Professional Web Applications Themes

Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com - Photography

Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update http://digitalslrinfo.com 1. Added LCD size to comparison chart. 2. Added section on "Sensor Size, Focal Length Multiplier, & Pixel Dimensions," especially relevant now that the D2X is out, and has some noise issues that are most likely due to the very small pixel size (which was necessitated by the small sensor). 3. Added links to review sites, with warning about biased reviews, especially relevant following the botched naturfotograf.com review of the Nikon D2X. 4. Moved the Nikon D2X from the "Superb" ranking, to the "Good" ranking. Though I'm sure that I will be ...

  1. #1

    Default Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update
    http://digitalslrinfo.com

    1. Added LCD size to comparison chart.

    2. Added section on "Sensor Size, Focal Length Multiplier, & Pixel
    Dimensions," especially relevant now that the D2X is out, and has some
    noise issues that are most likely due to the very small pixel size
    (which was necessitated by the small sensor).

    3. Added links to review sites, with warning about biased reviews,
    especially relevant following the botched naturfotograf.com review of
    the Nikon D2X.

    4. Moved the Nikon D2X from the "Superb" ranking, to the "Good"
    ranking.

    Though I'm sure that I will be accused of being a Canon schill, this is
    a chance I'll take. But as the reviews of the D2X have started to come
    in, with noise issues noted in all the reviews, it's become clear that
    the D2X is a step below the Canon 1D Mark II in quality of images at
    higher ISOs.

    I originally placed the D2X into the "superb" category, anticipating
    that the Sony CMOS sensor would make it a worthy competitor to the
    Canon EOS-1D Mark II.

    I feel that a $5000 body (whether you consider it semi-professional or
    professional) should not have the noise issues that are present in the
    D2X. Canon has set a very high bar, regarding noise levels, with the
    EOS-1D Mark II and EOS-1Ds Mark II. I know that the reason for the
    higher noise in the D2X is the very small pixel size in the Sony
    sensor, but this just means that Nikon should have went to a larger
    sensor where the pixels didn't have to be so small.

    5. Added the Nikon D2Hs/D2H to the site, following several complaints
    about it being left out. It's not that this is a bad camera, but it is
    too expensive for a 4 megapixel model unless you really need the very
    fast frame rate and big buffer.

    Scharf-DCA Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    Stephen,

    you just changed your name and your post now passed through my troll
    filter. I'll have to reconfigure it again.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    http://groups./group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
    Alfred Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    You have Oly's and you are calling someone a troll, ROFL. Get with the
    program, get a Canon.

    "Alfred Molon" <com> wrote in message
    news:supernews.com... 


    Pete Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    "Pete D" <com> wrote in message
    news:OsUUd.179736$bigpond.net.au... 
    >
    >[/ref]
    What, this newsgroup is reserved for Canon users only? Alfred may have odd
    notions on what is critical in a camera, but he certainly has a right to
    post here and not be called a troll, whether he owns a Pentax, Oly, Minolta,
    Rollei, Leica or whatever.
    Though I do find it odd that he thinks Stephen is a troll, he does have some
    useful info, in fact, quite a lot. And the "ScharfDCA" name is hardly new,
    he's been using it for some months now, alternating with Stephen Scharf.
    And then you compound the error by top posting...

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


    Skip Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    "Alfred Molon" <com> wrote in message
    news:supernews.com... 

    I didn't change my name, sometimes I use Google Groups to post, so you
    really should have both e-mail addresses in your message-rule/blocked sender
    filters.

    Steve

    "All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, second it is
    violently opposed, third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
    Schopehnauer


    Steven Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com


    "Pete D" <com> wrote in message
    news:OsUUd.179736$bigpond.net.au... 

    He is understandably very upset about the Olympus digital SLRs, but what I
    wrote about them is no merely my opinion, but are the facts as reported by
    every critic who has evaluated them.


    Steven Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    "Skip M" <net> wrote in message
    news:qTZUd.43395$..
     
    some 
    new, 

    Thanks. It's Steven, not Stephen.

    I understand Alfred's behavior, as I've seen it before with other people
    with types of products. This type of person gets extremely upset whenever
    anyone says anything negative about something he or she has purchased, as if
    it is a personal attack against him or her. Facts don't matter to this type
    of person, he or she will defend their decision forever. I knew that
    http://digitalslrinfo.com would upset some people, I just couldn't worry
    about this. I don't get mad when something I purchase turns out not to be
    the optimal choice, but I minimize these occurences by doing sufficient
    research beforehand.

    I agree that it's best that Alfred place my e-mail addresses in his blocked
    sender list, as he doesn't want to read the facts.


    Steven Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    In article <tF0Vd.11350$news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    Steven M. Scharf <net> wrote: 


    Oddly enough, this is *exactly* the criticism most often levelled
    at you and your site; you've introduced arbitrary classification
    into "pro" vs. "consumer"; you've got a fixation about pixel count,
    and you don't include some features (viewfinder magnification, etc.)
    because _you_ don't think they are important.

    John Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    Actually I don't have any Canons but was making a point.

    "John Francis" <com> wrote in message
    news:d02gel$qem$panix.com... 
    >
    >
    > Oddly enough, this is *exactly* the criticism most often levelled
    > at you and your site; you've introduced arbitrary classification
    > into "pro" vs. "consumer"; you've got a fixation about pixel count,
    > and you don't include some features (viewfinder magnification, etc.)
    > because _you_ don't think they are important.
    >[/ref]


    Pete Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    "John Francis" <com> wrote in message
    news:d02gel$qem$panix.com... [/ref]
    their decision forever. 
    you and your site;

    Only by you. I merely present the facts; it is up the reader to decide
    what to do with them.
     

    It is not arbitrary at all.
     

    I do not have a fixation about pixel count. I've never believed in the
    megapixel race, especially when it results in smaller pixels causing
    higher noise levels. My main fixations are on noise, color accuracy,
    and lens availabilty. It's true that, in most cases, there is no good
    reason to go below 6 megapixel resolution, given what is available on
    the market.
     

    Due to your post, I have added a column on viewfinder magnification to
    the table, and an explanation of this in the text. Personally, I never
    thought much about it, but it's clear that you do. But you seem to
    think that a larger magnification is automatically better, but this is
    not necessarily true. One view is that the smaller magnification is
    prefereable because you can see the whole scene without moving your eye
    around. The other view is that the larger magnification is better
    because you can see more detail of the scene, and that this is
    especially useful when using manual focus. IMVAIO, most people would
    find more than 0.9x too high of a magnification, and less than 0.8x too
    low of magnification, but I recognize that there are differences in
    what people want in a camera.

    scharf.steven@gmail.com Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    >> > Facts don't matter to this type o person, he or she will defend 
    > you and your site;
    >
    > Only by you. I merely present the facts; it is up the reader to decide
    > what to do with them.[/ref]

    Actually you make many "subjective" assesments on your site, people don't
    have to like the site, really why would they care about a site that has so
    much incorrect or bad information.


    Pete Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    In article <googlegroups.com>,
    <com> wrote: 

    [ ... ]
     
    >
    >Due to your post, I have added a column on viewfinder magnification to
    >the table, and an explanation of this in the text. Personally, I never
    >thought much about it, but it's clear that you do. But you seem to
    >think that a larger magnification is automatically better, but this is
    >not necessarily true. One view is that the smaller magnification is
    >prefereable because you can see the whole scene without moving your eye
    >around. The other view is that the larger magnification is better
    >because you can see more detail of the scene, and that this is
    >especially useful when using manual focus. IMVAIO, most people would
    >find more than 0.9x too high of a magnification, and less than 0.8x too
    >low of magnification, but I recognize that there are differences in
    >what people want in a camera.[/ref]

    To my mind, having the magnification such that a "normal" lens
    (e.g. 50mm on a full 24x36 frame, or 33.3mm on the D70's 1.5 crop ratio)
    should result in the angle of view through the viewfinder matching that
    with the other eye, resulting in more natural pointing. (However, this
    may render the extra information surrounding the viewfinder being more
    difficult to see, so it is a tradeoff.)

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
    DoN. Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    "Steven M. Scharf" <net> wrote in message
    news:tF0Vd.11350$news.atl.earthlink.net... 
    > some 
    > new, 
    >
    > Thanks. It's Steven, not Stephen.
    >
    > I understand Alfred's behavior, as I've seen it before with other people
    > with types of products. This type of person gets extremely upset whenever
    > anyone says anything negative about something he or she has purchased, as
    > if
    > it is a personal attack against him or her. Facts don't matter to this
    > type
    > of person, he or she will defend their decision forever. I knew that
    > http://digitalslrinfo.com would upset some people, I just couldn't worry
    > about this. I don't get mad when something I purchase turns out not to be
    > the optimal choice, but I minimize these occurences by doing sufficient
    > research beforehand.
    >
    > I agree that it's best that Alfred place my e-mail addresses in his
    > blocked
    > sender list, as he doesn't want to read the facts.
    >
    >[/ref]
    Y'know, I thought so, spelled it with a "v", saw another post with "ph" and
    changed it.
    Alfred is the one who insists that DSLRs are somehow crippled because they
    don't have a swing out, full time view LCD, so I fail to see why he objects
    to anything you say about DSLRs, since he claims he doesn't have one and
    won't until his dream LCD is added.

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


    Skip Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    Pete D wrote:
     
    don't 
    has so 

    I have received e-mails with minor corrections, all of which I have
    fixed, but nothing major. I even recently added something on the
    viewfinder magnification since one person is apparently convinced that
    the greater the viewfinder magnification, the better, and the Pentax
    *istD has a high magnification (even though itis not necessarily true
    that a greater magnification is better).

    I am not aware of any incorrect information on the site at this time,
    and at least some people do find the site somewhat useful, judging from
    the feedback I've received (there is no similar comparison chart on any
    other site, apparently).

    Being objective means being willing to be honest about real issues
    affecting certain products, not rationalizing the issues away.

    I am not as diplomatic as dpreview, and never will be. On dpreview.com
    you basically have two ratings with "Highly Recommended" being the good
    rating, and "Recommended" being the average rating, and a very, very
    rare "Above Average" rating that is the poorest rating. I am definitely
    not as kind.

    Scharf-DCA Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:28:04 -0800, "Skip M" <net>
    wrote:

     


    It's not a bad idea, but it just wouldn't be an "SLR".
    It would be non-SLR digicam with interchangeable lenses.
    I kinda like the idea, myself.

    That swivel LCD on my G2 is awfully handy, and
    without split-screen or microprism, the viewfinder
    on my 10D isn't nearly as useful as it should be.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    "rafe bustin" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    >
    > It's not a bad idea, but it just wouldn't be an "SLR".
    > It would be non-SLR digicam with interchangeable lenses.
    > I kinda like the idea, myself.
    >
    > That swivel LCD on my G2 is awfully handy, and
    > without split-screen or microprism, the viewfinder
    > on my 10D isn't nearly as useful as it should be.
    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com[/ref]

    Yes, but...The swing out LCD on our E-10 was nice for use as a waist level
    finder, one that went the right way. (ever tried to photograph race cars
    with a waist level finder on an old 35mm or medium format? If you have,
    you'll know what I'm talking about...) But, except for framing, it was
    pretty useless for checking focus and exposure. And its stop action panning
    was not amusing.
    I'll agree that the split screen in a viewfinder would be really nice, but I
    haven't seen an LCD with one, either... <G>

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


    Skip Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:48:03 -0800, "Skip M" <net>
    wrote:

     


    I'll tell you the main reason I love that
    tilt/swivel screen. I'm not tall -- 5'5"
    or so on a good day -- and the tilt/swivel
    screen lets me hold the camera at arms length
    above my head, thereby giving me views and
    perspectives that I can't obtain with a
    conventional viewfinder. It's great for
    photojournalistic situations, and in many
    of these I'd be using autofocus and auto-
    exposure as well. Simple example, nothing
    special, except that I couldn't have taken
    this with an SLR --

    <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/rally.jpg>

    Many years ago as yearbook photographer
    I used a Miranda Sensomat with a removable
    prism, and was able to do similar tricks.

    When the camera's not attached to your
    face, a lot of interesting opportunities
    arise.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 04:04:58 GMT, rafe bustin <net>,
    wrote in news:com:
     
    >
    >
    > It's not a bad idea, but it just wouldn't be an "SLR".
    > It would be non-SLR digicam with interchangeable lenses.
    > I kinda like the idea, myself.[/ref]

    An LCD like this Contax FE-1 LCD Finder F/ N1
    (http://www.adorama.com/YSFE1.html) can be made for virtually any camera
    - SLR or not.

    Also, Nikon can upgrade their 1005 pixel RGB color light metering sensor
    used since 1995 to a 200k pixel sensor and use it for live video feed
    also.

    Right now, the race is about pixel count, noise and dynamic range, so it
    won't happen yet. But eventually, live view LCD will be available to
    DSLRs made similar to or better than my suggestions.


    --
    T.N.T.

    Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
    T.N.T. Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com


    "Scharf-DCA" <com> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 
    > don't 
    > has so 
    >
    > I have received e-mails with minor corrections, all of which I have
    > fixed, but nothing major. I even recently added something on the
    > viewfinder magnification since one person is apparently convinced that
    > the greater the viewfinder magnification, the better, and the Pentax
    > *istD has a high magnification (even though itis not necessarily true
    > that a greater magnification is better).
    >
    > I am not aware of any incorrect information on the site at this time,
    > and at least some people do find the site somewhat useful, judging from
    > the feedback I've received (there is no similar comparison chart on any
    > other site, apparently).
    >
    > Being objective means being willing to be honest about real issues
    > affecting certain products, not rationalizing the issues away.
    >
    > I am not as diplomatic as dpreview, and never will be. On dpreview.com
    > you basically have two ratings with "Highly Recommended" being the good
    > rating, and "Recommended" being the average rating, and a very, very
    > rare "Above Average" rating that is the poorest rating. I am definitely
    > not as kind.[/ref]

    Diplomatic, how about just wrong! And details are still incorrect and you
    make subjective assesments because thats what you do. Hey it's your site,
    fill your boots, do what you like.


    Pete Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Digital SLR Selection Guide Web Site Update, http://digitalslrinfo.com


    "rafe bustin" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    >
    > I'll tell you the main reason I love that
    > tilt/swivel screen. I'm not tall -- 5'5"
    > or so on a good day -- and the tilt/swivel
    > screen lets me hold the camera at arms length
    > above my head, thereby giving me views and
    > perspectives that I can't obtain with a
    > conventional viewfinder. It's great for
    > photojournalistic situations, and in many
    > of these I'd be using autofocus and auto-
    > exposure as well. Simple example, nothing
    > special, except that I couldn't have taken
    > this with an SLR --
    >
    > <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/rally.jpg>[/ref]

    Of course you could have don't be ridiculous.


    Pete Guest

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 10th, 01:06 PM
  2. http://digitalslrinfo.com/ Updates
    By Steven in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 26th, 08:28 PM
  3. Replies: 49
    Last Post: February 21st, 01:30 PM
  4. Lense selection for FUJI S2 DIGITAL CAMERA
    By shrestha in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 2nd, 02:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139