Talk:Digital single-lens reflex camera/Archive 1

Requested move
Digital single-lens reflex cameras → Digital single-lens reflex camera – plural title; originally created as DSLR Christopherlin 07:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support, straightforward case of maintaining the house style. Aapo Laitinen 11:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Scoo 12:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Shotgunlee 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Jonathunder 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Market Share Fluff
Nonsense about duopoly. I'm cutting it out because it is unsourced and irrelevant. Do not revert my edit without comment.66.90.166.225 (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

For your kind information it was you in the first place who had removed the content without any valid summary. Be careful about that from next time. And it is you who needs to comment and give reasons for your actions. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup requested
I wanted to quickly chime in here about something that has been bothering me about this page, the section on "bridge cameras". I've always considered fixed lens cameras "bridge" cameras, not cameras with interchangeable lens systems. The wikipedia page on bridge cameras says essentially the same thing. Interchangeable lenses are the hallmark of the SLR be it digital or otherwise. Reflex refers to viewing TTL not in parallax, digital cameras without a mirror (such as in the micro 4/3 format cameras) are in every way a SLR, the focusing "screen" is now viewed electronically and I must say the latest offerings have exceptional quality (no visible pixel structure) I think we'll be seeing many, many more SLRs without mirrors in the next 12-months. If there's a good case to be made for the status quo, someone please make it. Otherwise I'd like to request that one of my fellow editors do a clean-up. I'll get my hands dirty if time permits. CameraPHD (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unwikified; but first needs attention from a camera enthusiast as there seems to be considerable overlap with other camera / digital photography articles. As I'm not a camera enthusiast I've marked as needs attention; corrected the category and removed the author's signature from the body of the article. --Cje 10:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree this page needs a lot of work, and it's an important and interesting topic that could be expanded. I started by rewriting the entire article from common and publicly available knowledge. I wikified it and will go back to verify and modify the links to make sure they're all focuses on photography articles. I've retained the original text just below this comment. I believe the majority of it is not informative, and is mostly outdated and irrelevant (especially the cost analysis). I do think some points may have merit, but need to be investigated. Specifically, the issue of improved performance over HP-type products because of lens quality. This seems interesting to me, but needs to be expanded, better explained, and backed up by some sources. I plan on taking this project on a bit further, so bear with me while I work out the kinks. Anyone with knowledge/expertise, feel free to dig in with me. Zephlon 14:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Original text:

Digital photography's attempt to rival silver haloide film became a reality with a camera body which required an independent lens attachment replicating the 35 millemeter camera. The quality of the sensor in the camera and its complex algorithm to process the image became totally dependent on the quality of the prime or zoom optics attached. This allowed huge optical companies such as Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta-Konica, Sigma to rival and better computer driven companies such as Hewlet Packard et al. Sensor and electronics companies such as Sony now supply their wares to Nikon as Panosonic[Mitsubishi] suppies Leica.This extraordinary and entangled web of interdependent competition has driven digital slr prices down from 30,000 dollars U.S. for a 3 megapixel Canon D 30 to a 8.2ega pixel 1,500 dollar Cano 20D in fall of 2004.The buyer has been the great gainer and film cameras and film have dropped precipitiously. Only medium format film based cameras continue to reign in the professional market. Optical glass prices have not dropped comensurately with Camera bodies.

Don't have time to help much here, but have added UK name of Digital Rebel model (EOS 300D). Not sure which name is used in the rest of the world. If 300D, might be worth changing it around so that the US name is in brackets. HTH.

--Swaldman 22:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why digital SLR?
What is the advantage of an upmarket digital SLR camera as compared to a hypothetical digital non-SLR camera with exactly the same features, but no SLR mirror? (Both cameras to have a screen display; the non-SLR to have an addtional optical viewfinder subject to parallax but not using power)

The only advantages I can see are:


 * depth-of field-preview.
 * parallax-free viewfinder that you put to your eye, instead of at arm's length.
 * no need to use battery-draining screen display if you want an accurate view.

You could of course fit fisheyes, etc., to the non-SLR and see the image on the screen.

If users like a viewfinder that you put to your eye, our hypothetical non-SLR could include an eye-level optical viewfinder showing the sensor image (in other words, a view of the screen), eliminating the second SLR advantage..

Lens interchangeability, large sensor, etc., are all "SLR" features dictated by the market, not by limitations of what can be done without SLR.

I used to use a film SLR, but now use a zoom non-SLR digital with additional optical (no-power) viewfinder with parallax error. I find I can do everything I want, though I'm not a pro. I often use the optical viewfinder if I don't need accurate framing.

I'm not trying to make any particular point, I just want to see how useful true SLR is in a camera with a digital sensor.

Pol098 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, rangefinder cameras can also have interchangable lenses. For a time they had superior wide-angle lenses because the rear lens element could extend a long way into the camera body, getting much closer to the film.


 * Anyway, I've never understood the need for an SLR configuration in a digital camera. The digital sensor is not consumed in using it (like film is), so what's the problem with constantly exposing the sensor and having a live update on the LCD? Consumer digital cameras do this. Is it just that D-SLR's (or their users) want to look more sophisticated? It wouldn't surprise me if that was a major reason, there's a lot of ego masturbation that goes on nowadays with digital cameras. Imroy 14:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to keep "rangefinder camera" for film cameras; don't all digital cameras have rangefinders? I wan't aware of any digital non-SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses (besides film cameras with digital backs; e.g., view cameras); do you have any information?


 * If other people agree that the SLR feature proper is not very useful for a digital camera, maybe we need to edit the article? I did write stuff to that effect, but held off from actually asking why DSLRs are so popular. A high-end digital non-SLR (dNslr?) might be cheaper, smaller, lighter (or less heavy).Pol098 16:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pol098, there's actually a large market of people who strongly prefer the SLR-style viewfinder to a rangefinder and to an electronic viewfinder. The key feature of the SLR makes the market for DSLRs. You don't happen to be a part of that market. Why not let the people who understand it describe it? Dicklyon 07:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

dSLRs clumsy setup involving mirrors allows it to use a phase detection autofocus, as opposed to contrast detection in non-SLR digital cameras. If I understand correctly, the former is faster and more sensitive. Indeed, my 350D focuses much faster than my compact, whether USM motor or no USM motor --60.51.64.132 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In regards to the first-above user's question, I use and need a D-SLR with optical viewing, and a focusing system that operates especially in low light situations is essential; there is no eye-strain. For available light photography and surveillance photography, nothing beats an optical display versus a fully electronic (EVF) display. Who wants to look at a small TV screen for a long time? I don't!


 * Fisheye lenses? Some D-SLR's come with mirror lockup so that shouldn't be an issue. Besides there are fisheye converter lenses that attach to the front filter thread of a regular lens and some of these are either currently being made or have been discontinued. Please check eBay.


 * In regards to a digicam with interchangeable lenses, sooner or later, a manufacturer may come out with an interchangeable lens digicam and I wouldn't be surprised if it was Canon. Look at the current S5-IS. A newer version of that camera, say with an interchangeable lens mount (possibly proprietary) and with an adapter to use Canon EOS DX or full-frame lenses might be very attractive to some photographers. Nikon may or may not 'beat them to the punch' with such a design as, when you look at their previous small APS SLR, the Pronea, it was a very good camera that operated fast! The APS Canon Ixus was also fast, small and used Canon's EOS lenses so, sooner or later someone has to come out with one of these and then another manufacturing race will be on.


 * The user who used the term "ego masturbation" just doesn't understand the need for the ability to have clear viewing and focusing ability to record an image., When you're really into photography, this is the only way to go. An EVF will never match a good optical system no matter what advances they make in this field. It's not simply a question of wanting to look more sophisticated; it's that we need this capability.


 * By the way, I've been using SLR's for more than 40 years. Either this or a dedicated rangefinder system like the Leica is the only real way for the serious photographer to go! EVF? Question: Do you 'love' eye-strain?--MurderWatcher1 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Relative advantages?
This is in response to the above comments of 4 March 2006, it appears, but I moved it to new section here:


 * Biggest advantage I can see is the ability to use large sensors, which would overheat in the 'hypothetical digital non-SLR camera with exactly the same features, but no SLR mirror'. Have edited page accordingly 219.251.88.86 05:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for these hypotheticals? I hate the see the lead filling up again with speculation about advantages relative to other types of cameras, rather than just focusing on what it is. Dicklyon 07:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No source, just my POV... Aren't you allowed to state POV on the talk page? Anyway, I was surprised to see a paragraph in the header section of the article mentioning 'fast view finding with interchangeable lenses' without other typical (though non-defining) characteristics being mentioned... This is also POV. Hence I deleted that small section, and also moved my edit into the body.
 * Would a small 'potential/perceived advantages' section really be out of place in the main article? after all, DSLR's are a category of commercial product... 219.251.88.86 04:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would only be out of place if it's unsourced. Your own perceptions are not what we care about, but if you find statements about perceived advantages in reliable sources, those can be mentioned with attribution. And yes, of course you can mention your own POV here on the talk page; I was just wondering if it was based on sources, since you seemed to be putting similar stuff in the article. Dicklyon 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For the same reasons as discussed above, reverted this:


 * The SLR principle provides two major advantages:
 * Because the viewfinder shows the image as seen by the light coming through the lens it is possible to build DSLRs that allow interchangeable lenses, and in fact all currently available DSLRs do support interchangeable lenses. Being able to change the lens makes it possible to invest in the lenses that are best suited for the kind of photography one is interested in.
 * The fact that the viewfinder is optical means that there is no delay or lag, as is typical for ordinary digital cameras that use the LCD display or an electronic viewfinder for composing the picture. This is especially important for sports photography, but is useful in all applications where the subject is moving.

There are numerous other arguable advantages to the DSLR's available - availability of battery grips; faster shooting rates; lower noise sensors with better bit depth; wider range of shutter speeds; raw mode, and so on. Many are discussed in the body of the article - Why selectively choose two and place them in the lead? There are also numerous arguable disadvantages to the DSLR design, but these would not belong in the lead either.211.209.30.29 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lifetime of digital cameras (including DSLR)
I've taken the following out a couple of times; while true it is utterly irrelevant, as it is inconceivable that a digital camera of today would be of any use 25 years after manufacture. Why should this sentence be preserved? What is relevant is that the camera should last until it becomes obsolete, without falling to bits first.

"It remains questionable whether today's digital cameras can ever achieve, in mass volume, the 25-year lifespan of some older 35mm film SLR and rangefinder cameras of traditional design, such as the Nikon F3 or Leica."

Pol098 01:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but that's the beauty of film photography. I can buy a decades-old rangefinder or SLR through eBay, load it with film that didn't exist when it was made, and take great photos with it (in the proper hands of course). Until I can no longer get film in the correct format, a film camera isn't really "obsolete". That's a major problem with digital photography: the camera is no longer merely a light-tight box for holding film and a lens. It's a major electronic device with a sensor that cannot be changed. So it's obsolete as soon as you buy it. Imroy 02:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I took it out again, as it had nothing to do with explaining what a DSLR is, and it was right up in the top section. I took out a lot more, too. If anyone wants that stuff back in, find a good lower place for it. There's a bit left about fast obsolescence causing increased total cost of ownweship, which is really probably plenty for an article on DSLRs Dicklyon 06:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence should remain as, what is the real 'life' of a digital camera? Will it last on the shelf of a used dealer for any length of time? I've seen grey-market cameras in the store windows of Times Square and I wonder what poor fool will buy those. The sun 'bakes' them; the typical tourist doesn't know if the camera has been discontinued, and practically all of these cameras are grey-market, meaning there is no U.S. warranty. The manufacturer won't even look at them if they need servicing! Also, will you be able to buy batteries for it 5 years from now? I have a Canon PowerShot G7 which uses a proprietary battery. Canon just introduced the G9. Maybe it uses the same battery; maybe not!

Now User:Imroy has the right idea. I did buy a Leica IIIf just a few weeks ago. It doesn't need any batteries! I loaded it up with film (film technology has greatly improved since this camera was introduced in the late 40's or early 50's) and I then prepared to use it. The camera had only one defect: the fast shutter speeds didn't work and the frames came out blank! I took the camera back, of course, and exchanged it for some other equipment that I needed. But, Oh! The feel of a Leica! At least I owned it for a week! At this point, I'd go with a Leica IIIG as, I want a better rangefinder, which the IIIG had. Also, I want a photographic instrument that will never 'die' in the field.

The strongest argument against digital: It's IMPOSSIBLE for a computer virus to destroy a photographic negative! The virus exists in the virtual world, NOT the real world, as a film negative does! The only real way to back up a digital negative, would be to photograph a large print made from the digital file with a film camera! Then, you have a real-world negative! I'd personally go with a 2 1/4 negative at least. By the way, I do have a Nikon F3 and I will never sell that! If the battery 'dies' on that camera - well I still have a mechanical 1/80 of a second plus 'B' and 'T' speeds, so with that aperture-priority camera I'm not 'dead' in the field. Do I need to do a time exposure? No problem! I can put the camera on a tripod and use a mechanical cable release which I can probably purchase anywhere. Don't have a cable release but want to do a time-exposure anyway? I have the 'T' setting! Put the camera on 'T', press the shutter release, and the shutter stays open for as long as I need it to. Don't worry about battery power. The Nikon F3 also has interchangeable prisms and viewing screens so I can take the eye-level prism off in a 'pinch' and view in 'waist-level' fashion; or affix the Nikon sportsfinder for an optical "TV-Like" view. No EVF or LCD required! Still think digital is superior to film? You have no idea what's out there that is still current or even discontinued!

There are lots of fantastic film equipment out there! For example, do a search on the Speed Magny Polaroid Back for the Nikon F and F2. One of these backs, the Speed Magny 45, transformed the Nikon F or F2 to a 4' x 5" camera. The back used mirrors and an EL Nikkor enlarging lens to enlarge the 35mm frame to 4" x 5" proportions. You could use cut film sheets, roll films with a roll film adapter, and the back also accepted Polaroid's 4x5 instant film back. Polaroid makes a black and white film with ISO 3000 speed standard! Of course, they also manufacture Polacolor, which has been around for ages. An instant print in the field without using a USB cable attached to a portable printer. Try that with a digital camera! They also manufactured (or used to manufacture) an oscilloscope trace B&W film with an ISO of 10,000. Some photographers used that film for creative special effects and some available light photography.

A small 35mm SLR? I used to own an Olympus Pen FT system. The camera was actually a half-frame 35mm SLR camera with a rotary focal plane shutter. The camera was all mechanical, synched electronic flash to 1/500 of a second (unheard of when it was current), had no bulging pentaprism as, Olympus designed a porroprism system, similar to the EVOLT E330 digital camera. It had an odd through-the-lens metering system which meter needle pointed to a number in the viewfinder and you had to manually set the corresponding number on the lens for proper exposure. The number was on the diaphgram ring, which rotated to also display regular f/numbers. My system consisted of 3 camera bodies, 13 Olympus lenses, 2 tele-converters, lens adapter for Pentax, Nikon, Exakta, Leica and a T-Mount adapter; two bellows extension units. The whole thing fit into a 26" suitcase. I sold that, then switched to a Canon F-1n system in 1976.

Ten years later, I switched back to Nikon, my first SLR 'love'; this was because Canon changed their lens mount (from FD to EOS). Nevertheless, a first-time user getting into photography can pick up a Canon with FD lens mount at a rather attractive price; or a used Nikon F; or a used Olympus OM camera; or even a used Pentax Spotmatic, which used screw mount lenses. Many screw mount lenses were manufactured because Pentax, Yashica, Olympus (with an early SLR design) and many others manufactured screw mount cameras and lenses. These cameras are still fully usable and will produce excellent pictures. There is a wealth of equipment out there. Just check out eBay. --MurderWatcher1 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Total cost of ownership
I made an addition to the article, when comparing digital and non-digital, about the total cost of ownership of a series of digital cameras being vastly greater than a non-digital which might last 25 years. What I meant, and perhaps it should be spelt out, though it does get a bit long-winded, is that a fair comparison of the cost of owning DSLR equipment should be compared with non-D over the full useful lifetime of the non-D (alternatively, the resale value of the non-D camera at the end of the life of the D should be accounted for).

This is very relevant and should be left in. Typically people look at the purchase price of a camera: but the useful life of a digital camera is just a few years, limited by obsolescence. In the first instance we can compare the price of a good (25-year) non-digital SLR with, say 5 or more digital SLRs. Can be refined For greater accuracy, add to the respective side film, processing, batteries, etc.

Myself, I have a Pentax Spotmatic II which works fine; it cost, I think, $200 (or $100??) a great many years ago. A digital camera I bought a couple of years ago for about the same price in real terms is ready to be retired.

This isn't a reason not to buy digital, but it must be a factor.

There are a few other points that are debatable. I won't revert anything about this or other points without looking here.

Pol098 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you thought I edit out your comment about TCO. I was just trying to keep it brief, simplifying it to "High TCO, compounded by their shorter useful lifetimes". I thought this was a more succinct way of saying essentially the same thing. After all, someone might not buy a series of DSLR's, just one or two. Doesn't change the fact that they're only "useful" for a few short years. You don't think the two statements are equivalent? Imroy 02:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's quite an important practical point, worth spelling out. Technically yes, you can just say TCO. But you used to buy a camera and use it for decades (my Pentax), without thinking in terms of TCO. If you go digital (SLR or not), you don't necessarily realise that you're in for a lot of expense over the years if you want to have a usable camera to hand. Probably less relevant for the pro who'll do cash-flow forecasts when investing.


 * Pol098 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you include an analysis of film and processing costs, and the costs of the relative difficulty of keeping track of negatives and such compared to digital, how can you make any useful statement about total cost of ownership? Dicklyon 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Attraction of interchangeability
"A major attraction of digital SLR cameras as compared to non-SLR digitals has been to allow photographers to convert from 35mm film cameras using the lenses and equipment that they are familiar with. For this reason, camera manufacturers design digital SLRs to be as similar as possible to their film counterparts."

The previous sentence implies that digital SLRs have a capability inherently, due to their nature. This isn't so: it just so happens that DSLRs have been built with support for interchangeability, while non-SLR digitals mostly haven't. It IS true that DSLRs actually manufactured at the moment have this advantage over most (but not all) digital non-SLRs

Pol098 01:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is here. Is it with my edits or the basic wording/structure?


 * My edits:
 * "A major attraction of digital SLR cameras as actually implemented over non-SLR digitals..." => "A major attraction of digital SLR cameras as compared to non-SLR digitals...". I wasn't sure what you were trying to say and substituted simpler words that I thought were appropriate.
 * "...allow experienced photographers to...". Removed 'experienced', I didn't think it necessary. All sorts of photographers might want to re-use lenses from their 35mm cameras.
 * "...that they are familiar with, while adding the advantages of using a digital camera.". Removed the part after the comma, I thought it redundant and a little biased. Of course there are advantages, why only mention them and not disadvantages as well?
 * Imroy 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The point I'm trying to make is that many of the advantages of DSLRs over D non-SLRs (interchangeability, big sensor) aren't advantages of the DSLR architecture, but simply because of what manufacturers choose to make. So the attraction is in "actual implementations" of DSLRs, or DSLRS "actually available" (I think I used those words in two revisions), not in the use of DSLRs just because they're DSLRs. Maybe I'm being pedantic and people won't notice the difference.


 * By the way, in my comments about the Epson non-SLR with interchangeable lenses, I'd assumes the sensor was 35mm size; it's actually smaller. I don't know if the interchangeable lens non-SLR concept will catch on; if it does, some of the stated advantages of the DSLR will apply to them too.


 * I'm a great believer in cutting out verbosity, but the meaning needs to be preserved.
 * Pol098 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Olympus E-10 and E-20 were DSLR's with non-interchangeable lenses. Phr 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not like this section either, not sure what it tries to say and why it is so high up in the article, but I want to take it out, or possible move it down to Digital SLR ... / Compact section! It sounds like non SLR digitals are equal to DSLR and the only reson to use a DSLR is that you happen to have old lenses, if not use a compact digital instead, and BTW there are 35mm film compacts also, so no the sentence does not make sense to me! I would be brave, but since you already have the discussion here I will wait a bit before I edit. Stefan 09:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me weigh in on the first complaint. Nothing beats analog controls on an SLR or D-SLR camera! Do you like going through a menu system to, say, increase the ISO? I don't! I need to do things fast! Any professional photographer needs to operate fast in the field and if they have to go through a menu system to change ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus, this is a camera that they won't buy, except for some amateur that doesn't care for speed and convenience. I can do these things with my Nikon D-200. If I couldn't, I wouldn't have purchased this camera! Now, in regards to the comment about the Epson rangefinder, which I assume is the RD-1, I'm not pleased that the sensor is DX sized. Any user of a 35mm film interchangeable lens rangefinder camera like the Leica M-mount cameras, the older Leica and Canon screw mount cameras, the older Contax and Nikon bayonet mount rangefinders, and the newer Bessa and now Zeiss-Ikon M-mount rangefinder cameras will want a full-frame negative or sensor, simply because these cameras lend themselves well to wide-angle lens use photography. These lenses are designed without the problem of the moving mirror being in the way as in the case of SLR and D-SLR wide-angle lenses. SLR and D-SLR wide angle lens-design is called "retrofocus" which roughly means that the moving mirror is taken into account in the lens design so that the rear optics don't touch the mirror, unlike rangefinder camera lenses which do protrude deep into the camera's body. This is the 'raison-d'etre' of rangefinder cameras.--MurderWatcher1 21:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Rapid obsolescence"??
"Rapid obsolescence, which increases total cost of ownership" is quoted as one of the disadvantages in the section about pros and cons. First of all, a camera, PC, TV etc. is just as good ten years later as it was new (save for wear and tear, of course). The fact that technological advances may make it seem inferior when compared to newer models doesn't change that; it is still doing the job it was intended to do just as well as it did the first day. Also, total cost of ownership is a term normally referring to a specific item, not to a person's cost for such items during his/her lifetime. Even if someone buys a new camera every three months, because he/she feels a need to constantly have the latest, this will not increase the cost of each single camera. It will increase the overall cost of owning cameras, but it is an individual choice not related to the camera itself. Even in the old days of "analogue" SLR's, there were professional photographers who would buy a new body as soon as they saw a scratch on their current one, while others would continue to use their beloved cameras until they were unrepairable. Also, it may be worth noting that before digital cameras were invented, the manufacturers were constantly improving (or at least changing) their traditional SLRs, in order to get the gadget nerds to upgrade, So, it's only because that side has stagnated that there is a perceived difference here.

I suggest that line is removed from the pros and cons. Thomas Blomberg 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, though I'd remove the pros/cons section in its entirety, as it's already in the digital photography article's digital vs. film section. Generally I'd say that we should be careful when adding comparisions to articles, in most instances the same information is present in the article alreay in plain view or between the lines (i.e. no need for a pencil vs. ballpoint pen discussion, both accomplish the same thing but in different ways and one particular may be more suitable for one particular task, or in other words, we should describe things not pass judgement on them). Scoo 12:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My view exactly. I'll remove the whole section, and then we'll see if anyone reacts. Thomas Blomberg 13:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to "rapid obsolescence", Professional photographers simply 'wear' their cameras out! That's a simple fact of commercial photography. My Nikon F3, for example, was factory designed for the shutter lasting for 100,000 cycles. Some of the current cameras exceed this capability which is very impressive! Manufacturers need to make their money and continue their business by coming out with newer models all of the time. 'Yes' there are photographers who have to have the latest 'toy' but understand: they love photography! These photographers will probably use every new feature that's introduced in the newer model!--MurderWatcher1 22:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture
I think the main article picture should be a body with a lens attached: The casual reader who doesn't yet know what a DSLR is is going to expect to see a 'whole camera', and I worry that the current picture might make them think that they can pick up what they see there and take photos. Thoughts? -Maebmij 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, interchangeable lenses are one of the key features of SLRs in general. Think the reader will catch on pretty quick as he/she reads on, though I altered the image description a bit. Scoo 03:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More info requested on physics - Shutter-release cycle - flash synch
I would like to know more about the specifics of an SLR-camera. I would like to know how exactly the mirror flips away (then the bottom of the film would be more illuminated than the top?), and how the autofocus and light sensor fit into the picture.... -- Parasite, civil engineering student


 * Well, I'd call it Design or Technology, but you're right, the article doesn't even mention focal-plane shutters or the fact that an SLR can use a phase-difference AF detector, which are critical aspects of typical SLR design that would answer your questions. Dicklyon 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sequence of events in a 35mm SLR Camera (in answer to the above). You press the shutter release button and a number of actions take place: 1) the mirror flips upwards (some mirror designs actually slide the mirror deeper into the mirror box and are dampened against vibration) 2) the diaphragm stops down to shooting aperture, and 3) then the shutter opens and closes, then the diaphragm reopens and the mirror is returned. Note that in early 35mm film cameras that the term "automatic" meant that the camera had an automatic diaphragm and an automatic mirror - which meant that the lens was at viewing aperture (the largest aperture) but was stopped down to 'shooting aperture' then it reopened; the mirror was 'automatic' in that it returned to viewing position. A critical point: in many film SLR's before motor drives became integrated, the mirror did NOT return to the critical 45 degree viewing and focusing angle! You had to advance the film advance lever FIRST to tension the mirror for the precise, proper viewing and focusing, otherwise, if you focused first, then advanced the film and exposed the film, the image might be unfocused! As for shutter design (i.e., focal plane shutters, leaf shutters, etc.) maybe I'll 'weigh-in' on that another time.--MurderWatcher1 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Updated my comment: --MurderWatcher1 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the exposure isn't determined by the mirror or even the physical 'curtain' focal-plane shutter. It is an electronic signal that starts and stops the sensor 'counting photons', just the same as in a digital non-SLR. I'm trying to think of film SLRs without an instant-return mirror, and failing. But then I was only born in 1962, when they were already almost universal ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try photographing a CRT computer monitor, which has a scanning spot of light. Film SLR will give a different result if held on its side in 'portrait' mode, a DSLR will give the same result whichever way up ? Of course, your DSLR may work differently ... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Both film and digital SLR will respond to rotation the same way, since both have focal-plane shutters; which rotation does what will depend on whether they are vertical-travel or horizontal-travel shutter, but not on whether you put film or a sensor behind the shutter. I can guarantee that in most DSLRs the exposure is determined by the mechanical shutter itself, not by the timing signals; there may be some half-exceptions, where the exposure start is electronic and the end is determined by the closing shutter (several companies have patented such ideas); I don't know if any of those are actually in use, though. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! Maybe my Nikon D40 is unusual - the experiment above shows that exposure is not determined by a moving slit or curtains opening and closing. Try it with your camera, and review that guarantee ! You can't beat a bit of original research that anyone can do. Of course I would have to publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the self-evident facts to be accepted in Wikipedia ! (Or am I a rare member of a dying breed of CRT-users ? It's not wasteful if your computer & monitor give off about 1kW - then you can turn off the central heating ! LCDs won't work for this test - it's a raster thing.)


 * Pity we can't do this anymore !--195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it turns out that Nikon 'pro-sumer' DSLRS only use the focal-plane shutter for slow speeds ( < 1/90 s), and CCD-gating at higher speeds. Bonus is flash-synch at 1/500 second, cost is blooming streaks if you point it directly at the sun. See Imaging Resource. Interesting ! A little surprising that the Pro Nikon DSLRs don't give you the option. Major software differences ? See Nikonians for a table listing Nikon DSLRs - 'Flash Sync' row shows flash sync speed. I think the 'Slow Sync' mode is also known as 'FP Mode' - the flash is lit (>50,000 flashes per second) while the slit moves from top to bottom (?) of the sensor (can be as slow as 1/25 second). So we can do the 'Lartigue' effect even with flash !


 * NB The Casio EXILIM Pro EX-F1 has dual mechanical/CMOS shutters and achieves 1/40,000 second ! (EVF not DSLR)


 * This info is notable enough for inclusion in the article ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Parallax?
The bit on SLR-like cameras mentions parallax-free views with an EVF, which, while true, seems to me to imply that DSLRs have parallax issues. Being as the view's through the same lens as the picture, of course, DSLRs have no parallax. Silvermink 19:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that bit was badly written. I worked on it a bit, along with a few other related bits, like the term "prosumer" that was applied to SLR-like; my search indicated that's not the an appropriate association.  See what you think.  Dicklyon 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks better. I figured that was what you were getting at with the original writing. Silvermink 17:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not me, but I get your point. That line appears to have been reworked several times before I got involved, not always for the better.  Part of the problem is some editors with a non-neutral point of view trying to steer people away from DSLRs. Dicklyon 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Movie making
As we know, a Canon digital camera was used to shoot the movie Corpse Bride. But because still cameras are designed to take pictures, not shooting movies, some modifications had to be done. Is there ever going to be produced any still cameras from Canon or others that are specially made for movie production?


 * As I comtemplated whether that was a dumb question, how should we know, etc., it finally occurred to me that the answer is obvious: no. Dicklyon 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you don't know, you don't even know how to behave yourself. Remember; No personal attacks.
 * Then who could know? Well, there is a lot of people working in the industry, and if there was any plans or something and they visited this place, maybe they could tell about it. Such a special camera would be a little expensive for ordinary people, but in Hollywood and such that is not a problem, even if just a small amount is made on demand. And in case someone should wonder, when I say movies I mean stop motion animated movies.


 * The question of a "still camera...specifially made for movie production" just seemed self-contradictory enough to deserve a no, but even if you take it seriously as a camera designed for stop-action movie making, then the idea that a mass market camera brand like Canon would make such a thing is very unlikely, imho; and if a major brand camera company employee knew about something like that in the wings, the chance that they would choose to pre-announce it on Wikipedia is also pretty low. Sorry about admitting contemplating that the question might be dumb, though. What's more likely is that a camera specifically designed as a mass market pleaser might include features that makes it easier to use for stop-action movie; my son just made such a movie using a compact digicam, no special features necessary.  The main special feature of that Canon 1Ds, however, was adaptation to Nikon lenses, and you can be pretty sure Canon's not going to provide that feature. So what kind of feature or adaptation do you have in mind? Dicklyon 00:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Still cameras WERE USED for the rotating effects used in the movie "The Matrix". If you can obtain the DVD, there is a clip showing the detail used for creating some of the "rotating" fight scenes between Neo and the Agent character. We may, indeed, see some kind of "bridge-digital" camera if the current Canon TX-1 is any indication of this trend.--MurderWatcher1 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation?
I have tagged the following statement as "original research":-
 * DSLRs dominate the high end of the digital camera market. However, if electronic viewfinders with near-zero lag time, increased reliability, very low power consumption, and good brightness are introduced, and if a good fast AF mechanism that is compatible with using the main sensor for viewing is developed, then non-SLR cameras may become a viable alternative for a large number of people who now use SLRs.'

It comes across as if the author her/himself had written this speculation, which is not acceptable (see No original research).

We can include such speculation if (and only if) it reflects the views of an authoritative/reputable third-party, and is already published elsewhere. In which case we (a) need a reference and (b) Need to rewrite to show whose view it is.

If no reference/evidence is provided sometime soon, it will be removed for the normal reasons.

Fourohfour 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: I wasn't the person who removed this; I'd prefer that the person who did had included their reason in the edit summary, but I've no qualms with it otherwise. Fourohfour 11:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that it was removed before I noticed the tag. I agree with the removal; it's just opinion. Dicklyon 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Slight update for Olympus
The lower section refers to Olympus having four DSLRs including the E-330 with Liveview however there are now currently five in the range - E-1, E-300, E-330, E-500 and the E-400. The E-400 is significant as it's the smallest and lightest DSLR available, coupled with newer compact kit lenses. Since this is a general DSLR page I don't know if the four should be updated to a five and th E-400 information left out although on the other hand it does have significance on the whole. 148.177.129.213 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the E-400 only lasted a few months and was only sold in the European market. It was never introduced into the United States (see www.depreview.com's review of the E-410 which succeeds this camera) and it appears that Olympus was only selling this camera to refine it to the current E-410. I've handled this camera and it appears very good! Reminds me of the older OM mount Olympus cameras which I miss!--MurderWatcher1 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The features have nothing to do with SLR
This article is overly broad, full of stuff that has virtually nothing to do with SLR. None of these features depend on SLR:
 * Parallax-free optical viewfinder
 * Fast phase-detection autofocus
 * Interchangeable lenses
 * Sensor size and quality
 * Depth-of-field control
 * Angle of view
 * Mode dial

There is zero relation between a set of mirrors or lenses internal to the camera and any of these features. They are just features that may or may not be included with any digital camera.

I urge that the in-depth description of features unrelated to SLR technology be removed from this article and put elsewhere. Otherwise, this article is just playing into marketing that these cameras are better simply because they are SLR, when in fact the SLR technology is just a small part of a large package of enhanced features and functionality.

Nova SS 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In many cases the features are not inherently specific to SLR, but they certainly do have something to do with it. Better explanations would be useful when the current disclaimers don't go far enough, but repeated assertions of "nothing to do with" are of little use.  Let's try for meaningful improvements instead.  If you really believe that "nothing to do with" is the correct relationship in some case, please provide a source for that conclusion.  And if you don't believe what is said about the relationship of some of these features to SLRs, feel free to call for citations on questionable assertions.


 * One thing that might be useful would be examples of non-SLRs that have a particular feature; for example, what other kind of camera has a parallax-free optical viewfinder? If you know one, say what it is, and that will be a positive step. Dicklyon 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that "parallax-free optical viewfinder" is a mistake. However, "parallax-free viewfinder" would not be a mistake. The main historical SLR benefit here is "parallax-free", not "optical." (Non-SLR viewfinders were also optical.)


 * I'll throw the question back at you. Prove why any of these have a clear dependence on SLR technology:
 * My responses are intercalated below. Dicklyon 04:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Parallax-free viewfinder
 * The parallax-free OPTICAL viewfinder for the obvious reason that only through-the-lens optical viewing cameras have it; you could count view cameras in this category if what you mean is to further clarify what is meant by optical veiwfinder.
 * Fast phase-detection autofocus (this may have a relationship but only for lack of
 * The type AF requires diverting the main lens optical path to an AF sensor, which requires a mirror. Or, I suppose it could be coupled from a secondary lens, though I've never heard an anyone trying that.
 * Interchangeable lenses
 * That's primarily an inheritance from film cameras, where using interchangable lenses with other than SLR was a pain; the coupling in rangefinders is tricky. And with compact cameras, zooms are good enough that there's little motivation to change lenses, given the limited sensor quality.
 * Sensor size and quality
 * The full-frame size and moderate crop-factor formats were pretty much defined by SLR lens family compatibility. These big sensors naturally give better quality because bigger pixels have higher dynamic range and allow bigger apertures to collect more light.  And the demand for quality is stronger among people with SLR experience.
 * Depth-of-field control
 * As above, it's a size issue.
 * Angle of view
 * Same.
 * Mode dial
 * Again, the market for DSLRs is to some extent based on film SLR experience. The expected standard modes are well known and the extra scene modes are not wanted.
 * Most of these relationships are "soft". That's not the same as "nothing to do with".  Dicklyon 04:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nova SS 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I reverted your reversion because:
 * I did not add text to the article to all these technologies saying they are not connected. Fast phase-detection autofocus may have a relationship, although I even question that one. Still, I did not comment on that one.
 * The obvious conclusion for most of these is that there is no linkage between SLR and the technology (e.g., a mode dial or sensor quality obviously has nothing to do with the construction of the viewing apparatus), so it is the non-obvious conclusion that needs proof.
 * It is quite difficult to prove a negative. Given that, and given that the negative (no link) is the obvious answer for many of these, it is the positive (the proposition that there is a link) that needs documentation and proof.
 * Nova SS 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, we agree. That's why I suggested you ask for citations on things that need proof, instead of asserting an unverifiable negative. Ctrlfreak13 has done pretty well at adding clarifications, I think.  Feel free to add "citation needed" or "dubious" tags on things you think need to be referenced or made more clear or correct. Dicklyon 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide examples of non-SLR, non-rangefinder digital cameras that offer interchangeable lenses. I have also reverted/clarified some of your edits that are inaccurate or a stretch of the truth. Please reply here with any questions, comments, etc. --Ctrlfreak13 04:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * TO USER:Ctrlfreak13: Currently, there aren't any non-SLR, non D-SLR or non-rangefinder digital cameras that use interchangeable lenses. There was in the past, however, a Robot Royal 35mm camera that used interchangeable lenses and it wasn't an SLR or a rangefinder. Robot Royal cameras were mechanically motorized 35mm cameras, some used for surveillance and perhaps time-lapse photography. --MurderWatcher1 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We may soon see such a digital camera in the coming months, depending upon technological advances. I suspect it will be Canon or Nikon who first comes out with such a camera, since both manufacturers have a huge lens selection. You can check this website for any possible news: http://www.photoplusexpo.com/ppe/index.jsp Another website would be for Photokina. --MurderWatcher1 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Large-format cameras generally have interchangeable lenses, yes? And some medium-format, like the old Mamiya TLR.  Also the Foveon studio camera (no longer in production). Dicklyon 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes to the above. Graflex and Linhof, to name a few large format cameras, specifically 4" x 5" cameras, have (or had in the case of the Graflex) interchangeable lenses that were mounted on lens boards custom designed for that camera and then mounted on the front section. The Mamiya Twin Lens Reflex cameras such as the C2, C3, C33 and C22, then the later C330 and C330F used interchangeable lenses designed specifically for that camera. With the Mamiya, however, unless you used the eyelevel viewfinder, which was an accessory, the image would rotate in the opposite direction as you panned the camera left to right (the image would move right to left). Sorry but I'm not familiar with the Foveon studio camera.--MurderWatcher1 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove "The Nikon F-mount and Pentax K-mount systems" section?
I'd like to propose removing this section, or at most reducing the info presented in that section to 2-3 sentences integrated elsewhere in the article. At present it seems out of place in a general article about DSLRs, gives too much of an advertising taste, and is becoming obsolete/incorrect, as Nikon and Pentax are slowly but surely abandoning lens compatibility with their film cameras. --RenniePet 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Nikon is restoring some normal lens campatibility with its new D3, which is nearly full frame. Even so, I regularly use a "normal" 60mm 2.8 AF Micro Nikkor on my DX-lens-based D200 and D70. As regards the K- and F- mounts, if whomever wrote that is correct, I think their unusual capabilities are definitely worth mentions, whether in a separate section or not. It's amazing to me that the micro-Nikkor I noted above will also work in my 1960s F and FTN, and later F2, F3, F5, etc. Motorrad-67 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I know nothing about the Nikon F-mount and Pentax K-mount. It just sticks in my craw that a section lauding them (and putting down the competition) is in the middle of a general article about DSLRs. The message in this section is only relevant for photographers with an existing investment in film bodies and lenses, and is both irrelevant and confusing for everyone else. Looking forward, film cameras are going the way of the LP and rotary dial telephones, and this article is not about film cameras, it's about DSLRs.


 * Anyway, so far it's one vote for removal (or rewrite / integration) and one vote against. Anyone else? --RenniePet 10:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the section heading to "Mount compatibility across camera generations", since that's a topic that can be addressed in a more neutral way. The section should be reworded a bit to not sound like it's promoting one of these mounts, but the basic info in the section seems OK. Dicklyon 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments below on "Creeping Essays and Nonsense". I vote 'No' on removing information about Nikon F-mount and K-mount lenses, as well as other mounts in general. This information is useful for a 'newbie' who is just starting out and wants to put together a good "cheap" system. If the beginner buys a used beat-up Nikon, think how delighted that person would be if he/she discovered, when he/she had more money, that the same lens could be used on a digital SLR? I know I would, if I were starting out. Besides, isn't the whole point here about 'mentoring'? Look at what Motorrad-67 wrote above. I agree with him as, I not only have a 60mm Micro Nikkor, but I also have a 105 f/2.8 Micro Nikkor and the difficult to get 70-180mm Micro Nikkor. Someone starting out, say, in Forensics Photography wouldn't just 'want' these lenses; he/she would NEED THESE LENSES. So why not 'mentor' a new user on the in's and out's of photographic equipment and at the same time teach using this article? If I were an instructor, you can bet that I would definitely discuss equipment. --MurderWatcher1 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See below. --RenniePet 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Creeping essays and nonsense
The article has recently had a flood of edits from a few guys with lots of opinions and sidetracks and no sources. The article suffers from lack of sources in general. Anyone who can help to adding sources for statements, adding fact tags where needed, removing unsourcable stuff, etc. is welcome to help. But please hold off on the essays, opinions, and Nikon-DX-specific stuff. Dicklyon 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if I'm one of the "guys with lots of opinions and sidetracks and no sources" that Dicklyon is talking about. If so please say so and I'll stop my current efforts.


 * Otherwise, I agree that the current article, or at least the way it was a couple of days ago, is a mess, and unless I'm asked to stop I intend to slowly but surely work my way through it. Among other things I propose doing:
 * move some of the stuff about lenses to a separate article, "Lenses for SLRs and DSLRs" (but Dicklyon beat me to it by simply deleting much of it :-)
 * gather everything not specifically about DSLRs into a section contrasting DSLRs with non-DSLRs, and cut it down somewhat.
 * re-organize the current "DSLR design considerations" section, where subjects are thrown in with no apparent order.


 * Comments welcome. --RenniePet 09:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC) --RenniePet 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rennie, I didn't pay that much attention to who did what; I changed a few of your edits but they're mostly OK, so sorry if I sounded like you were part of the problem. Thanks for your support. Dicklyon 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * > I changed a few of your edits ...
 * No problem, that's how one learns :-) --RenniePet 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Creeping Essays and Nonsense? Well, am I one of the people who is being mentioned here? I found the page about two weeks ago in Wikipedia and decided, from memory of reading 40 years of Popular Photography, Modern Photography, U.S. Camera (a discontinued magazine), and various other periodicals, to make this page more legible and understandable. I currently don't have that periodical material at hand but I certainly think that Nikon is a major player in mentioning their products, as well as the other manufacturers. It's not 'nonsense' as Nikon, in addition to the non-SLR at the time, the Leica M, were two 35mm cameras that played an important role in covering the Vietnam War and other conflicts since the early 1960's. Nikons were used routinely to cover the early phases of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space flights using the 250-exposure film back and motor drive to capture the launch of the various rockets used. How many other motor-driven SLR's were being used for that? Leave out Nikon? Well, let's also leave out some of the other manufacturers, and then those 'newbies'j to photography using Wikipedia to check out the history of photographic instruments will not know or understand the impact of photographic equipment 'evolution'. To me, it's just too important to leave out.--MurderWatcher1 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First two disclaimers: 1. I still consider myself to be a relative newbie on Wikipedia, so my opinions may not have much weight. 2. I like Olympus and their Four Thirds System, partly because they went into DSLRs with a whole new system designed 100% for digital - that appeals to me.


 * This article is about Dslr's. Digital SLRs. DIGITAL slr's, to try to make a point. DSLRs do not have a history of covering the Vietnam War or the early space flights. So that kind of historical nostalgia has no place here.


 * I envision the typical person coming to this page as someone who is considering moving up from a non-SLR film camera, a digicam or maybe even a mobile telephone camera, and who wants to know what DSLRs are all about. Any discussion of film cameras, lens compatibility with film cameras, or the Vietnam War is irrelevant and confusing for this person.


 * I also see myself in an abstract way as trying to give good advice to someone I want to help as much as possible. Considering the situation today, and my expectation that within the near future it will become difficult to buy film or get film developed and printed, I feel no desire to recommend anything based on a compatibility with film cameras. (Film will be problematic sooner than most film-lovers expect - but remember how quickly it became impossible to buy LPs and turntables when CDs took over the audio market?)


 * Enough rambling. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. :-) --RenniePet 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment to the above statements: "Yes, I know that DSLR's weren't in the Vietnam war but this page is a "Discussion Page" and we're talking about DSLR's and SLR's in general. DSLR's came from film camera manufacturers and I see no problem in putting in the information here as a discussion only. --MurderWatcher1 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MurderWatcher1, you're the main guy I was referring to. Your long unsourced essays of recollections, opinions, and interpretations are not what are needed to improve the article. And some of it was just nonsense, like the bit about a 20 mm lens becoming a 30 mm lens on a DX-format rangefinder camera (for two reasons: the format doesn't change the focal length, and Nikon doesn't apply their DX brand to other people's cameras). I'm sure you can help improve the article if you'll stick to the facts. Too bad this article got long with few sources, but let's make it better, not worse. And keep the focus on DSLRs please. Dicklyon 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you didn't read the top of the Discussion Page where it says:
 * Be polite
 * Assume good faith
 * No personal attacks
 * Be welcoming


 * Pretty arrogant, considering that I'm only adding to a body of knowledge here. Why don't you check on the history of this page before I 'weighed-in' and then you'll see that I added considerably to a page that needed some information from an experienced and knowledgable photographer. Nonsense? I didn't add 'nonsense' as you refer to it. Also I think that you know what I had meant to say, re: "the bit about a 20 mm lens becoming a 30 mm lens on a DX-format rangefinder camera". I wasn't discussing a CHANGE in focal length, rather a change in the angle of view as, the DX sensor (which is what other writer's are calling it, not me, or would you prefer APS size sensor?) doesn't give you the full angle of view as a full-frame sensor would. A person considering a digital rangefinder over a classic Leica might be disappointed by the results, assuming he was discussing same with a rangefinder film camera enthusiast. If I put my 20mm Nikkor on my Nikon D200, I won't be receiving the same angle of view as if I had put that same optic on a full-frame 35mm film SLR. I believe this lens gives 94 degrees on the diagonal; it won't give that on a DX format sensor, which I understand that rangefinder enthusiasts, especially Leica users, would be very concerned about (BTW, I did own a Leica IIIf for about one week; the shutter had problems so I had to return it). Finally, as I was on Vacation last week, doing panoramic photography up in Boston, I didn't have a chance to see your comments sooner. I don't think I'm making the page 'worse' but I find that as an editor that I have to add, edit, step back and think about what I'm putting in; ask myself hard questions, etc. So, I might have changed a few of my own edits given more time. Give me time and I will add in source materials, unless of course you want to do that yourself? Hmmm! MurderWatcher1 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I was blunt or sounded arrogant, but the "essays and nonsense" bit was intended to be a comment on the content, not the person; I assume and hereby acknowledge your good faith in these edits, and apologize for not being more welcoming; but enough about me. The big problem with the contributions is that they are long on opinions and short on sources, so they make a lot of extra work for others to clean up in the future.  I completely understood what you meant about the 20 mm and the DX format, but the way is was said was incorrect, the DX format is a Nikon-only concept, and the lengthy discussion of rangefinders was way off-topic, so I did not think it appropriate to spend the effort to try to repair it. I hope you can see this feedback as constructively intended, and focus on making contributions that I would not categorize as either essays or nonsense.  Dicklyon 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Boys, boys, boys. Forgive my intrusion. Life is too short and Wikipedia is just not important in the grand scheme of things. In a few billion years, the Earth will boiled up and roasted into a cinder by the sun when it becomes a red giant, and all of humanity will be vaporized. This realization always helps with my perspective on life. What we do today is, in cosmic terms, completely irrelevant. So, be calm and avoid becoming aggravated. Motorrad-67 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorrad-67 (talk • contribs)


 * You know what that means, Motorrad? It means that Superman has no more super powers because he can only have them under a Yellow Sun!  This is assuming that he'll live for a few billion years, right?  ;}  Seriously, when (and that's a big 'WHEN') I finally get my photography magazines and re-research this material as, it really is very important that 'newbie' photographers come to love this craft as we do, then I'll put references in (try doing cite refs!  I hate them!) The only camera that I've ever hated is the one that doesn't work at all and I haven't encountered too many of those.  Again, to Dicklyon, I hear what you're saying, but understand that the page was a 'mess' from its creation. I didn't criticize anyone else for creating the page as, the previous people did a good job considering and I'm glad they did. Those people are probably coming from a digital camera background and they didn't play with all these 'toys' and you and I probably did, or attend all the photography shows either. As this is an online encyclopedia, the article should not have any set length. My understanding of regular encyclopedias is that they will continue a topic over a number of pages if need be. Speaking of Photography Shows, guys, log onto:

http://www.photoplusexpo.com/ppe/index.jsp


 * I'm definitely going to this show and if you gentlemen are in the New York area, you should attend also.--MurderWatcher1 21:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was there peddling my wares a few years back, but not doing that any more. Thanks for your efforts, and as I said above, sorry about being overly blunt in my feedback.  I agree that the article has been a mess for a long time, and will be happy to work with you to try to fix that.  Dicklyon 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me but I'll need time to retrieve my old magazines which are in 'storage' (assuming that they haven't been eaten up by the mice, that is! If I had enough time, I'd PDF everything!--MurderWatcher1 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Let's take this JPEG out

 * [[Image:Kodak DCS Pro SLR-c.jpg|thumb|right|The Kodak SLR/c: a full-frame DSLR]]

This image:

shows a DSLR that has been discontinued for quite some time. Kodak has said that since its discontinuance, which I believe was around 2005 or 2006, that they will only support this camera for 3 years; the Kodak Pro 14N, which uses a Nikon mount is also among those discontinued.--MurderWatcher1 21:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad photo. I'd leave it until we have a better one to replace it with. Dicklyon 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll see if I can take photographs of full-frame DSLR's at the upcoming PhotoPlus Expo.--MurderWatcher1 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Matte Focusing Screen Placement Discussion
Dicklyon: In the Digital Single Lens Reflex page, why did you undo one of my previous edits which said:


 * A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an automatic mirror system placed between the lens and the image sensor to direct the image from the lens through the viewfinder where it can be viewed by the photographer. The viewfinder includes a matte focusing screen located above the moving mirror, diffusing the light, allowing it to pass through the condenser lens, where it is reflected twice to the eyepiece, then to the photographer's eye. This system allows accurate viewing, focusing and composition.

And put this text in instead:


 * A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an automatic mirror system placed between the lens and the image sensor to direct the image from the lens through the viewfinder where it can be viewed by the photographer. The viewfinder includes a matte focusing screen at its focal plane, to allow accurate focusing and to allow the light into the prism that directs the light through the viewfinder.

The only time a matte focusing screen is at or near the the focal plane is when there is a discussion of View Cameras or some Graflex Press cameras, not SLR’s and DSLRs. The focusing screen is clearly situated above the reflex mirror and underneath the pentaprism housing. Further: If you check the image in the section: "DSLR design principles", you'll clearly see the placement of the focusing screen. If my text gets changed, then the caption for this image has to change as well, otherwise there is a conflict. Further: Your edit comment:


 * "its" refers the focal plane that is viewed by the finder, not the one where the film is; the mirror chooses one or the other. using TW)

The mirror doesn't 'choose' anything. It is simply part of the viewing mechanism for reflecting the light from the lens to the focusing screen. The only time the focal plane should be discussed is when there is a discussion of film or the focal plane shutter. Your statement is very confusing! We're talking about the "placement" of the focusing screen in relation to the rest of the DSLR design. This was what I was trying to clarify and why I worded that paragraph.--MurderWatcher1 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The mirror determines whether the focal plane of the objective is at the film plane or at the viewfinder screen. That is, the viewfinder system includes its own focal plane, which is used then the mirror is down.  The point of my edit was to make it clear that the screen is at a focal plane; it doesn't just "diffuse the light, allowing it to pass through the condenser lens."  It's true it's not always "matte", but if anything diffuses the light, that thing has to be at the focal plane of system with reflex mirror down.  The other focal plane only comes into play with the mirror up; in that sense the mirror chooses between them.


 * As the figure you refer to shows, the matte focusing screen (5) is located such that the rays from the lens converge at its frosted surface (the top surface, apparently, in this sketch). That makes it a focal plane.


 * Dicklyon 06:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a new concept as far as I can determine, and I've never heard of this before. I know from reading your UserPage that you have a considerable amount of knowledge about light and light theory but from any photography articles that I have read, all of these agreed with what I had put in. What you're saying, in effect, is that with SLR and DSLR designs, there are 'two' focal planes; one at the film plane and the other, by your reasoning, at the focusing screen. My understanding was that there was one, and only one, and that 'focal plane' was always associated as being at the film plane. I feel that this explanation will confuse any readers. It certainly confuses me a little just to read all of this. I can concede that light is coming to 'a focus' around the matte focusing screen, but the general concept of 'focal plane', to my understanding of talking with photographers, is that it is always located at the film plane, not in the viewfinder system. If we're going to keep your edit, then this matter has to be further clarified, otherwise I vote for my edit.--MurderWatcher1 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, my terminology does seem to be a bit unusual; so I took out "at its focal plance". Let me know what other changes are needed, or work on it from there. Dicklyon 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it in more detail tomorrow. In the meantime, maybe you'd like to look at the other photography pages I have also been editing. Just check on my contributions and you'll see. Single Lens Reflex is one of the Wikipedia that needs a good look-at. To be honest, when I 'discovered' these pages, I found I had issues with all of them in one category or another. FYI, an unknown user just made some interesting edits to the page.--MurderWatcher1 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)