Ched wrote:
It's like an 1870's-era pistol vs. rifle question. In a gunfight, if you know how to use it, go with the rifle.

The SLR is more accurate, has greater range, and can be easily adjusted in the field. The snapshot is more easy to shove in your pocket.

Mike Walker wrote:
I'll put my Sony F828 aginst what ever you use and see how speedy it adjusts. And how large I can blow up the image. And what ever else you want to try MINUS going beyond its' 28-200MM range. then I take out the Evolt. Slower but more range. And by slower I mean adjusting it and checking my image quality after the shot on it's tiny dark screen. ESPECIALLY out in nature where I do most of my work
Mike

Your Sony is a hybrid. I'm talking about snapshot cameras. A little sensitive are we? It looks like you're not responding to what I said but making up something to get angry about. Your 828 would not fit in anyone's pocket.

BTW, this is my snapshot camera, Sony T-9, 6MP (I think, who cares), good for parties and "art shots" of empty bottles at 3am.



What is Vario Tessar? A person?

SayCheeZ! wrote:

Mike,
I feel your frustration for the thought of having to spend a grand for a lens, but do you know there's a few really great and alternative solutions that you may want to try?

First, Olympus makes an OM adapter to go from all of the Olympus OM System lenses to the new 4/3's format.  It's about $100 for the adaptor, but it allows you to use a whole lot more lenses.

Second, there are some third party lens adaptors that go from practically any other brand of camera onto the 4/3's system.  I've seen 'em on ebay for anywhere between $60 to $120.

Third (and a real interesting one) - Someone discovered that Konica SLR lenses work on the 4/3's system.  To do so, a minor modification has to be made (remove a few screws from the lens and add a felt pad).  Certain Konica lenses are now in high demand because of this reason, but you can still get the lenses fairly cheap. (Note: the lenses mentioned don't include the lenses made after the Konica / Minolta merger).
More information about the Konica to 4/3's conversion can be found at the Olympus SLR user forums at dpreview.com .

As you've mentioned on a different note, the Olympus viewfinder is small, however they do offer a magnifying eyecup for a fairly reasonable price (about $39).

Thank you so much for this information! 

I've been using OM 1's and 2's for over 25 years now and have quite a bit invested in Olympus gear.  This has helped make my decision as to what I'm going to buy next!  I can afford to buy a few E300's and maybe a E500 or two at the price wars that are going on .. and use my old lens if I want.  Only thing is I will have no choice but to use manual focus with some lens.  I've enjoyed using Nikon and Cannon before, but have always felt most comfortable with the peculiar (LOL!)brand of Olympus which has served me well for a long time .. and a long time to come!

James Jackson wrote:
Seriously...

Go back to the drawing board on that question.

Let's see reasons:

- Not being laughed off the set by your client/model/MUA/assistant/producer

Even uncle joe has a point and shoot. Thats whats it about . Mr Jackson has the rest covered.

William Crow wrote:
Marko,
You are so "right on" with your comments.  I almost got my head chopped off here when I mentioned a few weeks ago on one of these forums about how many horrible digital B&W images there were. 
I shoot a range of bodies and cameras mostly Contax.  My main lens has some of the coating coming off and sometimes models think the lens is dirty.  Great lens.  Oh...and its a film camera!  Can you belive it? 

When I was in Milan I shot mostly Kodak 200 film!...brought from the states, bought at a discount store.  Shhh...don't tell anyone. 

Many here feel comfortable in their equipment snobbery, when in truth its more equipment ignorance since they've never tried anything but digital.  "Only the digital camera coming out next year is good enough" 

Love it!

William Crow
www.billcrow.net

I just bought some fuji 100 today at walmart. Register clerk ask me if I was going on vacation.

Every camera, lens, easel, and scanner, are just tools for our photography tool boxes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ched wrote:

Your Sony is a hybrid. I'm talking about snapshot cameras. A little sensitive are we? It looks like you're not responding to what I said but making up something to get angry about. Your 828 would not fit in anyone's pocket.

BTW, this is my snapshot camera, Sony T-9, 6MP (I think, who cares), good for parties and "art shots" of empty bottles at 3am.



What is Vario Tessar? A person?

A Tessar is a very old lens design patented by Zeiss, a very simple, straightforward 4 element design. Whenever Zeiss designs a zoom lens they call it a "Vario" something or other. Most of their zooms are Vario Sonnars (Sonnar being their typical short telephoto design). I don't know why, possibly because the formula is a variant on the Tessar principle??? (Doesn't really matter.)

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
A Tessar is a very old lens design patented by Zeiss, a very simple, straightforward 4 element design. Whenever Zeiss designs a zoom lens they call it a "Vario" something or other. Most of their zooms are Vario Sonnars (Sonnar being their typical short telephoto design). I don't know why, possibly because the formula is a variant on the Tessar principle??? (Doesn't really matter.)

Funny. Vario-Tessar sounds impressive so they write it on the camera.

Ched wrote:

Funny. It sounds impressive so they write it on the camera.

Because it's a Zeiss lens, so putting the name on it lets everybody know that it's a Zeiss lens, or at least Zeiss-branded. Yep, marketing tool.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

Because it's a Zeiss lens, so putting the name on it lets everybody know that it's a Zeiss lens, or at least Zeiss-branded. Yep, marketing tool.

Like a Lieca glass on a panasonic.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Because it's a Zeiss lens, so putting the name on it lets everybody know that it's a Zeiss lens, or at least Zeiss-branded. Yep, marketing tool.

There's alot of truth to that!

Most (if not all) of the Zeiss lenses that are on Sony cameras aren't actually made by Zeiss at all.  They are licensed to use the Zeiss name because they meet the quality control standards of the Zeiss company, and of course, Zeiss gets paid a royalty for use of their name.

Similarly, most of the Schnieder lenses found on Kodak and Samsung cameras are licensed for the same reasons.

Karl Blessing wrote:
Like a Lieca glass on a panasonic.

Or manboobs.

James Jackson wrote:
Seriously...

Go back to the drawing board on that question.

Let's see reasons:
- Shutter lag
- Real lenses
- Really seeing what you get
- Longer battery life
- Better construction
- Better quality control
- Larger selection of lenses
- Longevity of equipment
- Overall image quality
- Full control over Focus - Shutter - Aperture - sensor speed
- Not being laughed off the set by your client/model/MUA/assistant/producer

Amen!! Well spoken Mr Jackson..Point and shoot cameras are as useful as tits are on a boar pig shooting fashion or any serious photography..

JTP_Digital wrote:
...
Amen!! Well spoken Mr Jackson..Point and shoot cameras are as useful as tits are on a boar pig shooting fashion or any serious photography..

Hey I like my point and shoot...


Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515
Medium format 120 roll (6x4.5)
approx 4 inches tall, by 3 inches wide, by 1.5 inches thick when closed (less than 4 inches thick when open)
Made in 1937.

Ransom J wrote:
....
But of course if you are talking higher end SLR's against high end point and shoots, it's not a contest and never was meant to be.  Two different markets with two different concerns.

True, Theres always ups and downs, I see DSLR as being more versitile, you can configure it specifically to your style of shooting or lens/flash needs and such. High priced P&S or Prosumers as I call them are generally designed for the folks that typically want to get everything in one package, sacrificing a lil quality and versility with it.

Karl Blessing wrote:

True, Theres always ups and downs, I see DSLR as being more versitile, you can configure it specifically to your style of shooting or lens/flash needs and such. High priced P&S or Prosumers as I call them are generally designed for the folks that typically want to get everything in one package, sacrificing a lil quality and versility with it.

True to a point.  then there are exceptions.  the new sony DSC-R1 has lens flexibilty that would requie a lens kit of about twice the purchase price of the R1 to get comparable lenses to match it.  Prosumer cams have come a long way.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Terry Richardson and the many worldwide fashion labels he shoots advertising for apparently disagree.

Many people disagree with Terry Richardson being classified a photographer too...

Thuy Anh wrote:
please please take a photography class..... if you need to ask this you obviously don't know anything about photography.  it is simply one of those little basic things that even the simplest of photographers or anyone with a passion for photography knows. i don't mean to sound mean or anything but that is the truth.
the mega pixel on the camera has nothing to do with it's performance. the construction for SLRs are professional grade and can do so much more than any point and shoot.  when you need to edit pictures taken by an SLR and ones taken by a point and shoot you will see the difference immediately. this goes for film as well as digital.

Damn,

whatever happened to just answering the question without getting your head chopped off. Some people honestly don't know. Shit, there are pros who don't and didn't know shit about the digital thing. Alot of these guys who have been doing this before our time had to start from scratch. Just like many who didn't know much about how film works. The silver halides that makes the image. And many of them are pros.  Some don't have the patients for digital period. Stupid isn't when you ask, but when you don't ask it and assume.

Ransom J wrote:
...
True to a point.  then there are exceptions.  the new sony DSC-R1 has lens flexibilty that would requie a lens kit of about twice the purchase price of the R1 to get comparable lenses to match it.  Prosumer cams have come a long way.

Actually that would be the marketing, they said bout the same thing with the Canon Pro1 with its L series glass and what not on it. But at least the R1 has an APS-C sized sensor as opposed to the smaller ones that P&S have traditionally used.

Karl Blessing wrote:

Actually that would be the marketing, they said bout the same thing with the Canon Pro1 with its L series glass and what not on it. But at least the R1 has an APS-C sized sensor as opposed to the smaller ones that P&S have traditionally used.

Well i'm going off many of the review sites, mags, and my own hands on with it at Adrays.  Not marketing.  i tend to get an informed opinion before I speak.

Ransom J wrote:

Well i'm going off many of the review sites, mags, and my own hands on with it at Adrays.  Not marketing.  i tend to get an informed opinion before I speak.

Hrm and I write camera reviews lol ( working on one for the Canon SD430 ).

James Jackson wrote:
Seriously...

Go back to the drawing board on that question.

Let's see reasons:
- Shutter lag
- Real lenses
- Really seeing what you get
- Longer battery life
- Better construction
- Better quality control
- Larger selection of lenses
- Longevity of equipment
- Overall image quality
- Full control over Focus - Shutter - Aperture - sensor speed
- Not being laughed off the set by your client/model/MUA/assistant/producer

Don't forget parallax error !

Mark H. Edwards wrote:

Don't forget parallax error !

Lol , not much of an issue if yer using the LCD, tho very true if using the lil viewfinder window on some P&S cameras.

JTP_Digital wrote:

Amen!! Well spoken Mr Jackson..Point and shoot cameras are as useful as tits are on a boar pig shooting fashion or any serious photography..

my minilux will run circles around many so-called pro jerk-off cameras any day.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
That's not quite true, but you are sort of correct.   It's a symbiotic relationship.
The size of the sensor has no relation to the depth of field, BUT the digital cameras that use a small sensor tend to also have a small lens.  A small lens means you'll be using smaller aperatures, which means you won't be able to get the shallow depth of field (which is often desired for portraits and glamour photography).

All I was saying is that if you want to take the same photo with both cameras the DOF will be markedly different for a given field of view.

If you have a 35mm camera and use an 85mm lens you will get a certain FOV (framing) and a certain DOF.  If you have a 6x7 camera and you want the same (or similar) framing you will use a 180mm lens which will give you *much* shallower depth of field.

(edited to remove erroneous statements about perspective effects.. I shouldn't post this late at night)