Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 36 to 47 of 47

Thread: is the dslr dead?

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    109,875

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    6x6
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  2. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    23,618

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    Paul has got it, but for you metrically-challenged Americans <wink, grin>, that is 2-1/4" square format, same as a Hasselblad or Rolliflex twin-lens.
    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    109,875

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    120/220

    the only surviving medium 'roll' film
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    109,875

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Conway View Post
    Was Kodak a metric company back in the 1890s?
    the roll film industry was
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern Georgia, or Mississippi Delta USA
    Posts
    23,853

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    This thread leaves several questions unanswered - possibly unasked.


    Why do so many mirrorless cameras have a fake pentaprism lump?
    The fake pentaprism lump makes a good place to put the EVF above the touch screen.


  6. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    ibeeria
    Posts
    3,872

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    The comment about complicated mechanical SLRs made me chuckle .. I have still never found an equal in digital to the simplicity of late 1980s film slrs, Olympus OM 10 Canon AF, a cople of Nikon FA s i still have . with auto exposure and fully manual overide, I think they are the pinnacle of quality reliability and results. all the later EOS and similar are so feckin complicated, and then Digital comes along . Of course there are are a million unarguable reasons why they are better, but point and shoot ok. My Lumix pwith a leica lense, about six years old is a absolutely, fine for snaps, but then so was Kodax box brownies. Any attempt to influence the settings, six different menu screens each with at least six different choices. I still haven't reeliably figured out how to alter depth of field without looking through the instruction manual for ten minutes. half a dozen choices for ambient light. day light tungsten tungsten yellow fluorescent daylight etc.
    AS a snapper, my Huawei phone is really good, better than the Lumix, but any serious work I rely on the mirror slrs. what you see is what you get.
    Bilious, choleric, sanguine and phlegmatic

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    23,618

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    This is a pretty cool roll-film camera. It takes 120 roll film, but takes negatives 6cm x 9cm (2-1/4" x 2-3/4") in size. But, if you are willing to give up 50% of negative size, it has a thin metal mask plate that you insert over the bellows aperture and get a 90-deg. rotated 2-1/4" x 1-3/4" negative. My Dad raffled off his Kodak Box Brownie camera that my Mom had given him while aboard a ship in SE Asia (she was NOT a happy camper when she found out!) to raise money to buy a Voightlander Bessa. I still have the camera, and have used it occasionally.

    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  8. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    109,875

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy View Post
    but any serious work I rely on the mirror slrs. what you see is what you get.
    pretty much what you see is what you get from the mirrorless digital cameras too these days
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    N. Fal on Cape Cod
    Posts
    17,526

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    Any camera without a viewfinder is a mistake. LCD screens are useless in bright light.

    Mirror or mirrorless makes no difference. No viewfinder? Useless for serious work.
    A society predicated on the assumption that everyone in it should want to get rich is not well situated to become either ethical or imaginative.

    Photographer of sailing and sailboats
    And other things, too.
    http://www.landsedgephoto.com

  10. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    109,875

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  11. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    23,687

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    pretty much what you see is what you get from the mirrorless digital cameras too these days
    This is far more true than it ever was for SLRs of any stripe. I have yet to meet a B/W viewfinder on an SLR, but the one on my Fuji functions perfectly any time I select a B/W film simulation.
    I'd much rather lay in my bunk all freakin day lookin at Youtube videos .

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    ibeeria
    Posts
    3,872

    Default Re: is the dslr dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by elf View Post
    Any camera without a viewfinder is a mistake. LCD screens are useless in bright light.

    Mirror or mirrorless makes no difference. No viewfinder? Useless for serious work.
    agreed. well said.
    Bilious, choleric, sanguine and phlegmatic

Posting Permissions

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