On 07 Nov 2009 18:26:58 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>"Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:hd25no$ft2$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> Very positive!
>>Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
>Your pet feature isn't considered useful by a lot of people.
It's only considered not useful by pretend-photographer trolls who have never used any cameras at all, or uncreative snapshooters who have never taken a photograph from any other position than standing up, camera held at the same level as their head. Judging by how many trolls here are like that, then you would be correct to say "isn't considered useful by a lot of usenet trolls and piss-poor snapshooters."
> David J Taylor > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>"Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:hd25no$ft2$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> Very positive!
>>Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
> Your pet feature isn't considered useful by a lot of people.
> -- > Ray Fischer
Not a feature I use often, but one which adds considerably to the value of Live View. A disappointing omission, IMHO.
Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>On 07 Nov 2009 18:26:58 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>>"Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>news:hd25no$ft2$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> Very positive!
>>>Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
>>Your pet feature isn't considered useful by a lot of people.
>It's only considered not useful by pretend-photographer trolls
> Other people consider durability to be more important. A swivel > finder is a signifant weak point in any camera.
> -- > Ray Fischer
Agreed - it's a trade-off, although as you can park the swivel finder with its screen against the camera body rather than being exposed, that's a point in the swivel's favour.
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >> Other people consider durability to be more important. A swivel >> finder is a signifant weak point in any camera.
>Agreed - it's a trade-off,
And since the camera is intended for people who make heavy use of a camera it would be considered by most to be a significant liability to have such a weak point.
> although as you can park the swivel finder with >its screen against the camera body rather than being exposed,
Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it would cost a lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable.
>David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >>> David J Taylor >>>>"Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> Very positive!
>>>>Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
>>> Your pet feature isn't considered useful by a lot of people.
>>Not a feature I use often, but one which adds considerably to the value of >>Live View. A disappointing omission, IMHO.
>Other people consider durability to be more important. A swivel >finder is a signifant weak point in any camera.
So says the pretend-photographer role-playing troll that doesn't realize how they are even used, most likely never used one himself, if he ever use any camera at all. They are only swung out from the camera and reversed to the viewer when needed. Otherwise they fold flat against the camera and lock in place. Especially nice are the ones where the LCD faces the camera body when folded flat for storage while you are using the EVF. Then not even the more delicate LCD screen is prone to nose-oil, dust, fingerprints, scratches, or impacts. Though, I must admit, the LCD screen on an older Sony camera (reticulated body mounted with the LCD) which can't be folded away from the user is remarkably durable. It's been in sandstorms, survived a tumble down a tailings-pile from the top of a mountain mine when documenting quartz mining (while I tried to protect is as well as I could as I went along for the ride). Another time it went along a controlled-fall descent while I slid down a terminal-moraine when photographing glacier habitats. Part of the AR coating eventually wore off in small part of a corner outside the useful viewing area over the years of use, that corner being under the side of the thumb where it makes normal contact. But not one scratch on the LCD screen itself after 7 years of heavy use in harsh and rugged environments. I sometimes wonder if it wasn't covered with a quartz window. It'd be about the only thing that could account for its robust durability.
Now, as to the auto-focus issues that some users are reporting. I think:
1/ Most of them are due to a misunderstanding of how this camera functions. 2/ There is a real problem for others (perhaps a minority) who know what they are doing. 3/ Canon fessed up to the ghosting issue ... will they (can they) correct the AF issue, given that it is a real issue? The 7D has a separate AF processor (as far as I can tell) and that leads one to believe that a firmware update can fix that nasty AF issue. However, it could be a mechanical tolerance issue, and that could be unfortunate for early buyers.
Kudos to Canon for advancing a stunning new camera. It really is. Now, we must wait to see if they can fine tune it so as to please most of us.
>On 07 Nov 2009 21:10:59 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >>>> David J Taylor >>>>>"Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> Very positive!
>>>>>Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
>>>> Your pet feature isn't considered useful by a lot of people.
>>>Not a feature I use often, but one which adds considerably to the value of >>>Live View. A disappointing omission, IMHO.
>>Other people consider durability to be more important. A swivel >>finder is a signifant weak point in any camera.
> And since the camera is intended for people who make heavy use of a > camera it would be considered by most to be a significant liability to > have such a weak point.
People will make their own choice, I can't speak for "most" people.
>> although as you can park the swivel finder with >>its screen against the camera body rather than being exposed,
> Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it would cost a > lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable.
Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or cost, and I'm sure that Canon could too. I expect we'll see a swivel finder in a future version.
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >> And since the camera is intended for people who make heavy use of a >> camera it would be considered by most to be a significant liability to >> have such a weak point.
>People will make their own choice, I can't speak for "most" people.
Then don't try. If you want a swivel screen then there are many P&S cameras that have them.
>>> although as you can park the swivel finder with >>>its screen against the camera body rather than being exposed,
>> Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it would cost a >> lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable.
>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or cost,
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4af68d7e$0$1624$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >[] >> Then don't try. If you want a swivel screen then there are many P&S >> cameras that have them.
>.. and an increasing number of DSLRs, for example:
> David J Taylor > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: [] >>>>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or >>>>cost,
>>> How would you know?
>>By comparing Nikon's range of recent DSLRs
> That doesn't even make sense.
I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you suggested - "make the camera much bigger", nor was the camera significantly more expensive.
>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4af72072$0$1593$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> David J Taylor >> <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >[] >>>>>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or >>>>>cost,
>>>> How would you know?
>>>By comparing Nikon's range of recent DSLRs
>> That doesn't even make sense.
>I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD >and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you >suggested - "make the camera much bigger",
>>I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD >>and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you >>suggested - "make the camera much bigger",
It was from the D60 to the D5000, Ray. Although the brochure lists the depth as increasing from 64mm to 80mm, the actual depth change with a lens attached is around 5mm, as shown by the DP Review illustrations:
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >> David J Taylor >>>>>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or >>>>>cost, >>>> How would you know? >>>By comparing Nikon's range of recent DSLRs >> That doesn't even make sense. > I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD > and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you > suggested - "make the camera much bigger", nor was the camera > significantly more expensive.
I'll not argue about size --- except to point out that there is usually a size difference between low end and high end models (even with the same crop factor).
I'll argue that pricing is driven by marketing, not by production and design costs (except for a lower limit below which you've got a loss leader or a 'cheap razor, expensive blades' mixed calculation). Hence: you cannot tell if a swivel finder makes the camera significantly more expensive, even if you were to compare otherwise completely identical models (which you didn't as there aren't, to my best knowledge). At best you'd find out what marketing thinks a swivel LCD is worth --- and if we take your word, "not much" is the answer.
David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message >>>I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD >>>and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you >>>suggested - "make the camera much bigger",
>> Which two cameras?
>It was from the D60 to the D5000, Ray. Although the brochure lists the >depth as increasing from 64mm to 80mm, the actual depth change with a lens >attached is around 5mm, as shown by the DP Review illustrations:
The D5000 is something of a departure for Nikon - it's bigger than the D40/D60 sized cameras but still smaller than the D80/D90 body style. And it's not exactly what we'd call pretty. From a conceptual point of view, the D5000 is most of a D90 shoe-horned into a D60 body with an articulated screen added to the back, and it looks as if the designers took that as an instruction for what it should look like. It's adorned with a profusion of bumps, lumps and nubs.
In many respects, the D5000 harks back to the D50 - it's a surprisingly large compared to its peers and, unlike recent little Nikons, has a feature set that will prompt many a debate about whether to buy this camera or the model above.
|
