|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 28, 2010 19:47:16 GMT -5
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 29, 2010 1:29:12 GMT -5
No viewfinder.
No sale.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by olroy2044 on Jan 29, 2010 13:37:57 GMT -5
Sure like the looks of this'n! Reminds me of my beloved Auto 110! However, I agree with Mickey  Roy |
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Jan 29, 2010 17:13:33 GMT -5
I'm with you guys, lack of a viewfinder or a place to attach one is hopeless.
Pentax is having its troubles. I understand that Hoya has them up for sale again. Abandoning their dealer network in North America has proven to be a fiasco.
My independent camera store owner says that Fuji and Leica are the only two manufacturers he can deal with anymore. Everyone else wants you to stock their entire line to be a dealer... so to get what will sell, you have to have a boatload of money tied up in dust gathering turkeys you can't sell because of cutthroat internet sales.
Orlin in SC/USA
|
|
photax
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,915
|
Post by photax on Jan 29, 2010 17:15:04 GMT -5
I also like the "Auto 110" style of this camera, but as mentioned, no viewfinder. In my opinion a camera without a viewfinder is like a car without a steering-wheel.
MIK
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 29, 2010 21:55:33 GMT -5
Man you guys are a tough audience :-)
Give yourselves a paradigm shift: LCD-display digicams are really miniature view cameras, with the image righted :-)
No black hood required, though you can use one if you like...
Gene
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 30, 2010 9:36:15 GMT -5
Gene :
OK, Gene, you've got a point. Can't help thinking though that on the fairly rare occasions I used a view camera, or a small plate camera with a focusing screen, I mounted it on a tripod. Don't see a tripod bush mentioned in the spec of the I-10.
I notice, though, that it's got Triple Shake Reduction technology, whatever that means. I assume it means the latest type of anti-camera-shake, or reducing the effects of camera shake.
Seriously, many photographers poured scorn on early digital cameras of only a few years ago. Now most of us use them.
I'm ancient enough to remember:
"Roll film will never take the place of plates". It did.
"35mm is handy, but you can't get the same quality as you can with medium format". You can.
"Laser printers and thermal printers are handy and quick, and you don't need a darkroom and chemicals, but you can't get the same quality you get with a wet print". You can now.
The answer was always "Wait and see".
OK, I wouldn't pay $300 for a small camera without a viewfinder ... not at the moment. But then I'm Old School, and old habits and prejudicies die hard.
Give them just a few more years of technical development and I reckon small pocketable digital cameras will give shake-free, needle-sharp pictures when held with just one hand. Eye level viewfinders will be quaint rarities except on multi-mode SLRs costing three times the price.
Three hundred bucks for the I-10? For those who can afford it I say go ahead and buy one, or something similar from another maker. You'll be funding future technology which will benefit us all soon.
PeterW
|
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Jan 30, 2010 13:47:20 GMT -5
Peter, you're right about the progress in photography. But is it progress when you can compose a picture more easily with my 1941 Baby Brownie than with the Optio I-10?
My guess is these cameras are not intended for anyone who has the vaguest idea of what they are doing.. think Polaroid "swinger" on steroids... now, instead of 8-10 miserable snapshots, you are forced to look at 80-100 and say "That's nice."
To be fair, the output from most DSLRs would have the King, to paraphrase Bill Shakespeare, crying out, "An Argus C-3! An Argus C-3! My kingdom for an Argus C-3!"
I have plenty of pictures that have been e-mailed to me to justify my crabby attitude!
Orlin in SC/USA
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 30, 2010 15:31:50 GMT -5
Man you guys are a tough audience :-) Give yourselves a paradigm shift: LCD-display digicams are really miniature view cameras, with the image righted :-) No black hood required, though you can use one if you like... ************************************************************ Gene Eureka! Gene. That's what they all need so we can see that miserable little screen - a dirty, sweaty black cloth. I have heard of the scheimpflug shift for cameras but not the paradigm shift. I must try it. Mickey |
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jan 30, 2010 15:43:00 GMT -5
I have to admit I'm talking through my hat on this one, since I haven't really looked at the Pentax Optio-10. But if Gene is saying it has an LCD display, why would anyone also need a viewfinder? The Lumix DMC-LX3 digital I bought has no viewfinder (although an optional one that mounts to the flash shoe is available) ... but I can compose with the 3-inch LCD display, so why would I spend another $190 for something I don't really need? The Leica lens is tack sharp, and the image stabilization buys me at least another f-stop worth of exposure, maybe more, in low light ... letting me hand hold in places I would otherwise need a tripod to shoot. I like using my old film cameras ... a lot. But, let's face it, they aren't coming back anytime soon, and there is a lot of neat digital stuff out there now. |
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 30, 2010 16:56:42 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not knocking viewfinders. I grew up using them.
But, like Ron, I haven't had any difficulty adjusting to an LCD screen to compose shots. In fact, they're 100% accurate on framing, which can rarely be said for a viewfinder.
Just like I got used to looking down the stovepipe of my Rolleiflex and learning to swing left when the subject appeared to swing right. You just get used to these things.
As it's ever been, it's the photographer, not the camera, that takes good pics.
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by pompiere on Jan 31, 2010 6:42:17 GMT -5
Since I have been wearing bifocals, I have found that LCD viewfinders are more difficult to use. I have to tip my head back or hold the camera down low to be able to see the image clearly. With a conventional viewfinder, I can look through the distance section of my glasses and see fine. The framing may not be as accurate in theory, but since I can see well, the end result is better.
|
|
Andrew
Lifetime Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 31, 2010 14:11:50 GMT -5
cute little P&S, i really like the look of the white one, i bet my daughter would LOVE it to put snaps on the her Facebook etc with her friends, except even she would turn her nose up at no M mode, she wouldnt like it but (being young) easily adapt and get by with out the VF . although now that i am slowly catching up in age to you guys i am finding it harder to focus on something that is held very close to my eyes and am starting to have to hold things further away to focus (as such i am having a little trouble nowadays and needing to adapt when using my old folding plate camera, that i often use handheld (which coincidentally my daughter is still often amazed at the screens on these plate and also the hasselblads TLR etc and in wonderment remarks there are just like much bigger LCD screens we have now, "its amazing how they invented them all that time ago!")-- the view camera isnt a problem at all because on a tripod i use a loupe as well anyway)..for these resoons these little camera to me are as though they have gone back in time, and we are beginning al over again, like the old plate camera that then moved onto RF VF and then SLR. I'd hazard a guess that when they have the tech cheap enough to provide good EVF then the rear screen will become second place to EVF ...rear screens have thier place but composing up close to your eye is always easier to see detail and prefered still i reckon if i was in the market for this type of camera the canon S90 seems a better choice to me, tho not as pretty as the Pentax (still its strange no VF in this camera either, although they used to put a very basic OVF one in a few years ago--canon A590 and such i think i remember)..same basic size and weight but bigger sensor to the Pentax, choice of manual mode, raw files and the rings on the lens can be used like old fashioned lens rings to control aperture and shutter speeds--its just plain ugly black plastic though,canon need to get with the times and retro the S90 up ;D have to disagree with you Peter on 35mm format being as good a quality as MF, it never has been nor never will be (not when comparing apples to apples -differant if you want to compare year2010 35mm tech pan film to 1908 120 roll film but thats hardly a fair comparison is it!)..i have certainly taken enough pics using both over the years to easily know the difference ...as film and lenses improved over the years, 35mm came into being 'good enough' (or in some cases exceeded) for what people required , beginning with newspaper print etc etc until reasonably widespread use to most facets of photography..but there has never been any real argument (though adamant 35mm users always profess one) that MF and LF make better quality pictures and when people want the best thats what they use the same goes for sensor size, bigger is always going to better quality given the same tech used, although the tiny sensor may well be more than satisfactory for web, newspaper, small printed family album ; although not many of them used now with everyone placing their pics on digital, usually the home PC or lap-top--so now, even the family album is being replaced with electronic tech [the new iPad is perfect for it!--until these things break or get a virus!]..but if i want to create an artistic (or otherwise) print to hang on the wall, whicj is ultimately what photography is for me. i want the best equipment i can afford, and that is larger format..not to mention the lack of DoF control you get with miniature format is a pain! thats my rant for better or worse  |
|
Mark Vaughan
Lifetime Member
I STILL have a pile of Nikons. Considering starting a collection of Ricoh SLRs and RFs.
Posts: 191
|
Post by Mark Vaughan on Feb 1, 2010 15:29:59 GMT -5
Ron,
Your bi-focals aren't polarized are they? The polarized glass in eyewear - especially Ray-Ban's version of it - will often cause cell phone screens, camera LCD screens, and the glass faces on aircraft instruments (incidentally) to blur and show some artifact. As a private pilot, I use standard lenses and it solves the problem instantly - and I saved a few bucks not having to pay for polarized glass!
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Feb 1, 2010 17:09:04 GMT -5
....As it's ever been, it's the photographer, not the camera, that takes good pics. Gene Great cameras don't take good pictures, good photographers do. As to vision ... my eyes have stayed remarkably the same for the past 15-20 years. I need glasses, but only for distance, which makes using a viewfinder difficult...and a large LCD screen a joy. My near vision is 20-15 (thank goodness)! |
|
Roy
