Why do you NOT want a DSLR?
- Thread starter ckiang
- Start date
- Status
sorry full of typo,judeseah said:just kaypoh n went thru ur profile,
wow!!!
u make big money!!!
toilet repaier eh.
can call u shifu,
need some money to finance this 'full-time job; of mine
its raining, dark and i can't type to save my life.
ps-this took me more than 30secs.
Can still buy new Seagull and experience the joy of low-tech!LazerLordz
New Member
judeseah said:
Ceteris Paribus=All other things staying constant
I'd like a DSLR that has:
1) 35mm full size sensor.
Except if the system is totally redesigned for DSLR use like 4/3 then it's better to just list the 35mm equivalent focal length (2x FoV factored in) on the lens since it'd not be used on 35mm cameras anyway.
Larger photoreceptors are less receptive to noise issues and CMOS technology can offset the power consumption of the larger sensor.
2) True 9MP to 10MP. That's to say 9 million red pixels, 9m blue & 9m green. Layered like the Foveon sensors and with lunminance information derived from all 3 channels.
3) Good engine like the Digic II or Venus II LSI (which derives lunminance from multiple channels anyway)
4) Fast bridge between DRAM and storage card.
No point putting fast SDRAM inside if you're only going to use it at 4MB/s. A good integrated bridge that read/ writes to both SDRAM and CF/ SD card should obtain transfers between the 2 medias at speeds far faster than 10MB/s. Not to forget, a bridge capable of extremely high speed transfers to the media will not require much buffer. And the buffer can be made from faster SRAM instead.
Edit: The closest camera to this ideal is the EOS 1Ds. Lacking only in that it's sensor isn't like the Foveon. Engine is good, buffer is fast and large and has a 35mm FF sensor. But the price for a 2nd hand piece is also very painful..
1) 35mm full size sensor.
Except if the system is totally redesigned for DSLR use like 4/3 then it's better to just list the 35mm equivalent focal length (2x FoV factored in) on the lens since it'd not be used on 35mm cameras anyway.
Larger photoreceptors are less receptive to noise issues and CMOS technology can offset the power consumption of the larger sensor.
2) True 9MP to 10MP. That's to say 9 million red pixels, 9m blue & 9m green. Layered like the Foveon sensors and with lunminance information derived from all 3 channels.
3) Good engine like the Digic II or Venus II LSI (which derives lunminance from multiple channels anyway)
4) Fast bridge between DRAM and storage card.
No point putting fast SDRAM inside if you're only going to use it at 4MB/s. A good integrated bridge that read/ writes to both SDRAM and CF/ SD card should obtain transfers between the 2 medias at speeds far faster than 10MB/s. Not to forget, a bridge capable of extremely high speed transfers to the media will not require much buffer. And the buffer can be made from faster SRAM instead.
Edit: The closest camera to this ideal is the EOS 1Ds. Lacking only in that it's sensor isn't like the Foveon. Engine is good, buffer is fast and large and has a 35mm FF sensor. But the price for a 2nd hand piece is also very painful..
synapseman
Senior Member
For me, it's mainly the price.
$1.8k is considered very cheap for a DSLR (compared to just 2 years ago), but it's still very expensive considering that it's most likely a base model that would be superceded within 12 months. I remember saving up for my very first film SLR, and it cost me $650. That was hella lotta money then (10 years ago)! If I had a 1.8k budget, I would've gotten me a top-bracket SLR that could've lasted me for at least a decade! I know DSLRs can never be as cheap as fSLRs, but right now, the price jump is still very high.
Crop/magnification factor results in the need for super-wide angle lenses just to get 24 or 28mm. And these lenses aren't cheap. (But yes, you get added zoom for the same reason). And the "Di" lenses make poor backward-compatibility when you have a 35mm film SLR, and hence, poor economic value.
The next issue is the lack of dust management systems (except for Olympus). And this really, really, really bothers me.
$1.8k is considered very cheap for a DSLR (compared to just 2 years ago), but it's still very expensive considering that it's most likely a base model that would be superceded within 12 months. I remember saving up for my very first film SLR, and it cost me $650. That was hella lotta money then (10 years ago)! If I had a 1.8k budget, I would've gotten me a top-bracket SLR that could've lasted me for at least a decade! I know DSLRs can never be as cheap as fSLRs, but right now, the price jump is still very high.
Crop/magnification factor results in the need for super-wide angle lenses just to get 24 or 28mm. And these lenses aren't cheap. (But yes, you get added zoom for the same reason). And the "Di" lenses make poor backward-compatibility when you have a 35mm film SLR, and hence, poor economic value.
The next issue is the lack of dust management systems (except for Olympus). And this really, really, really bothers me.
- Status
Similar threads
