Be Excellent To Each Other

Nikon 1, innit: http://www.nikon1.co.uk/en_GB_N1/

My Panasonic has a Leica lens on it. Is Leica okay? Not that it matters, it can't be replaced.

I've not been over the moon with it really. That's my own stupid fault for not buying a DSLR I suppose. Also not buying a book so I tend to just use iA mode all the time.

At least it's visibly shitloads better than my Nokia's camera.

Oh, and I/we are considering a compact to go with it now, for 'out drinking' type affairs where a bridge is too big.

Isn't there an extent to which bigger is inevitably better when it comes to producing good optics. Or else why are the 3rd gen or whatever you want to call them cameras the size that they are? Why not even smaller? It's all about compromise, even current DSLRs are. I agree on the point about having a mirror flicking around becoming largely unnecessary, though.

Also, I saw a Sony thing of some sort, super thin body with a big pancake lens on the front. Had an Alpha symbol on the front. Mirrorless I think. Absolutely astonishing low light performance.

My friend has one. It is indeed excellent in low light. Pain in the arse to use though. Constant menu flicking.

Well that's fuck ugly.



Leica are famously great lens manufacturers. However, when you're paying £250-odd quid for the whole camera/lens, they will obviously be not producing the same quality lens as you might get if you paid £400 for just a lens.

Yeah, I've always been resistant to DSLRs since I tried my first (completely shit) digital compact in about 1997. SLR is for photography nerds, and I dispute that there's anything inherently benefical about the moving mirror. I want a live view off the sensor, inside the viewfinder (or on the screen as a second best) - that's the closest you'll get to the finished image and the best way to compose the photo.

DSLRs are guess and try again - which is the whole point of the art and skill of taking photos with an SLR, but it's something I lost interest in when I stopped using film.



Explain-me 4/3rds please. I thought it was just DSLR but smaller..

I like that...

It's sensor size, not camera size:

Micro four-thirds is exactly what you described in your first paragraph. SLR sized sensors (more or less) in a mirror less body. One of a number such technologies, produced by Panasonic and Olympus.

Oh, wait - that doesn't explain very well. That pic shows you what a 4/3 sensor is, micro 4/3 is basically 4/3 but without a mirror mechanism.

Well, not quite. It's 4/3 sensors in a mirrorless body. SLRs are generally either full frame or APS-C.

A 4/3rds sensor is far closer to SLR class than compact class, though. And other EVIL cameras have larger sensors, like the Sony one Bik mentioned.

There's certainly something inherently better vs every LCD viewfinder I've ever looked through so far. I agree with much of that article but especially his disclaimer about current digital viewfinders being laggy, pixelated crud.

So... 4/3rds of what, exactly? Sorry, I could google it easily but am enjoying the potential for technical pedantry

Micro 4/3rds sounds like my next camera choice though.

Not reading one link, eh, Kalmar?

Or looking at one picture

The picture is what posed the question. 4/3rds of what? It looks like 1/4 of a 35mm frame. And about 3/4s of an APS-C sensor size. Not 4/3rds of anything.

An inch, I believe.

Really? 4 thirds of an inch is about 34mm.

Correct.

Why not just call it that then?

Four thirds of an inch indeed. Americans I guess.

Except it clearly isn't 34mm, as your drawing shows.


FFS. I've wikipedia'd it. The sensor size is about 22mm diagonal, where the APS-C is about 27mm. They may as well have called it "crocodile satellite format" for all the relevance it has to anything.

edit: except aspect ratio. Which is 4:3.

Right, who wants to buy my EOS 400D

Tenner. Final offer.

I think I know a reasonable amount of techie stuff, but just to keep my feet on the ground I come in this thread every now and again to be utterly baffled by everything everyone says.

It means "ten pounds"

I think I now know what it feels like to be Alberto in every single thread about something other than video games or baseball.

No it fucking isn't you cunt! Cars aren't called 3rd gen horses! It doesn't tell you anything about the technology, therefore it is a fucking useless name.

So's 4/3rds though, to be fair.

They should call it Straight Light Route, as in straight from the lens to the sensor.

So are you, but some of the picture you take are quite good

What's so ugly about it?

The camera, not Craster.

It looks like a pencil case with a lens glued to the front. I like technology to look like technology.

I like it! Looks Apple-y.

Exactly.

I think it looks quite classy and understated, though it reminds me more of a Nad amp or something than anything Apple. And at least it's not trying to look like ye olde worlde camera as seems to be the trend with lots of the smaller ones now.

I don't mind the white one, but the black one is horrible.

/Ed Miliband

Yeah, what's with that?

See, I think that is what it's trying to look like, and that's one of the reasons I don't like it. The shape of the body immediately makes me think of this:

Red, round and fleshy?

No wait, that's Craster again.

I'm not really sure it's trying to look like anything, I guess it's a bit like that in so far as it is camera-shaped. But the minimal design to me just says that it's a thing for using not for gawping at. Bit like the amps that I mentioned.

I suppose the ends of the case don't "need" to be the same shape as a roll of film any more, but it doesn't strike me as oldy-worldy apart from that. The relatively massive diameter lens kind of dispels that image anyway.

Hang on, where's the flash mount, or indeed the flash??

It's a built-in flash, which I can only assume is that little hole in the top right.

I don't know, I just don't like it. Any camera that comes in pink isn't a real camera


/grump.

I'm afraid to say that I really don't like the look of the Nikon V1. It looks like a thin slab of laminated cheese with a bump on it. This is frustrating, as I love the look and feel of their DSLR's. I much prefer Fujifilm's X100, which is far sexier and old stylee. Honestly, people who think a featureless sleek thing is better than the oldschool 35mm look are insane. Would you rather be in something that looked like the Oldsmobile from Supernatural, or a Punto? Exactly.

I'm also skeptical about the desirability of a thin, mirrorless camera. If the output is better, sure. But these things seem just too thin to nicely balance even a moderately long lens. There's nowt there to really comfortably wrap your fingers round. Lighter is better, yes, but not if my fingers cramp trying to get purchase while using a big zoom. The DSLR doesn't have any menu hunting either but big buttons that speed you up. How can they fit all that in handy twiddle positions on a small V1 type affair?

Don't get me wrong, I don't thing DSLR's will be around forever, but I'm definitely not sold on this new way of things. No siree.

Now go look at Russian Rocket Girl pics in the other people's photo thread. She's awesome.

Pete, but it fits in your pocket! (nearly). And is available in pink.

Don't get me wrong I don't think it's exceptionally beautiful. I guess I just prefer its honest-looking design to that mock tudor Fujifilm thing.

Do you get micro 4/3s with a touch screen for exposure and focus adjustment, like on an iPhone? Because that would be a good thing.

edit: After reading a review of the Nikon 1, the first thing it says is that it's not a micro 4/3rds camera anyway, the sensor is far smaller at just 16mm and the lenses won't interchange with other manufacturers like 4/3s will.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/660015 ... e-nikon-v1

I definitely agree with Pete in that twiddly knobs is what you want for that, you don't want to be constantly putting your eye to the viewfinder then moving it away again to mess with a touchscreen that you can hardly see because it's too sunny or something.

This thread grew.


Which one do you have?
A couple of pages back I linked to some test shots I did on my Panasonic GF3, (one of the latest gen M 4/3 cameras), iA mode was consistently getting better (less blown out) shots than aperture mode. It was the same story with my lumix TZ10 with iA, (as it is with the Tz20 my mum has) and a lot of the reviewers for that camera said the same thing. Panasonic have reached a point where the software can do a better job of determining what you need and instantly switch to it. For example, the wind started blowing and the camera instantly switched to tracking mode in iA and then back to single point when it stopped. It all depends on the lens, my m4/3 is nowhere near as good as the nikon D300 shot quality wise. This is entirely down to the lens being a bit naff, it's only 3.5 wide open at 17mm, 5.6 at 42, you don't get much bokeh and it's sweet spot is f/8 (the software knows this and will tend to aim for f/8 with that lens on), so fuck it, I'll stick it in iA. if I got the 20mm 1.7 prime then it would be on a par with the D300 with 35mm 1.8, I've seen some shots taken by a contact who has the same lens and they are sharp as a tack so A mode would be better.

full frame fujifim people, full frame in a light body with amazing glass and one of the best viewfinders ever made and it look looks stunning and all for under £1000, if it's really the successor to the X100 then this camera could be a M9 beater at 1/10 of the price.

yes the Panasonic G/GF3/GX1 and the Sony NEX 5n but the 5n has DSLR sensor in it.