Add-ons for digicams?

[MG]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Hi

I have recently got a Conon A75 and was attracted as it had the lens
ring for additional adapter/lenses. Was wondering though if there is a
Digiscoping attachment offered by any third party? And with the 52mm
adapter, can any other standard camera lenses be used in conjunction??

Thanks for any advice

Mark
**REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:24:11 GMT, "Chris" <RRUFIANGE@cfl.rr.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

>By the way, Professor, I expect a University instructor to be able to
>formulate sentences a tad better than you do. Of course, you're probably
>indeed a Professor, as to pretend to be one is criminal fraud.

My ex-wife married one of the professors (a doctor) who taught a class
she was attending. I've had some discussions with him; he's *far* from
the brightest bulb in the box. Just goes to prove that the possession
of a PhD is not an indication of the possession of intelligence.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Conflict-Disturbed-The Sickness
This is track 861 of 1023 in the current playlist.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG) wrote in message
> I have recently got a Conon A75 and was attracted as it had the lens
> ring for additional adapter/lenses. Was wondering though if there is a
> Digiscoping attachment offered by any third party? And with the 52mm
> adapter, can any other standard camera lenses be used in conjunction??

You can't use any "standard" camera lenses. When I say "standard", I
mean SLR camera lenses. However, you can use "any" accessory lenses
with 52mm threads with your camera, such as wide-angle or telephoto
lens.

I emphasized "any" earlier, because you can use any lens that can
screw onto your camera, but you may not get the results that you want
with "any" particular lens. For example, an accessory telephoto lens
with a small rear lens element may cause vignette in your picture. Or
an accessory wide angle lens with a small rear lens element by cause
fish eye in your picture. In both cases, you may or may not want these
effects, depending on the "art" that you are trying to produce.

Chieh
--
Camera Hacker - http://www.CameraHacker.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
> last minute when taking pictures?
>
> Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't people
> take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
> days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
>
> WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?

People interested in optimizing their imaging?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

I agree, if he meant it. But I took his post as leg pulling.

Phil

Skip M wrote:

> Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
> (really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
> Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but the
> point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not a
> prism.
> The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
> technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point and
> shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons between the
> Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
> And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious about it
> care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not WTF,
> didn't you?)
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Maybe I'm becoming troll sensitized, but that, to me, didn't have the ring
of irony to it. If it were, indeed, meant ironically, then I apologize for
my rant.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BMzEc.9360$ju5.7173@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I agree, if he meant it. But I took his post as leg pulling.
>
> Phil
>
> Skip M wrote:
>
> > Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
> > (really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
> > Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but the
> > point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not a
> > prism.
> > The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
> > technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point
and
> > shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons between
the
> > Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
> > And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious
about it
> > care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not
WTF,
> > didn't you?)
> >
>

 

[Chris]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net...
> Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
> last minute when taking pictures?
>
> Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
> take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
> days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
>
> WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?

If nobody cares, why are Digital SLRs being made? Who would buy them?

You're so dense.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Chris wrote:
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net...
>> Why would any intelligent person ...

<snip>

>
> You're so dense.

Me, too: I can't figure out what this little bit of language adds to the
conversation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> was.......?

The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.

Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to deal
with the issue.

These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news😀76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net...
> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> was.......?
>

The only time you MAY run into that problem is with a very long lens, and/or
very slow exposure times, issues that don't come up with often digital p&s
cameras, because, hey, they don't have very long lenses, and many of them
don't support very long exposure times. And with many DSLRs, you have the
option of locking the mirror up, alleviating the problem.
So, it wasn't meant ironically, was it? So, too, my original
comment/assessment stands, your overall ignorance is breathtaking!
I think you should care a little more about SLR technology, and a little
less about spouting off. Do you have any images you could show us, so that
the dinosaurs among us will run out and sell our SLRs and DSLRs so we can
buy small sensored point and shoots?
Which leads me to a question of my own, why do you put up with those tiny,
little sensors that do little to keep noise to a minimum?
BTW, I'm a little surprised at you, you are, more often than not, a
reasonable contributor around here.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

....and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
was.......?

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news😛NHEc.2691$876.928@fed1read07...
> Maybe I'm becoming troll sensitized, but that, to me, didn't have the ring
> of irony to it. If it were, indeed, meant ironically, then I apologize
for
> my rant.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:BMzEc.9360$ju5.7173@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > I agree, if he meant it. But I took his post as leg pulling.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >
> > > Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
> > > (really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
> > > Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but
the
> > > point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not
a
> > > prism.
> > > The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
> > > technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point
> and
> > > shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons
between
> the
> > > Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
> > > And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious
> about it
> > > care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not
> WTF,
> > > didn't you?)
> > >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

....and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
was.......?

Should I shake my "thru the lens non-SLR" to optimize my resolution?

"Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-D9FF79.09422130062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at
the
> > last minute when taking pictures?
> >
> > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
> > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
watch
> > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> >
> > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
>
> People interested in optimizing their imaging?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <3sednQSb-aIh-H7dRVn-uA@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

[fixed your top-posting problem. You're welcome.]

> "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> news:sehix-D9FF79.09422130062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >
> > > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
> > > last minute when taking pictures?
> > >
> > > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't people
> > > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
> > > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> > >
> > > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
> >
> > People interested in optimizing their imaging?
>
> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> was.......?

The advantages outweigh the slight disadvantages. (See previous post in
this thread.) Unless low cost and the smallest possible size are your
only figures of merit, an SLR has a lot of advantages. Which is why they
have such a presence in the marketplace.

If shutter vibration is actually an issue (and most of the time it is
not), you can deal with in several ways.

- Get a decent tripod. (Cheap ones tend to not be very steady.)

- Lock up the mirror before triggering the shutter. Unless you have a
cheap camera mount, the vibration should die down before you get around
to firing the shutter.

> Should I shake my "thru the lens non-SLR" to optimize my resolution?

That would be silly (as you probably know quite well). But, assuming
that you're not actually a troll:

SLRs permit a much wider range of lenses than do any likely P&S. Some
people like to shoot subjects that require very long lenses. Hard to
find non-SLR cameras with 800mm glass.

Macro- and micro-photography is much easier with SLRs. Astrophotography
is easier with SLRs, and usually cheaper than doing it with dedicated,
actively-cooled detectors like an SBIG ST-10XE.

You can do quite a lot with a fixed-lens camera. You can do more with an
SLR.

Whether the extra cost/weight/complexity is worth it to you is one thing.

Whether you have any say in what anyone else does is something else
entirely.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

....and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
was.......?


"Chris" <RRUFIANGE@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:LBCEc.2018$Bv.288014@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net...
> > Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at
the
> > last minute when taking pictures?
> >
> > Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
> people
> > take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
watch
> > days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
> >
> > WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?
>
> If nobody cares, why are Digital SLRs being made? Who would buy them?
>
> You're so dense.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <FfmdnfspQPxbpX_dRVn-uw@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

>Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
>last minute when taking pictures?
>
>Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't people
>take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
>days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?
>
>WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?

I don't need slapping mirrors and shutters either, but for the time
being, low-noise sensors only come in specimens that don't have live
video feed, and EVFs are still too low in resolution. The day there is
a digital camera with a 3MP EVF and a sensor as sensitive as the better
DSLRs will be a great day, but it hasn't come yet.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

>In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

>> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
>> was.......?

>The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
>disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.

They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.

>Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to deal
>with the issue.

The effect of the slapping mirror on my DSLR is about 2 to 3 stops of
shutter speed wasted to freeze the vibrations, compared to my Sony F707
which has a full-time video feed.

The sound of the mirror makes candids less practical, and distracts
wildlife.

>These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.

.... which is only practical with still subjects and a tripod.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com...
> In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>
> >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> >> was.......?
>
> >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
> >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
>
> They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.
>
> >Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to deal
> >with the issue.
>
> The effect of the slapping mirror on my DSLR is about 2 to 3 stops of
> shutter speed wasted to freeze the vibrations, compared to my Sony F707
> which has a full-time video feed.
>
> The sound of the mirror makes candids less practical, and distracts
> wildlife.
>
> >These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.
>
> ... which is only practical with still subjects and a tripod.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

You could always revert to a film camera, the Canon RTS...a pellicle mirror
design with a fixed, semi-transparent mirror.
If you are shooting at a shutter speed slow enough to be bothered by mirror
slap, you should be using a tripod, anyway, and if the subject is moving,
you've missed it. My D30 is, for all intents and purposes, quiet enough for
candids, and my old A2 is even quieter.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
wrote:

> In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>
> >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> >> was.......?
>
> >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
> >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
>
> They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.

True, there have been any number of fixed-lens SLRs; their only
advantage over typical rangefinder type cameras being no parallax
problem.

> >Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to deal
> >with the issue.
>
> The effect of the slapping mirror on my DSLR is about 2 to 3 stops of
> shutter speed wasted to freeze the vibrations, compared to my Sony F707
> which has a full-time video feed.

Again, the mirror is the price you pay for being able to use lenses far
out of the range found on fixed-lens cameras.

In my experience, btw, the effect of mirrorslap is nowhere near 3 stops,
and seldom two.

But then, I was used to locking up the mirror when it might be
troublesome.

> The sound of the mirror makes candids less practical, and distracts
> wildlife.

That's where the Leica shown. (I used to use a Canon IV RF, or a Zorki.)

I seldom noticed any reaction from wildlife, no matter what was taking
the pictures.

> >These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.
>
> ... which is only practical with still subjects and a tripod.

Which is usually the only time that locking the mirror up was necessary.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <qxLEc.2733$876.1697@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>You could always revert to a film camera, the Canon RTS...a pellicle mirror
>design with a fixed, semi-transparent mirror.

I am not interested in film, except maybe for hires B&W, or IR. I'll
use digital for color, thank you.

>If you are shooting at a shutter speed slow enough to be bothered by mirror
>slap, you should be using a tripod, anyway, and if the subject is moving,
>you've missed it.

No; I can shoot my F707 at 1/60s with a FOV equivalent to a 190mm (35mm
frame) lens. With the 10D, I almost need the full 1/fl from the
formula.

>My D30 is, for all intents and purposes, quiet enough for
>candids, and my old A2 is even quieter.

Well, the 10D is not a quiet camera. Animals 100 feet away stop what
they're doing to stare at me.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:jf17e0phb08usgdv7qb2k1tes8o9j0d421@4ax.com...
> In message <qxLEc.2733$876.1697@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >You could always revert to a film camera, the Canon RTS...a pellicle
mirror
> >design with a fixed, semi-transparent mirror.
>
> I am not interested in film, except maybe for hires B&W, or IR. I'll
> use digital for color, thank you.
>
> >If you are shooting at a shutter speed slow enough to be bothered by
mirror
> >slap, you should be using a tripod, anyway, and if the subject is moving,
> >you've missed it.
>
> No; I can shoot my F707 at 1/60s with a FOV equivalent to a 190mm (35mm
> frame) lens. With the 10D, I almost need the full 1/fl from the
> formula.
>
> >My D30 is, for all intents and purposes, quiet enough for
> >candids, and my old A2 is even quieter.
>
> Well, the 10D is not a quiet camera. Animals 100 feet away stop what
> they're doing to stare at me.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

BTW, if you are handholding at 1/60 and equiv 190mm, mirror slap will be the
least of your problems, and I'd think your hand would provide enough damping
to minimize the effect.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <BDMEc.2745$876.1959@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>BTW, if you are handholding at 1/60 and equiv 190mm, mirror slap will be the
>least of your problems, and I'd think your hand would provide enough damping
>to minimize the effect.

Pay attention! I just told you in the previous post that I *CAN*
hand-hold at 1/60 with a 190mm equivalent FOV on my Sony F707. *CAN*.

I *CAN't* on my 10D.

Get it?

The "problems" don't exist with the F707.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:gv19e09m8s3cj140e551002r63185qkclk@4ax.com...
> In message <BDMEc.2745$876.1959@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >BTW, if you are handholding at 1/60 and equiv 190mm, mirror slap will be
the
> >least of your problems, and I'd think your hand would provide enough
damping
> >to minimize the effect.
>
> Pay attention! I just told you in the previous post that I *CAN*
> hand-hold at 1/60 with a 190mm equivalent FOV on my Sony F707. *CAN*.
>
> I *CAN't* on my 10D.
>
> Get it?
>
> The "problems" don't exist with the F707.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

John, no need to shout, I was paying attention. One thing, I've never
gotten visual manifestation of mirror slap at 1/60 sec on any camera, even
my old Exacta or AT-1, even on a tripod. (In those days, 200mm was a long a
lens as I had.) Second thing, unless the Sony has some sort of image
stabilization, you are probably bracing yourself against something to hand
hold at 1/60 and 190mm, right? Yes, 190mm equiv isn't really as long as a
190mm on a 35mm, but still...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

You don't seem to get it, do you? WTF has a moving mechanism mirror have to
do with interchangable lenses? Digital camears are usually rangefinders and
Through the lens units.

Why put a moving mechanism in a digital camera?

"Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-3A6B07.22032730062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> wrote:
>
> > In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >
> > >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > >> was.......?
> >
> > >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the slight
> > >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
> >
> > They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> > interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.
>
> True, there have been any number of fixed-lens SLRs; their only
> advantage over typical rangefinder type cameras being no parallax
> problem.
>
> > >Where it might have a perceptible effect, there are work-arounds to
deal
> > >with the issue.
> >
> > The effect of the slapping mirror on my DSLR is about 2 to 3 stops of
> > shutter speed wasted to freeze the vibrations, compared to my Sony F707
> > which has a full-time video feed.
>
> Again, the mirror is the price you pay for being able to use lenses far
> out of the range found on fixed-lens cameras.
>
> In my experience, btw, the effect of mirrorslap is nowhere near 3 stops,
> and seldom two.
>
> But then, I was used to locking up the mirror when it might be
> troublesome.
>
> > The sound of the mirror makes candids less practical, and distracts
> > wildlife.
>
> That's where the Leica shown. (I used to use a Canon IV RF, or a Zorki.)
>
> I seldom noticed any reaction from wildlife, no matter what was taking
> the pictures.
>
> > >These include things like locking the mirror up before exposure.
> >
> > ... which is only practical with still subjects and a tripod.
>
> Which is usually the only time that locking the mirror up was necessary.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

Sorry, bub, but digital cameras are mostly point and shoot viewfinder
cameras, not range finders. And the "through the lens" units are usually
digital, not optical, which are not the best way to actually see what you
are shooting. Resolution is poor, as is contrast, and often the framing is
off, too. The reason to put a moving mechanism in a digital is to get the
image to your eye in the most accurate manner possible. If you truly think
that the LCD panels and the viewfinders on digital cameras are the best way,
you need to do further research.


--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:JMudnQfCO9qbVXndRVn-iQ@golden.net...
> You don't seem to get it, do you? WTF has a moving mechanism mirror have
to
> do with interchangable lenses? Digital camears are usually rangefinders
and
> Through the lens units.
>
> Why put a moving mechanism in a digital camera?
>
> "Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> news:sehix-3A6B07.22032730062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <qju6e05jis517jf9to84i7drvjic99p0e0@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In message <sehix-F708C0.18441830062004@news-east.dca.giganews.com>,
> > > Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <D76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net>,
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > > >> was.......?
> > >
> > > >The advantages accruing from interchangeable lenses outweigh the
slight
> > > >disadvantage of the moving mirror mass.
> > >
> > > They are only yoked by coincidence, though. There is no reason why
> > > interchangeble lenses and SLR viewing need to go together.
> >
> > True, there have been any number of fixed-lens SLRs; their only
> > advantage over typical rangefinder type cameras being no parallax
> > problem.
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,aus.photo,uk.rec.photo.misc,alt.photography (More info?)

I guess you don't consider a 500mm lens on a 35mm camera long then? This is
what many digital cameras are sporting (equivalent of course) and
more...built in to the camera. What lens would I want to change it to? A red
one with polka dots?


"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:EtLEc.2731$876.282@fed1read07...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news😀76dnU5rrvDy-H7dRVn-hA@golden.net...
> > ...and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
> > was.......?
> >
>
> The only time you MAY run into that problem is with a very long lens,
and/or
> very slow exposure times, issues that don't come up with often digital p&s
> cameras, because, hey, they don't have very long lenses, and many of them
> don't support very long exposure times. And with many DSLRs, you have the
> option of locking the mirror up, alleviating the problem.
> So, it wasn't meant ironically, was it? So, too, my original
> comment/assessment stands, your overall ignorance is breathtaking!
> I think you should care a little more about SLR technology, and a little
> less about spouting off. Do you have any images you could show us, so
that
> the dinosaurs among us will run out and sell our SLRs and DSLRs so we can
> buy small sensored point and shoots?
> Which leads me to a question of my own, why do you put up with those tiny,
> little sensors that do little to keep noise to a minimum?
> BTW, I'm a little surprised at you, you are, more often than not, a
> reasonable contributor around here.
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>