Kuwait Bans DSLR Cameras Use For Non-Journalists 446
DaveNJ1987 writes "Kuwait has banned the use of Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras in public places for anyone who is not a journalist. The ban, which was passed by the unanimous agreement of the country's Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Information and Ministry of Finance, prevents the public from using DSLR devices on the streets of the Middle Eastern State. Tourists are to be affected by the new laws and must be aware of this before travelling to Kuwait. Smaller digital cameras and camera phones are exempt from the ban."
funny and ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:funny and ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
An ironic twist I think... I know many people whose DSLR pictures totally suck because the camera is beyond their ability to master even simple photographs. Also, ironically, anyone who would want useful information from digital pictures can readily shoot quality pictures with non-DSLR digital cameras. Is this for real?
I think the idea is to cut back on some form of spying. Lets face it, if you are a journalist, you want REALLY good pictures for your articles, like national Geographic quality if possible. Thats why they're allowed DSLR's.
But if I'm a spy, and I see a hand off going on between some military personel and some 'civilian' - I'll be all dressed up as a tourist with my nice HUUUUUGE Telephoto lens, snap a few quick shots. If someone gets suspicious you either delete the pictures if you don't have much time or if you think you can without noticing, switch out the memory card.
Asta Lasaugna, don't get any onya.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Forgot to mention: the point being that you can't get that kind of zoom level with a regular digital camera, in case I didn't make that point obvious.
Actually Point and shoots zoom better than SLRs (Score:2)
The tiny thumbnail size sensor makes those 14x and up supper zooms possible. My 400mm on my SLR is huge in comparison. On my full frame sensor is 400 on my crop sensor SLR its about 600mm.
here are the class of camera I'm talking about.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q110superzoomgroup/ [dpreview.com]
Of course these don't work well in low light....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. It's 400mm in both cases, You've conflated field of view with magnification. The lens puts the same image at the focal plane; the crop sensor doesn't capture the edges (because the sensor is smaller) and this gives you the same field of view as a 640mm lens, but the information in the crop isn't any larger.
There are only two factors that affect captured magnification: One is the lens; the other is the sensel density on the senso
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On a side note, despite what some security officers or law enforcement might say, they can't force you to delete the photos under any circumstance. Either it is not illegal for you to take the photo or it is and you'd be destroying evidence. Which they can't order you to d
Re:Actually Point and shoots zoom better than SLRs (Score:5, Funny)
All the birds in Kuwait are covered up and not worth photographing.
Re: (Score:2)
My old Canon S1IS had a 380mm equivalent lens on it http://goo.gl/jxdxu [goo.gl]
and my present Panasonic ZS5 has a 300mm equivalent in a pretty small pocket camera.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of non-DSLR cameras that support a variety of lense mounting standards. For example, micro four-thirds cameras (non-DSLR) can use four-thirds lenses (DSLR) via adapters, at which point you can get those same HUUUUUGE Telephoto lens on a non-DSLR camera like the Lumix GF2, which has a body very similar to most point-and-shoots.
Re:funny and ironic (Score:5, Informative)
Re:funny and ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Annnnd..... you missed the point entirely. You CAN build a 500x zoom for a p&s. period.
Oh so wrong. A 500mm lens is easy to build (well, 500mm in 35mm equivalence. A 500X lens would be an incredible feat. Lets say it's 10mm on the wide end (VERY close to fisheye). That would be a 10mm-5000mm lens. Hell, you find me a 5000mm lens on any system and I commend you. Technical knowledge, you know not.
Lenses are not special on dslrs in any technical sense of the word. I specifically said that dslrs are more capable of producing better pictures. My recommendations on limiting quality are also more effective than the uninformed "ban all dslr" policy that is in place.
Lenses on dSLRs are not special in any sense of the word. The issue is that your caps on pixel count is absurd on small format lenses. Diffraction, the scattering of light passing through an eyelit, as modified by smaller absolute apertures (although equivalent relative apertures), limits the camera's ability to resolve beyond 8-10MP. Even the significantly larger 4/3rd sensor on the Olympus and Panasonic system is diffraction limited to f/6ish. So, your arbitrary limitations would be useless and simply limit a company's ability to market their new 50bajillion megapixel camera to the public. It's as arbitrary as banning dSLR cameras.
Yes, i know that you really can only subjectively measure quality, and sensor size matters when calculating relative zoom, but that isnt practical as a policy. What would be practical would be banning higher powered lenses, and limiting quality of sensor.
"Higher powered lenses" are an arbitrary assignment. Are you saying banning telephoto lenses beyond a certain throw is a good idea? 'cause that MIGHT be more worthwhile. I can find you a 1x lens that can spy a rivet on a bridge across town easily. Again, the multiplier has no bearing.
Issue is, how does anyone enforce that? Smaller sensor cameras use smaller lenses. There are some amazing 300mm+ lenses on P&S cameras that fold up into the body. Do we have all police become considerably more technically sound than yourself?
It all reeks of political stupidity. Are they also banning EVIL cameras (no reflex mirror)? Interchangeable lens systems? Does that include adapters screwed onto the front of fixed lens systems?
Point is, what you propose is nothing more than what they propose. It's all stupidity by those with no technical knowledge on the subject area.
So you can act like a smug dick all day, but to imply that the slr aspect of a camera is what defines its capacities is wrong. Just. Wrong.
Awwwwww.....did you not comprehend my previous post? Exactly my point. You, and those like you, are sadly the ones making these arbitrary rules.
It's about keeping track of journalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OK, '640mm effective' or '640mm equivalent' are bad nomenclature.
The problem is that in the past there was only 35mm, so focal lengths were usually used instead of angle of view.
And the tradition has gone on of quoting an equivalent focal length for small sensor lenses, because it is easier for people to compare different cameras by using the 'equivalent' focal length - People have a good feel of what to expect from a 200mm lens compared to a 28mm lens.
Its too late to change it. Just get used to it - a 840m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:funny and ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
How exactly these beliefs persist, I'm not quite sure, when any moron who spends ten minutes in the camera aisle at Best Buy can see that contemporary happy-snapper gear is pretty competent(particularly when paired with contemporary flash memory that will give said happy-snapper 10,000 chances to get it right for under $40...) and trivially available stuff like Photosynth [photosynth.net] demonstrates the power of huge numbers of shoddy images combined with some algorithmic cleverness...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It has been discussed many, many times. Belief beats fact. Fear beats belief and fact. This seems to apply to everyone across the board. It's like the anti-gun groups who conveniently ignore the reduction in crime in the US states where CHLs are issued and continue to cry "blood in the streets." It simply doesn't matter how much fact you shovel out. They won't see anything but what they want to see... and by "they" I mean pretty much everyone including you and me.
Re:funny and ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what you believe. The fact is that gun control prevents gun crime:
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm [converge.org.nz]
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms [nationmaster.com]
Re:funny and ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also apparent that the overall homicide rate is consistent with the trend prior to the enactment of the gun bans of '94-'96.
I'm not sure why Aussies seem to think it better to be stabbed or beaten to death than to be shot, but more power to you, I guess. Myself, I prefer to be able to adequately defend myself.
Yeah sure. (Score:5, Insightful)
USians simply don't grasp the fact that, bar war zones, they live in some of the places with the highest homicide rates in the world.
The mental blockage to link phallic enthusiasm for guns and homicide rates eludes other wise reasonable pople (oh wait, half of you would vote for Sarah Palin if given a chance. Forget what I said)....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except most of the murders are not committed using guns, and even if you excluded gun murders the US would still have a very high murder rate by developed country standards. On the ohter hand lots of places have high gun ownership and low murder rates.
When the UK strengthened enforcement of its guns laws (i.e. making for effort to find and seize illegal guns) the result was an increase in knife murders.
I have always lived in countries where civilian use of guns is tightly restricted, and my instinct is to s
Re:Yeah sure. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have always lived in countries where civilian use of guns is tightly restricted, and my instinct is to sympathise with the ban, but I think the "guns don't kill people. people kill people" lot have the facts on their side.
Ah, but that's clearly not reading the statistics right. The correct formulation would be, "Guns don't kill people. Americans kill people." If you contrast the prevalence of guns in e.g. Norway (tons of guns, more than the US) the adage becomes "Americans with handguns kill people."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean countries/territories like:
El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Guatemala, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, South Africa, Belize, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Mexico, Russia, Swaziland, Panama, Paraguay, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Costa Rica, Suriname, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, Lithuania, Thailand, Zambia, Belarus, Barbados, Seychelles, Uganda, Georgia, Estonia, Ukraine, Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Namibia, Kenya, Argentina?... In that order
Re:Yeah sure. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, which of these countries are at a development-level comparable to USA ? Does even a single one of them have a GDP/person that's atleast 1/3rd of that in usa ?
Can you find me a country where wealth/person is atleast half of USA, and where homicide-rates are comparable ?
If you're happy to beat Kenya, then yeah, fine, more power to you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It didn't affect many people since not many people had semi-automatic weapons anyway. It was a reaction to an event where a guy with a semi-automatic rifle killed 35 people and wounded 21 others. The answer to all the "they could have defended themselves with a handgun" idiots is to think about reality and not movies where the her
you dirty bastard (Score:2)
Anybody got some pointers for FOSS photogrammetry systems?
goddamnit, can slashdot misinterpret allegedly valid html worse?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Non-SLR digital cameras have gotten very good in recent years. As an old-school 35mm SLR user, there are times I'd love to have a DSLR, but a 10MP non-reflex camera with a 10X optical zoom lens (such as the one I have) can take pretty much the exact same photos, albeit with marginally lower image quality due to the optics. So they're accomplishing nothing except to require amateur photographers to use smaller and less expensive cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or for digital cameras with huge interchangeable lenses that AREN'T single-lens-reflex. These days, sensors are fast enough to show full motion video on the screen on the back and don't really need a viewfinder if you trust auto-focus.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need any reminders that the middle east is not the USA, remember the hikers that are still hanging out in Iranian prison for being spies with no proof or evidence.
Uh, I'm no fan of the Iranian rulers, and I can think of many other reasons why the American system of government is vastly better to Iran's, but we've held a lot more foreign nationals indefinitely without evidence in the last decade. And although lots of Iranians have died under "questioning" in their prisons, so far there's no indicatio
Re:funny and ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.
This is why top photographers prefer disposable film cameras over DSLRs.
Oh, wait...
A good photographer can take good pictures with any camera -- but only because he factors the capabilities of the camera into the decision of which shots to take. Many images which could be captured with the flexibility provided by a high-end DSLR with the right lens cannot be captured effectively with a cheap point & shoot. Good equipment provides options. A poor photographer won't know how to use those options, b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the cameras we have today (even the point and shoots) are MILES above the top of the line film cameras from even a couple decades ago
Then that explains why my fiancee, who is a photographer, is holding on to her 1967 Pentax SLR for dear life?
There are a lot more widgets on modern cameras, to be sure, and they're very helpful to people who take shots kind of at random. And of course not having to worry about burning through rolls of film -- so you can, for instance, take ten shots of the same thing and hope one of them turns out well -- is great. But the quality of the optics is no better than it used to be.
Also, until very recently, th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they're really not. A good film SLR from a couple of decades ago would likely have metering and probably even auto-e
what about non-digital SLRs? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about regular SLR cameras? Why ban D(igital)SLR cameras?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what about non-digital SLRs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or what about interchangeable lens cameras with an LED-based "viewfinder" that do not actually use a reflex mirror? I think they're called by some "bridge cameras", and I'm not entirely sure I understand what the advantage of the reflex mechanism is for a digital camera. (for a film camera, yeah, I completely understand. But those reasons mostly don't translate to digial *at all*.)
In reality, I suspect that the term DSLR is being abused similarly to "assault weapons" is in the US. The law really means any camera that looks too scary to be permitted to civilians, and the real definition will be defined ex post facto.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Kuwait does not need your tourism dollars, they have oil.
They do need your help to keep their neighbors from ripping them a new a-hole now and then, but we pretty much took care of that problem recently enough they don't care much about that any more either.
I agree (Score:5, Funny)
What what? (Score:2)
Why? Is there any reason at all for this ban? Help me out here.
Tyrants don't need a reason... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They did it because they can, and because nobody will punish them for their temerity with a bullet in the head.
They can't be tyrants because we, the US of A, liberated the Kuwaiti Royal Family and this monarchy from the evils of Saddam Hussein; which we then invaded Iraq to free its people from the oppressive tyranny of that tyrant in order to install a democracy.
Don't you just love US foreign policy?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like it must be some nonsensical knee jerk response for the sake of security or some crap. Seems like a typical blind bureaucratic action or something...
If you spend a few more bucks on your point and shoot, you can get pretty close to the same quality as a DSLR.
Re: (Score:2)
Oppressive government that hates society and is trying to hide something.
It makes it easy to target people that are "journalists" and require fees or kickbacks.
It also eliminates people from having 300+mm telephotos to take photos of "secrets" from a distance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Is there any reason at all for this ban? Help me out here.
I guess they don't want HQ telephotography of abuse of power from safe locations etc, where they won't even know who's photographing them so they can't see who they should arrest. :-p
However... Smaller digital cameras OK? Uh, what about the Canon SX30 IS with 35x zoom? That's better than my Nikon D90 with my 200mm lens. While perhaps not the same optical quality, this doesn't matter at all unless they're trying to ban photographs with a nice bokeh, or low noise levels, haha. :p
What about 35mm? (Score:2)
Back when digital photography was in its infancy, what I did was shoot pictures with 35mm film, and then mount the negatives as slides, and fed them into a slide scanner.
As far as I can tell, none of the technology involved in that workflow would come under this ban. So...?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but with high quality 35MM film, you can get a MUCH higher resolution scan out of a negative than your typical DSLR can produce. High end 35MM film will capture the equivalent of 30MP+ images.
I have to ask... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually your typical point and shoot has a much deeper optical zoom than most DSLR lenses. a 10x telephoto lens for a DSLR is hundred or even thousands of dollars. Most point and shoots do 10x optical or better. Heck, my cheap digital camcorder does 30x optical, 40x digital.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Talking about 10x or 20x is irrelevant. Ten times what? A 200-400mm lens is technically only 2x, but it goes further than any point and shoot camera. Most point and shoot cameras start at around 20-30mm and go to about 100-200mm focal distance, since that's the range most people want.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Seriously, what benefit is there banning DSLRs over other cameras? It can't be the existence of telephoto lenses, because there are lots of compacts that have large zooms. Maybe it's a war on artful, quality photos?
Ok, seriously, people need to stop talking like a DSLR and a compact one is essentially the same. You have clearly not tried to shoot photos at extreme distances in low light. The difference between a quality DSLR in the hands of an expert versus a compact ones can be very extreme depending on environmental factors. Here in the states, the place I've seen it come up on the most is at concerts, where a DSLR with a good lens will make the pictures appear like you've got front row seats when you're really u
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why? Seriously, what benefit is there banning DSLRs over other cameras? It can't be the existence of telephoto lenses, because there are lots of compacts that have large zooms. Maybe it's a war on artful, quality photos?
Not only that... but there are non-SLRs that have Telephoto lenses you can attach, I am pretty sure. Some of the compacts with Zoom capabilities are probably SLRs, technically
There are some "SLR-LIKE" cameras that are not SLRs, because they have a separate viewfinder which does not loo
illegal in USA too? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The current police filming incidents are headed to the supreme court, where they will be overturned.
This makes journalists easy to identify. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, large DSLR cameras are seemingly indistinguishable from weapons when viewed from helicopter. I seem to recall the murder/slaughter of civilians video showing a photographer carrying equipment being slaughtered while someone in the audio was saying "he's got a weapon!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's any camera. I've shot at people on a paintball field before because the photographer was in an aiming stance pointing at my teammates in a location I was expecting to find opposing players.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can identify a journalist by his camera, it's easier to target journalists when you want to keep "bad news" from leaving the country.
It's not just that. It's also a lot easier to dismiss blurry evidence from a dinky little camera not suited to capturing fast action. I wonder how hybrids and high end interchangable lens non-DSLR cameras are classified. I was actually wondering how long it would take before some country banned (or licensed, with onerous requirements) cameras altogether. I guess Kuwait is leading the way...
Photography is Not a Crime! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oops, I guess it is.
http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248 [pixiq.com]
darn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've barely used my film SLR since I bought my digital SLR. As far as I know, my DSLR does far more than my film SLR (Nikon D80 vs Nikon F75). In fact, I will likely trade it in soon to get myself a new lens for my DSLR.
I can take hundreds of photos for little cost, and keep them all or strip out the few that came out blurry because I was in a rush. I can do auto-exposure bracketing to
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I'll just use my old fashioned SLR and scan the developed photos. SLR is superior anyways, but that's another story
Good luck with that. You know it's a totalitarian state rivaling anything else you have heard of like Iran, cuba, north korea, etc. The difference is they have the money to take care of problems created by totalitarianism...
Kuwaiti police: I see you have a large professional camera, surely you know that those are prohibited unless you have a clearly displayed journalist ID badge
Photographer: Ah ha, but this is a regular film SLR camera and not a digital one like the ban said!
Kuwaiti police: (points autom
Tourists? (Score:2)
Does Kuwait have a booming tourism industry or something? I don't understand why they'd do this.
Seriously, between idiots saying I can't take photos on or near their property, and police believing they have the right to seize or delete my photos, a lot of countries seem increasingly hostile to the notion of photography.
WTF?
So digital is now "haram" (Score:2)
Along with porkchops and chitlins.
Maybe they believe DSLRs will steal their souls... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe DSLRs are considered big enough to steal souls while camera phones and point-and-shoots just aren't big enough to hold a soul.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they think it's OK if journalists steal souls?
Well, it's only fair. After all, they've already sold their own.
video cameras are next... (Score:2)
my flip video recorder is laughing very loudly.
They didn't quite think this one through... (Score:2)
I have a compact camera that fits in my pocket that takes *better* pictures than my big DSLR did; I have a (sadly, no longer working) Nikon D1X that is exactly what a professional camera looks like; big body, takes all Nikon lenses, but only shoots 5mp. Compact cameras can shoot up to 14mp, last time I looked. Say what you will about the lens, compact cameras can produce spy-agency-worthy images of ... uh ... whatever is spy-agency-worthy in Kuwait.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can easily buy DSLRs up into the 16 megapixel range. The fact that you bought one when they didn't have anywhere near the resolution of film doesn't indicate a problem with DSLRs, it makes you an early adopter who got stung.
Digital Self Loading Rifles (Score:3, Funny)
God Bless Kuwait (Score:2)
Isn't everybody glad that Americans fought and died to liberate Kuwait in the early '90s? They are praising George Washington as they revel in freedom!
I say we just withdraw from the entire Middle East. With the money we spend over there we could be on a hydrogen economy pretty quick.
This makes so much sense... (Score:2)
...because as we all *know*, terrorists only ever use DSLRs. Me, armed with a 14.6 megapixel Sony NEX and a small kit zoom lens can only produce crappy quality pictures which are easily outmatched by even my n-year old 6 megapixel Pentax SLR with the same zoom.
Unless of course they want to crack down on journalists - but then journos are exempt.
Okay, so maybe they're having a go at the camera manufacturers who wouldn't pay a bribe - but then the same manufacturers also make small cameras too.
Ok, I'm stumped
Tourists?! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Tourists are to be affected by the new laws..."
What tourists?! I live and work in Kuwait... As a country, it's really not a tourist hotspot! Any tourist coming here, even if they took snaps of the the most interesting features, would leave with only images of scrubby desert, busy highways, shopping malls, a few skyscrapers, and the Kuwait Towers.
But, yes, it's a daft rule, and it may well affect the local amateur photography enthusiasts. However, Kuwaiti law is not consistently applied: If you're a Kuwaiti citizen, you'll often get away with something that a non-Kuwaiti would not - especially if you have a bit of 'wasta' (i.e. your father knows the second-cousin of the minister's uncle!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Standing up to what? I own a dslr and have never had a problem taking pictures with it anywhere. Well, not a problem with any sort of 'authority' anyway. As for the actual quality of the shots...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? Not noticed this, and I'd have thought that I would, what with living there and everything.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, surely you're aware of many of the high-profile things that have happened in London with police and photographers? They certainly talked about a permit system [epuk.org] for "registered" photographers. (Now, that appears to be within a narrow area, but ...)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I just Googled it and couldn't find anything to that effect.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
While the occasional harrassment of some unfortunate tourist taking a photo of the Gherkin has been reported, it's going to be news to a *lot* of people that you need a license to take "professional" phots.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I was there just last year and shot around 1000 pictures a day using my DSLR with a nice big obvious telephoto lens. Not one of those $3K lenses, but clearly not the stock one either.
I didn't experience a single altercation, let alone was even noticed by anyone. Even when shooting within the underground system and at Westminster Palace. Hell, I even shot inside the Tate modern and the National Gallery without garnering a second look.
The most interference I saw was a few signs saying that photography
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was in London last year and took quite a few photos with an DSLR. Hell, I even got a bobby to pose [imgur.com] for me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, they issued new guidelines [ephotozine.com], relaxed restrictions on "registered photographers" [epuk.org], stopped using section 43 and 44 of the Terrorism act [police.uk], had a 'snitch campaign' [boingboing.net], hassle people with commercial permits [amateurpho...pher.co.uk], and even push people down stairs [prisonplanet.com].
If you aren't aware of the myriad ways in which the London Police have gone completely batshit crazy with photographers .... well, you haven't been paying attention to the news. Do a google search for "lond
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably an SLR is point and shoot. Literally.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if by "very similar" you mean "entirely lacking the single defining characteristic".
Kuwaiti military guy with automatic rifle: I see you have a large camera, surely you know those are prohibited unless you have a journalist badge issued by the state
Amateur photographer: No sir, you see this isn't a DSLR this is a micro four thirds camera! The ban said D-S-L-R and this camera lacks a reflexive mirror! I am free to go, right?
Kuwaiti military guy: right this way sir...
Re: (Score:2)
Um. It's Kuwait, they don't need to ban the rain.
Agree with you about eliptic galaxies. Ban them for sure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The point of DSLRs is that if you have sensors that are designed to only capture when the mirror flips up, they can be much more sensitive/less noisy than sensors which have to run all the time and produce a video stream. Now, some of the newer DSLRs which can record 1080p, obviously they can handle it and maybe they don't need the mirror, but theoretically at least you could still design a better sensor for a still-only camera.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Another attribute that currently differentiates most DSLRs from non-DSLRs is that DSLRs can use "phase-detection" autofocusing, by redirecting some of the light to the phase-detection sensors in the mirror-down state. Phase-detection autofocusing is typically much faster than the "contrast-detection" autofocusing used by most cameras without a mirror, and fast autofocusing is hugely important to many professional photographers.
[The reason that it's faster is pretty simple: with phase-detection, the camer
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the quality of the LCD screen and what kind of adjustments you're making. You're right, the display is showing what the sensor is seeing. Problem is, the display is showing much reduced detail and color accuracy than the sensor is capable of.
On my Nikon D700, the image quality difference between live view and looking through the viewfinder is significant. If all you're doing is composing, the LCD screen is fine. Anything that requires fine resolution, like dept-of-field preview or adjus
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of advantages to an optical viewfinder - the main one being the image in the finder is MUCH higher quality and much brighter. Most of the LCD viewfinders I've have been horribly low resolution to the point where I could barely see if the subject was properly lit - never mind judge focus.
Re: (Score:2)
SLR-design was useful when you had cameras that made chemical exposures - the concept is simple: the light you see through the viewfinder will be the light that hits the film. For digital cameras, the very idea of flipping light between a viewfinder and the sensor is ridiculous: a digital preview going to an LCD screen shows you exactly what the sensor "sees"
Early on (and I can't be bothered to look up current technologies), there was two basic layouts of sensors 1) High quality or 2) ones that could do live preview. Guess which type went into DSLRs and which type went into consumer cameras?