Author Topic: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation  (Read 2534 times)

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2018, 03:44:51 pm »
I don't think screens suit the presbyopic and I like using a viewfinder, something my ancient Canon IXUS 70 possesses.

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2018, 04:12:56 pm »
I don't think screens suit the presbyopic and I like using a viewfinder, something my ancient Canon IXUS 70 possesses.

How does the view finder compare with the actual image captured?

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2018, 07:40:45 pm »
Fairly well, so long as you don't get your fingers or anything else in front of the lens.

IXUS has zoom for optical viewfinder and multizone focussing.

I suppose Error 18 was its downfall but if you escape that it's a nice camera.

They're cheap as chips secondhand.

Re: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2018, 10:59:57 am »
Put a Leica M10-D on my Christmas wishlist. very little chance of getting one though.
Most people tip-toe through life hoping the make it safely to death.
Home

fruitcake

  • some kind of fruitcake
    • Bailey
Re: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2019, 04:00:43 pm »
Here's an interesting thing. The DJI Osmo looks incredibly secure in the hand.

https://www.stuff.tv/dji/osmo/review

I've often thought the critical dimension of a camera is its height: ideally, a camera needs to be tall enough to get all four fingers round the grip for it to feel secure. If this means the camera ends up taller than it is wide, so be it.

The Osmo takes this principle to its logical conclusion. This thing is a handle with a camera on top. It's 80% grip. You have to supply your own screen, and it is made for video rather than stills, but it's interesting that the designers seem to have taken the user (and in particular the user's hand) as their starting point.

And here's the miniature version, the Osmo Pocket.

https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/dji-osmo-pocket

 

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation
« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2019, 06:23:30 pm »
The Bang and Olufsen of camera manufacturers.

That's my view. Still trading on their (deserved) early-mid 20th century 35mm film technical reputation, but now providing nothing above their competitors, apart from their price.

People are welcome to spend their money as they like but the fact that Leica sell limited editions for £10K should tell you all you need to know about who they are targeting. 

It's become jewellery, stocked in Mayfair shops.  That tells me they are now aimed at the sort of people who say, "I want the most expensive XYZ", where XYZ could be a handbag, pair of shoes, car or yacht.

I know the lenses are very nice but "limited Edition"?  Please, do me a favour.

They even boast about the lack of an LCD screen on the M10-D!!!!  I bet the marketing division had some sleepless nights when the techies gave them that dud idea to sell.

It even has a plastic  film advance lever for your thumb.....that doesn't do anything!!!  It's very Mock-Tudor House.

£10K with a couple of lenses..... OR... buy everything retro you ever wanted from Fuji and a 2nd-hand Ford Fiesta to put put it in.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Re: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2019, 07:01:17 pm »
I fell for it and bought a nearly-new M9, with a couple of lenses a few years ago.  I sold it again when I started to get paid for taking some of my pics and needed to know my camera wouldn't randomly stop working for half an hour at a time! 

They are lovely to use though... I really liked the rangefinder and manual focus, and the pretend film winder makes holding it much easier than without. Are the pictures much better than using a dslr?  No, clearly not.  But [apart from not working some times] it's awesome for travelling because you've got a full frame camera and 3 or 4 lenses for quite a lot less size and weight than a dslr and 24-70, which at the time was incredible - although there are some cameras now that'd be much cheaper for the same.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Cameras and the problems of miniaturisation
« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2019, 11:03:44 pm »
I fell for it and bought a nearly-new M9, with a couple of lenses a few years ago.  I sold it again when I started to get paid for taking some of my pics and needed to know my camera wouldn't randomly stop working for half an hour at a time! 

They are lovely to use though... I really liked the rangefinder and manual focus, and the pretend film winder makes holding it much easier than without. Are the pictures much better than using a dslr?  No, clearly not.  But [apart from not working some times] it's awesome for travelling because you've got a full frame camera and 3 or 4 lenses for quite a lot less size and weight than a dslr and 24-70, which at the time was incredible - although there are some cameras now that'd be much cheaper for the same.

I recently bought a Canon M50 (mirrorless) and a Viltrox "Speedbooster".  This effectively gives me a virtual full-frame mirrorless with an extra stop of light on my EF-L lenses.  It's a hell of a package for £550.
The Speedbooster turned the M50 from a "meh" camera into an extremely viable travel camera (& 1080p video camera).  With the 22mm f/2 M prime it's a perfect "Street" camera (35mm equiv).
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.