[mikhael]

Originally posted by J.F.K.


I concede that larger cameras are superior in those areas (zoom obviously, but then again, what about that Panasonic 12x Lumix digital? That's equivalent to a 40mm telephoto lens or so, isn't it?). But being less capable than others doesn't seem to justify them being either a toy or ****, to me. Is it just that you don't like having any less than the very best? Because really, what these miniaturised models offer seems to be far better than how you describe them (you're the first voice of protest to such a degree I've heard), to every other photography enthusiast I know.

I'm not an enthusiast. I just like to have one camera that does everything I need in a photo camera. If I need 'snapshots' (which I generally hate) I borrow someone's polaroid. For pretty much everything else that I would actually care enough to take a photo, nothing less than a proper SLR, on a tripod, will do.

Besides, I need a real camera to make up for my utter lack of skill.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael


I'm not an enthusiast. I just like to have one camera that does everything I need in a photo camera. If I need 'snapshots' (which I generally hate) I borrow someone's polaroid. For pretty much everything else that I would actually care enough to take a photo, nothing less than a proper SLR, on a tripod, will do.

Besides, I need a real camera to make up for my utter lack of skill.

Meh - you'd be amazed at what a semi-flat surface (for general support) and the wrist strap (for precise angle adjustments) can do in place of a tripod.

And from what I understand (I don't claim to know everything, but my dad is a photography buff), the advantage of film SLR's are twofold: one, you see what the film will capture through the eyepiece, and two, the lenses are interchangeable.

With the vast majority of digital cameras (all those with LCD screens), what you see on screen is exactly what the digital "film" will capture (framing-wise, that is - apparent exposure levels vary depending on the screen type, ambient lighting on the screen itself, and the angle between the screen and your eyes).

Therefore, the only advantage (that I know about) of a digital "SLR" (Single Lens Reflex) is the lens interchangeability. The V1, while not providing true lens interchangeability, does provide a way to attach wide- and telephoto lenses.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Meh - you'd be amazed at what a semi-flat surface (for general support) and the wrist strap (for precise angle adjustments) can do in place of a tripod.

No I wouldn't. I know exactly what you can't do without a tripod. It's quite a lot if you're going beyond the basic snapshot. Which is fine if you're not gonna do much else- I do everything else pretty much to the exclusion of the snapshot, so a solid tripod and a way to carry it without my profile making cops shoot at me ("Uh, dur, it was kinda long and thin and black, it musta been an assault rifle!")are kinda important.

Originally posted by Sandwich
And from what I understand (I don't claim to know everything, but my dad is a photography buff), the advantage of film SLR's are twofold: one, you see what the film will capture through the eyepiece, and two, the lenses are interchangeable.

Pretty much. Also, you get light leaks and there are only about two really quality-made rangefinders (one's a Hasselblad, which is a handheld God of photography so long as you don't mind expensive medium-format film, and the other I don't think they make any more... what are Leicas? Maybe I'm thinking of those...)

Originally posted by Sandwich
...Therefore, the only advantage (that I know about) of a digital "SLR" (Single Lens Reflex) is the lens interchangeability. The V1, while not providing true lens interchangeability, does provide a way to attach wide- and telephoto lenses.

It's not an SLR if it's got the LCD screen. However, as I said, most of the really good camera makers focus on SLRs for their nice cameras, and the digital cameras reflect that. Digital cameras are, generally speaking, built pretty much like their 35mm/28mm counterparts.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
It's not an SLR if it's got the LCD screen.

Meaning exactly what? I mean, I agree that SLR is meaningless in the world of digital photography, but people generally have associated the term SLR with higher-end cameras with a certain construction (changeable lens, solid and largish right-hand grip, etc).

But the Canon EOS-1/10D series' are built like SLr, just digital inside... with an LCD screen.

[Stryke 9]

If it was an SLR, the LCD would go black when the camera was taking pictures. The mirror flips up and exposes the film, while blocking the viewfinder- with digital light-sensors, there's no need for that function, as the sensors don't have to be "on" all the time. It would be just plain stupid, and I have yet to see Canon do something really stupid.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
If it was an SLR, the LCD would go black when the camera was taking pictures. The mirror flips up and exposes the film, while blocking the viewfinder- with digital light-sensors, there's no need for that function, as the sensors don't have to be "on" all the time. It would be just plain stupid, and I have yet to see Canon do something really stupid.

Exactly - it's simply the problem of people associating an "SLR" with the high-end cameras that makes them call models such as Canon's EOS 1xD line "Digital SLR"'s. Whatever. I have a nice camera, and that's all I care about.


Oh, the 256Mb Memory Stick Pro I just got helps, too.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by mikhael
Besides, I need a real camera to make up for my utter lack of skill.

Bah, the truth comes out at last

The V1 is still going to stay at the top of my wish list. Sorry.