On 2008-01-02, Don Foreman wrote:
On 2 Jan 2008 04:03:27 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:
[ ... ]
Actually it is *not* a digital SLR. Note the wording from the
auction:
================================================== ====================
You're viewing an Olympus C-2500L
I used this camera Until I could afford the Expensive Lenses and Body of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more expensive DSLR.
It is an excellent reliable camera that gives you some of the control of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an SLR Camera without all the associated costs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
================================================== ====================
So -- it may do what is needed here -- but it is not (and does
not claim to be) a DSLR. Two physical differences:
1) A SLR (digital or non) has a moving mirror which redirects
the image to the viewfinder. From the location of the
viewfinder eyepiece, I don't think that this is the case here.
I *think* that what it has is an internal display in the
viewfinder, which could slow it down as much as using the
external display.
2) A SLR has interchangeable lenses. This one has only a fixed
zoom lens.
[ ... ]
O.K. Just don't call it a DSLR. :-)
See
http://www.steves-digicams.com/c2500.html
The viewfinder does indeed view optically thru the lens. When I press
the shutter I can hear the mirror slap within if I put my ear right on
the camera. It's a quiet "tic tic", and the viewfinder goes
momentarily dark when that happens.
O.K. So it has the mirror -- but most would not call this an
SLR. Instead they would call it a "ZLR" (zoom lens reflex).
There is no electronic viewfinding function on this digital camera
because the image sensor is obscured by the mirror when viewfinding.
O.K. ZLR.
This camera gets considerably better battery life than most digital
cameras because it need not ever use the LCD display to take photos.
Agreed that that is one of the major killers of battery life.
SLR literally means "single lens reflex". Many SLR's do indeed have
interchangable lenses, but that is not a condition for being an SLR.
The closest to that which I have ever had was the Zeiss
Contaflex -- which had only the front element of the lens
interchangeable, because it had a between-the-lens leaf shutter. The
Kodak Retina had the leaf shutter, but just behind the interchangeable
lens. The medium format SLRs like the Hasselblad have interchangeable
lenses with shutters included in each lens -- the expensive way to go.
Normally -- the major benefit of the reflex design is to allow
focusing and accurate framing with interchangeable lenses. No parallax
problems, unlike with a rangefinder -- or with a TLR (Twin Lens Reflex)
such as the Rolliflex.
Even the earliest SLR which I have known of -- the Graphflex --
had interchangeable lenses (just as the Speed and Crown Graphics had,
mostly for 4x5 film. The Graphflex was far from the most convenient
camera to use -- but it did get around the parallax problem at least.
If you go into newsgroups such as rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,
you will have to work to find anyone who would be willing to call a ZLR
a SLR.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. |
http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---