6 Jul
2011
6 Jul
'11
2:30 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 06:48:22PM +0100, Tony Duell wrote:
So far, the only two filters I've got for my DSLR are a polarized filter
and a simple highly transmissive UV filter. The later is pretty much
permanently mounted with it's primary duty to protect the lens against
dirt, water, scratches ... UV filters (even the good ones) are cheap,
lenses aren't.
What, including interchangeable finders, flashbulb synchronisation, etc :-)
Flash sync - sure, that is pretty much standard. Depending on manufacturer,
there are various more or less capable and complex flash systems one
can setup. Interchangeable finders, hmm, probably not so. However, if
Nikon/Canon can't deliver what you want, I'm sure Hasselblad probably can.
But then you are entering "If you have to ask for the price, you can't
afford it" territory ;-)
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Well, the
compact digital cameras usually target the point&shoot market.
True :-(
While they may have computationally expensive
features like face detection,
smile detection, ... they tend to aim for a rather simple user interface
and usually omit anything the casual (not even hobby) photographer usually
doesn't need.
Yeahbut eve some of myu cheaper film cameras have filter mounts and cable
release sockets. But I guess filters are less important on point-n-shoot
cameras than they used to be (you don't need the well-known yellow filter
[1] to enhace the clound effects on black-and-white film with a digital
camera, you don't need colour correction filters, at least not in a
point-n-shoot) , etc. So I would not have assuemd thatr digital SLRs
would allow me to do everytthing my 50-year-old Exakta Varex will do.
A good DSLR should allow you to do that.