Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Jul 2009 21:53:09 BDT
N. J. Pow says:
I'm looking into buying a new digital camera which is easy to use but importantly for me has virtually no lag time from pressing the shutter to taking the picture. My present camera takes about 0.5 seconds to do this and since most of my pictures are taking my young active children, the moment has passed which gets very annoying! Is it only SLR cameras which would fit the bill. Ideally I would like a nice easy to use pocket size camera with no lag time (please correct me for the proper term!). Many thanks
Your reply to N. J. Pow's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jul 2009 12:02:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jul 2009 12:03:32 BDT
Fishman says:
Don't know about compacts, which is what you want for portability, but if you do consider something larger, a Sony A200 dSLR will continuously auto-focus and shoot at 3 frames per second, easily capturing the kids. Stick it on AUTO just like a Point and Shoot.

Argos have the Sony A200 for £260 while stock lasts so the actual camera may not be as expensive as you thought (another tenner for a CF card). Doesn't fit in your pocket though, so no use to you :)

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2009 00:51:57 BDT
X says:
As soon as the lcd sensor is used to supply an image to an electronic viewfnder and to supply an image for recording as the shot, there is an unavoioidable lag. Some manufacturers of PAS and UZ cameras perform better than others, but it just cannot be reduced to zero. Olympus claim to have reduced it to insignificance on the E-P1, but since that camera is more expensive than Olympus's latest DSLR bundled with 2 lenses it's a camera that is not for the half-serious photographer anyway.

The best starter package on the market at the moment would be the Olympus e-510 with 2 lenses, if you could still find that, if not then go forr the Olympus e-520 with the 2 lens bundle.

Buying a DSLR and not thinking of buying more lenses as you improve as a photographer would be a great pity. For lens ranges Canon and Nikon are the only manufacturers able to develop truly complete ranges of lenses on their own. Olympus came up with a clever scheme for enabling the design of smaller and lighter DSLR bodies by allying themselves with Panasonic and Leica, who already worked together, and Sigma. Sony may make good bodies, (I find them heavy and clumsy), but even an industrial giant like Sony could not justify the cost of developing a truly full range of lenses, even working with a leading assistant company in Carl Zeiss. Zeiss put in their know-how but the money is all Sony's. So, all in all, Sony are not an attractive choice for someone who wants to progress: cumbersome and under-developed bodies and a reduced choice of lenses...

My choice is Olympus, but, objectively, good arguments can be made for Canon and Nikon. Other manufacturers are short of lenses and/or use superficially disguised lenses originally destined for film cameras in digital applications. That is far from ideal.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2009 10:32:22 BDT
Fishman says:
Utter nonsense.

EVERY Minolta AF lens made over the past 20+ years works on the Sony Alpha dSLR range. EVERY Minolta AF lens will auto-focus. EVERY Minolta AF lens will be stabilised.

You don't know the first thing about these Minolta lenses either. Some are legendary, they go for silly money on eBay due to them being tack sharp on Sony dSLRs. These "superficially disguised lenses originally destined for film cameras in digital applications" as you call them, easily better so called digital lenses.

There are a LOT of Sony/Minolta/Tamron/Sigma/Tokina lenses to choose from and still you get this tired nonsense from the anti-Sony brigade.

Posted on 26 Jul 2009 21:22:16 BDT
Andrew says:
This is true - Sony D-SLRS are perfect as entry SLR cameras and quality third party lenses are available. Again, you would have a problem fitting an SLR into your pocket but you do have the ability to alter the settings far more freely than on a point-and-shoot. For the future, consider Canon or Nikon.

Posted on 28 Jul 2009 18:13:20 BDT
N. J. Pow says:
Thanks for all your replies. It does look like then if I want instant results I need a SLR or dSLR. Maybe one day someone will make a camera with all my requirements!!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2009 16:57:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2009 19:28:33 BDT
X says:
The design parameters for lenses to manage light and deliver it to a film are totally different to those governing the design of lenses for managing and delivering light to sensors. Buy and mis-use "film" lenses of any brand, (and as an Olympus-nut since 1977 I have as much cause as anyone to be tempted), on a digital camera because you cannot afford ad hoc "digital" lenses, or because you like the many technical faults that arise, that's entirely your right. Nostalgia, economy, curiosity and individuality are all Good Things, but promoting the use of incorrect equipment without warning that it has severe limitations is irresponsible.

If "film" lens designs were totally valid for "digital" applications, all Olympus would have had to do would be scan their OM-Zuiko lens designs into their CAD system and push the big green button marked "Go". Even an incomplete manufacturer like Sony may have been able to designing DSLR lenses for itself.

There's no point in throwing fits of paranoia if you don't agree with what I write. It leaves me totally unimpressed. I have a Sony TV, the third in succession from Sony that has served me well, and my wife's intention to buy a Sony camcorder seems to be A Good Thing. But Sony DSLR bodies are clumsy lumps compared to the latest models of just about every other manufacturer, even some I do not like. You may disagree with what I think, that does not make it rubbish. The scale that goes from Good to Bad is not the same as the one that goes from I Like to I Don't Like.

Posted on 2 Aug 2009 11:35:14 BDT
Fishman says:
It is rubbish because you haven't used them, you are not speaking from a position of experience. I and thousands of users are using film lenses on dSLR cameras.

So who should the reader believe? Somebody that has never used them, spouting opinion, or OWNERS who are taking tack sharp images with these "old" lenses?

Let's not just limit it to Sony. Perhaps we should ask the thousands of Canon and Nikon users, who are using "old" Canon and Nikkor lenses? Hey, maybe they too need educating by you that they are using these lenses for "Nostalgia, economy, curiosity and individuality" reasons, not because they actually produce tack sharp images on their dSLRs. I'm sure that they too will be impressed by your obvious experience in this matter.

The handling of a dSLR is subjective, in YOUR hands the Sony may feel clumsy, in my hands it is right. Perhaps you only have small hands that suits the Oly, personally I hated it, it was like a kids toy and felt clumsy to me as a result. However I would never mention handling to a potential buyer because we are all different. I have just got an A700 and increased size and weight by adding a VG and it is balanced perfectly.

The best advice is ALWAYS to go and handle one in a shop.

Anyway I am sure that you will want the final say, you appear to be the clue-less self-opinionated type and will not be able to resist. I will not be here to read your rubbish, I have wasted enough time on you.

Posted on 2 Aug 2009 11:40:11 BDT
Dave O says:
Ooooo fight fight he he

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Aug 2009 13:06:30 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Aug 2009 13:08:10 BDT
X says:
( Sorry, David! No fight from this side. Touched nerves should make for fireworks, but none of mine are touched. The truth hurts?) That was just the standard-issue response from a narrow band of people who feel they can make better body + lens marriages than all the engineers of all the major camera and lens manufacturers by simply delving into the past. In their Walter Mitty minds they see themselves as bursting in on an engineering policy meeting at Sigma HQ, and cooling all the over-heated minds with one cry "Follow me to the photocopier! Bring your film lens designs with you! I know better than you! Your misery will soon be over!"

Sorry, or not, folks, I can't take this one seriously.

Is it fun to fool around with superseded technology? Certainly! Does a lens with 40 year-old technology produce better images on a modern digital body than a contemporary lens? No. If that were to be "yes", Olympus, whose lenses I know well, have enjoyed using, and will always hold in a special place in my photographic memories, would have re-issued their loveliest lovelies from the days of the OM-2 and family.

So, on the scale of Good/Not good, it's "Not good".

But, of course, like most things in photography, on the scale of Like/Not like, it can be "Like", if that pleases you.

Above all written in a very non-aggressive state of mind. When all is said and done, we are all photographers.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the photography discussion forum (778 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  5
Total posts:  10
Initial post:  15 Jul 2009
Latest post:  2 Aug 2009

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions