Camera - Without Viewfinder? And Other Related Questions

[Psamathe]

....
Do be aware that even with some sturdier tripos, a heavy DSLR can be sufficient to cause the whole assembly to slip

Even on my setup with my DSLR I have to go through some hassle to lock the mirror up before starting the exposure (and my tripod is rated for significantly heavier scopes than mine - tripod rated for 20Kg payload and the scope is only 5Kg (plus camera, finderscope, dew prevention, etc).

Ian

[Cunobelin]

....
Do be aware that even with some sturdier tripos, a heavy DSLR can be sufficient to cause the whole assembly to slip

Even on my setup with my DSLR I have to go through some hassle to lock the mirror up before starting the exposure (and my tripod is rated for significantly heavier scopes than mine - tripod rated for 20Kg payload and the scope is only 5Kg (plus camera, finderscope, dew prevention, etc).

Ian

My wife's is electronically driven and centred and the K50 can neither drive, nor maintain position

[661-Pete]

One feature of the modern camera - or more precisely, "smart?"-phone - that I would cheerfully welcome seeing consigned to the dustbin, is this misbegotten ability to take "selfies".

I write this as I read of yet another tragedy apparently involving darwinian idiots trying to take a photo of themselves. And that's not to mention the even more incredibly stupid idiots bent on self-destruction, that have recently been congregating on one of our local beauty spots, the Seven Sisters.

When I was a lot younger, in order to take a 'selfie', you needed a tripod (or at the least, a good firm level place to put the camera) and then to make use of the self-timer in the camera's mechanism. Or else ask a friendly passer-by to take the photo for you (and just hope he doesn't run off with the camera ). A lot more hassle - granted - but is the ease and simplicity of the 'selfie' really worth it?

One consequence of this wave of madness apparently sweeping some youthful sectors of our society, is that we shall probably see the cliff-edge of the Seven Sisters and Beachy Head fenced off - which will really spoil it for those of us who merely want to have a peaceful stroll along the cliff tops (at a safe distance).

Could the 'selfie' feature possibly be outlawed? OK call me an old curmudgeon if you must!

[Flinders]

I tried out the Sony HX90 and I was almost convinced, but found it a tad too bulky compared with the TZ70 (and they both have 30 x zooms).
Also, having three Lumix cameras already, I'm more familiar with the control layouts and menu functions and couldn't get my head around learning new stuff.

fausto.

That's a big factor with cameras, I think, and the more so the more complicated they get. If all other things are equal, it's best sticking with the interface you know. The Lumix control layout I found fairly intuitive, I can't speak for the Sony as I own several sony DSLRs, so their way of doing things is second nature to me. The Sony DSLRs grew out of the Minolta film cameras, which had a top class user interface (IMHO anyway- but that was one reason I went to Minolta in the first place).

The IQ of the HX90 is formidably good. It doesn't do RAWs, but the jpgs are good enough not to need much tweaking; on the green auto setting it copes well with all the lighting conditions I've tried it in. The gold auto setting is a bit odd in what it thinks I want (or at least, I have found it so). The only annoying thing I've found is that sometimes the exp.comp is difficult to find quickly in some modes, and in other modes isn't available at all, but that's so with a lot of compacts.

[Cyril Haearn]

Can it be necessary to have several cameras?
Several bikes or many books one can understand

[fausto copy]

Oh yes.

[Cunobelin]

Can it be necessary to have several cameras?
Several bikes or many books one can understand

Yep.....

Simple case....

I go somewhere and it is late evening. Carrying a large DSLR is not advisable, whereas a Micro 4/3 camera is more discrete and les likely to attract the wrong attention

I have a Compact system that I can carry around in my normal bag, but my large DSLR is too heavy and unwieldy

I am in Norway with the Northern lights, the better apertures and features of the large DSLR ensure a quality of photo that the Compact or 4/3 won't be able to match

[Flinders]

Can it be necessary to have several cameras?
Several bikes or many books one can understand

Yep. I've lost count, but I know people with bikes who probably have lost count of their bikes as well, certainly if you count in major spare interchangable components like wheels, like you do with cameras with interchangeable lenses.
If I try to count up, I think I have six bodies- three film SLRs I don't use but can't bring myself to part with as one day I 'might use them again' - (I know people with bikes like that), and three DSLR bodies. Four lenses for the oldest film slr. and about seven working lenses that fit all the other five, film or D, and a broken lens I keep for spares. Plus a compact when I want something less weighty.
Leaving aside the film stuff, which is sheer nostalgia, I needed 2 bodies for work in case of a failure on a critical job, so I had 2 identical ones. The very new one is an upgrade to those, and at least one of the old two will be kept as backups for that one. I really only use about five of the seven lenses, and only three on a regular basis, but they really do all do different jobs. I really ought to get rid of the other two, as I'd never use them now. They were cheaper versions of the ones I use now which I bought while I saved up for better lenses. But I haven't got round to it yet...........however, we may be moving house, so that might just get me doing a clearout.
oops, just remembered another lens.

[millimole]

One feature of the modern camera - or more precisely, "smart?"-phone - that I would cheerfully welcome seeing consigned to the dustbin, is this misbegotten ability to take "selfies".
.
!

One of my film cameras (can't remember which one, I've only got 62) has a feature mentioned in the instruction book whereby the front of the viewfinder is mirrored, and is specifically designed to allow you to take photos of yourself!
So not a new idea, but I agree it's a feature which encourages idiocy.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[Bez]

I've taken selfies with normal cameras for decades, you just point it towards you. A phone just means you can do it with a viewfinder pointing in the same direction. So, yes, stop being a big old grump about it

[bigjim]

I use one of these. I paid £10 off the bay. So good I got another for a fiver. Viewfinder, full manual control and raw files. Great quality pics. 6 or 12mb and AA batts.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilme550

[Flinders]

I use one of these. I paid £10 off the bay. So good I got another for a fiver. Viewfinder, full manual control and raw files. Great quality pics. 6 or 12mb and AA batts.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilme550

I had a finepix of similar vintage. They are nice little cameras, and oddly enough given this thread, the main reason I chose mine was that it was one of very few with a VF. I think the IQ of Finepixes is unusually good per file size good because of the funny shaped pixels they used.
The Cyber HX90 takes files that are about 6mb in size which are very impressive; as you know, size isn't everything, and if you don't plan to do enlargements, why bother with big files? My best DSLR takes 42MB RAW files*,which is a total headache for storage when you do a couple of thousand shots in a day like I did yesterday.
Most people these days only use photos on social media. You don't need big files for that.

(*and yes, sometimes I really do need them because I enlarge to prints that are A1-ish in size )

[bigjim]

I spent about 15 years working as a pro photographer in the film days. I find the high MB images to be just too sharp and the colours over the top. Just not lifelike at all IMO. I much prefer the muted 35mm or 120 images. I would not like to do the job today. The client expectations are so high and seem to expect images so far removed from reality. Plus 1000s of shots! Really?? Perhaps it's my age?

[mercalia]

I spent about 15 years working as a pro photographer in the film days. I find the high MB images to be just too sharp and the colours over the top. Just not lifelike at all IMO. I much prefer the muted 35mm or 120 images. I would not like to do the job today. The client expectations are so high and seem to expect images so far removed from reality. Plus 1000s of shots! Really?? Perhaps it's my age?

so you didnt like Kodachrome slide film? I loved that. strange thing my little Kodak CX7530 that cost me just £7 or so from Ebay produces pictures very Kodachrome like

I did a google about the resolution of 35mm film found this -

20 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter. 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels. so it seems that digital cameras have a long way to go. And as for the 120 format.....
Film Resolution: The Pixel Count of Film - Ken Rockwell

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

[bigjim]

I never used it professionally as I couldn't process it. I used E6 processing quite a lot and that was pretty vibrant but most of my non corporate work was print. Velvia was a big favourite. I still have film stock but rarely pick up a manual camera. I've lost the enthusiasm.
Not looked at Rockwells site for a long time. He has a lot of detractors. I though digital had now surpassed 35mm?