Apple for example has sharp business sense to use that to great effect by the way. heh. Get it made cheap, good marketing positioning, stir up their over zealots Apple fanboys, mark up high and sell and buy Steve Jobs a Private Jet heh. Cameras are no difference. You can get "almost" as good a camera from say Oympus or Pentax..etc as oppose to Nikon and Canon but look at the higher price you need to pay. To sweeten the deal othe brands like the former has to play abit of a price war too to get a piece of the pie from the two big DLSR brands. So sometime it has nothing to do with just the cost of production and sums of the parts built into a product.
this topic should be under kopitiam lor
quite boh liao, if you ask me
now still got film
if you buy dslr without lcd, then all the advantages of digital go flying out of the window
and you are probably better off with film, due to better dynamic range, etc
film versus digital - once you take away instant preview
almost all the advantages of digital are gone, shrug
really cannot imagine a camera without LCD screen. it will be very tedious to set the settings you want, even if there are individual dials for you to do so on the external body of the camera. just my 2 cents.
Have you no confidence in your camera's ability to meter lighting for you?, Have you no condidence in your ability to use your camera and know it's capability well? Have you not spend enough time shooting with it and knowing enough about the fundamental of photography to shoot competently? heheh Try it..tape up your LCD preview screen. Go shoot. Make observations and take notes, compare them from one shot to another. Take shot in various lighting condition..etc. If you do this long enough, you find you actually shoot alot better. I am not sure about the creative part but technique wise you will see improvement and when you go back to previewing with your LCD...you find you make decision alot faster now and with that out of the way, you might start to spend more time being creative with your composure.
I think those of us who were from the "old school" would not feel too bad if our LCD gives up on us while we are doing a shoot. We can continue and still feel confidence enough to carry on shooting our stuff. And this is in the age of more better meter sensors then back then our old days. hehe give it a try...see how well you fair.
Last edited by sammy888; 18th September 2007 at 09:08 PM.
Art is perception; Perception is art.
But then again..film I have to say is more generous in exposure latitude and digital is a tad not. But well that is all the interesting bits leh of discovering what your equipment can do. DSLR or SLR... film or digital RAW.
I try to shoot raw to avoid the white balance problem lah......do post production later lor. heh. Instead of the colour lab...it would me that will have to take the time to do it which in some case is part of the fun in my view.
White balance in the digital age of photography is still in it's "birthing" period in my view lah...in time to come...just like more advance AF is coming on to the scene...it will improve with time. We are at the pioneering stages...it is a great time to be around the last decade where we witness this transaction period....makes some great grandfather stories for the future heheheh...by then...REALLY OLD SCHOOL man! heheh
Think the question started cos of all the hype about 40D's 3" LCD which some say doesn't quite perform as well as they would like?
I find the question very hilarious... Cos that's like asking will you buy a car without a boot at a cheaper price?
I'm waiting for the day when the whole back of the camera is LCD with touch screen function
It is meant more for fun purpose...
Also..... as an old timer, I felt that this would be a challenge to non-film starter... since most digital starter will never know that feeling.....
Plus..... LCD with instant feedback has changed photography.... PRO shooter can simply just review the results instantly..... without worry about quality, while those film photographer in the olden time actually is a test of their confidence...
I also kind of regret not indicating Old school or New school photographer in the poll... With the 22%, I suspect they are from the old school ones.....
Art is perception; Perception is art.
Let me try to be as laymen as I can. Usually when you shot in JPG, a few things are done to the shot you take from within your camera. With RAW, what is capture by the CCD or CMOS is capture "as it" and no compression..etc. That means all the data concerning the photo in full uncompress untouched form. Of course that means a very fat size file unlike a jpg. With so much raw data, it is more "forgiving" if you want to make changes to it unlike a strip down jpg version which all the unnessary bits are rip away. That's the short explanation lah hehe
When you capture a JPG, the sensor first capture the image then it it sent it to another part of your camera that will convert it to jpg and use the compression setting you have chosen (Fine Normal..eg) to make the file smaller in size. Then if you have pre-selected a WB setting, it will also adjust your image's colour hue or tint as I call it before dumping it into a CF or SD card. So the camera does all the work for you from within the camera so you save on time by not having to sit at your computer doing colour adjustment and all that stuff. But do note it is not a perfect science. The camera can still get it wrong or your artistic self might not like what the camera did and want something else. So that is the problem. And that is where RAW is better.
I would dare say that RAW is like film. It has alot more latitude for you to make more adjustment compares to a jpg image which has lot so much information that if you adjust a picture beyond certain limits it no longer looks good as those infor on those limits are no longer there. For example you shoot a scene which has bright sunlight shining cleary a garden scene but there is a sheltered patio which cast a shadow over some furnishing. Now your CCD or CMOS is sensitive enough to capture abit more details of stuff in that shadow area...but it might still be pretty dim. Now if you convert it to jpg and with the use of compression, the programming will strip off most of those details under the shadow if the colour range are about the same. By stripping those out is how your JPG can be so much smaller then a RAW or TIFF. It trys to take out as much detail and stuff that it "asume" your eyes does not see so that it can be a smaller file. Some time it does not strip away but add artifacts to it when it trys to average out "almost" similar colours or shape so you get to weird blocking stuff between contrasting lines. Okay that is the layman short bit ...hope that clears up why sometime we shoot RAW to get around WB problems...etc
Well no matter how advance it will get, one thing is for sure as far as I can see as a photographer and someone interested in technology science. If you want more clarity and details and better colours and resolution? SIZE WILL KEEP BECOMING BIGGER for each image you shoot...not less. So maybe they might one day come out with a better WB but then again maybe nothing beats the human eye and your mind's eye on judging WB or creativity...etc. It is just a tool and as such you are still the driver. If the technology can do it all for you..then you are not required heheheh
Last edited by sammy888; 20th September 2007 at 12:26 PM.
But RAW image size is HUGE!!!!
I need more HD space and CF card to shoot RAW.... I am still learning on editing images.... hope I can get a hang of it soon.. maybe will get elements sometime soon...
Art is perception; Perception is art.
No problem...have fun experimenting with RAW and also with JPEG. Though the latter might not have enough latitude for you to make much changes ..etc, it will also give you a good idea as to what those limits are so that it gives you a good balance ideal of when you CAN STILL GET AWAY with shooting in Jpg instead of RAW to save space or just plain lazy like I am at times heheh...
if no LCD but cheaper by 1K then i buy. wahaha..
This post here is more like a kopitiam thread and is of not much use here. Thread closed.