrote:

>> i wouldnt check a camera!
>
>Oh, neither would I! but carrying a lot of camera gear would mean I'd
>have to check other things I don't trust airlines with.

i just carry my camera, everything else gets checked.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

William Black

"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Following up to "William Black" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> are we tsalking a delay between pressing shutter and photo being
>>> taken, or a delay before the camera is ready to take another?
>>
>>The first one.
>
> doesn't happen on my DSLR, I hadnt heard about it

I don't want a DSLR.

I had an SLR, the bloody things get in the way of real life, you become
obsessed with the picture and stop looking at the thing itself.

I want something I can put in my pocket and walk around with.

I want to be able to take it out of my pocket, point it at something and
take a reasonable picture.

35mm compact and rangefinder cameras managed it.

Even APS cameras managed it, albeit with reduced quality.

Digital cameras: Switch it on, wait for flashing lights to stop flashing
and various mechanical bits to find their way into place.

Press shutter switch, wait for something to happen, click...

The process takes about five seconds.

Leave it switched on and the LCD display shuts down after a couple of
minutes, and it still takes a second or so before going 'click'.

After you've shot four or five fast shots you're back to waiting while your
battery recovers...

And that's with clever NMH rechargables.

Like I said, I want a camera that really is 'point and shoot' and I'm
seriously considering going back to my old 35mm compact camera and getting
the negatives digitised because I'm deeply unhappy with the digital ones.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Erilar

In article <[email protected]>,
The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

> Following up to "tim....." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Tiny little zoom lenses are never going to give as good
> >a picture as an SLR sized lens whatever the pixel count
> >of the camera.
>
> too many people are hooked on pixel counts, they dont seem to realise
> the lens is the thing.

Oh, my little toy doesn't have the lenses the SLRs I used to use had,
but the zoom reference reminded me of the fake zoom part of digitals 8-)

--
Mary, biblioholic

bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.

http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

William Black

"erilar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Following up to "tim....." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Tiny little zoom lenses are never going to give as good
>> >a picture as an SLR sized lens whatever the pixel count
>> >of the camera.
>>
>> too many people are hooked on pixel counts, they dont seem to realise
>> the lens is the thing.
>
> Oh, my little toy doesn't have the lenses the SLRs I used to use had,
> but the zoom reference reminded me of the fake zoom part of digitals 8-)

I keep looking at the Leica M8 and the Epson that isn't quite a Leica, and
keep waiting for someone to make a cheap digital 'rangefinder'...


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.