 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2006Live LCD preview soon to come for a dSLR?
The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: "Just a reminder for those of you new to D-SLRs: the LCD screen is for menus and post-shot review online: you cannot compose photos using the LCD. (That will soon change on another D-SLR, though.)" Anybody who knows what this is about? Jan Böhme >The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following >sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Anybody who knows what this is about? Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find a new hobby. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ > Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you > can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find > a new hobby. Have you considered the arms-extended-over-the-head shot? The self portrait? And the extreme one: the round-the-corner-shot-of-the-shootout? Not to mention the ground-level-portrait of the bug. I can see *lots* of good uses for this, and I *don't* need a new hobby. Not yet. -- Jeff R. > And the extreme one: the round-the-corner-shot-of-the-shootout? Real photographers stick their head around the corner too :) >> And the extreme one: the round-the-corner-shot-of-the-shootout? > > Real photographers stick their head around the corner too :) You all NEED to see the movie City of God. (Brazilian flick) Dave >>> And the extreme one: the round-the-corner-shot-of-the-shootout? >> >> Real photographers stick their head around the corner too :) > > You all NEED to see the movie City of God. (Brazilian flick) Yeah, I've been meaning to. I think it's on Charter VOD right now. Grerg  Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >Have you considered the arms-extended-over-the-head shot? >The self portrait? >And the extreme one: the round-the-corner-shot-of-the-shootout? >Not to mention the ground-level-portrait of the bug. There is already a device on the market that you can attach to the viewfinder and that displays the viewfinder image on an LCD screen. Last night, I saw something funny. Somebody wanted to take a picture with a small digital P&S and the LCD simply didn't show anything. The actual picture came out somewhat okay (with the use of flash of course). The camera probably had some kind of optical finder thinghy as well, but nobody uses those. I don't know if this is typical or not. The concept of a camera that doesn't have any viewfinder when interior lighting is a bit dim, strikes me as rather silly. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>Have you considered the arms-extended-over-the-head shot? >>The self portrait? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a small digital P&S and the LCD simply didn't show anything. The actual > picture came out somewhat okay (with the use of flash of course). I went through a similar situation with my Canon A70, but it was really an issue with me not being familiar with it since I only use it for snapshots. I had turned off the display completely, something I didn't know could be done, I just figured it was broken, so I was forced to use the stupid "viewfinder". It took me a couple of days to bother looking at the manual. Duh. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > > Last night, I saw something funny. Somebody wanted to take a picture with > > a small digital P&S and the LCD simply didn't show anything. The actual [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the stupid "viewfinder". It took me a couple of days to bother looking > at the manual. Duh. Funny. When I bought a digital P&S one precondition was that it must have an optical VF. A lot of the very small/thin ones don't. Using the VF may be my bias since I have used film rangefinders a lot (like a Canonet or Olympus XA) for the same carry-around application. And one of the first things I figured out how to do was turn off the LCD. This is mostly because it saves a huge amount of battery capacity. On my Canon P+S, even if you have the display off it will show the picture you just took for a couple of seconds. >>Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you >>can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find >>a new hobby. > > Have you considered the arms-extended-over-the-head shot? > The self portrait? How could you make a self portrait using the LCD display??? Wim > >>Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you > >>can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wim Tilt and swivel. My camcorder can do it - why not a dSLR? -- Jeff R. > Have you considered the arms-extended-over-the-head shot? > The self portrait? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can see *lots* of good uses for this, and I *don't* need a new hobby. Not > yet. Do a lot of shots like that, do you? > > Have you considered the arms-extended-over-the-head shot? > > The self portrait? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do a lot of shots like that, do you? Enough. Particularly the first example. I would *love* to be able to compose an over-the-head shot, arms fully extended as high as possible, with my funky newish modern all-bells-and-whistles dSLR. My Practika FX3 could do it. My Mirandas could do it. ...and *they* cost less than a 2Gig SD card, brand new. -- Jeff R. >>Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you >>can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Get the optical right angle finder attachment. The advantages of a real optical viewfinder include: 1) fast speed (limited only by the speed of light). 2) maximum dynamic range, limited by the eye. 3) natural color as your eye sees it. 4) higher resolution (at least on good cameras) than LCDs. Roger. > >>Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you > >>can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Roger. I have, and use, two of them. Pls see previous reply. -- Jeff R. > Have you considered the arms-extended-over-the-head shot? > The self portrait? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can see *lots* of good uses for this, and I *don't* need a new hobby. Not > yet. Get a P&S. > Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you > can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find > a new hobby. If that were true, Polaroid backs for medium/large format cameras would have never been invented. Personally, I find it so much easier to view a 2d image of the scene as it allows you to view the image more or less as it would appear in the final print. It allows you to 'stand back' from the image and view the composition from a distance. Put it this way. If it COULD be done what is the downside except for perhaps reduced battery life? It's not something that you would be forced to use. I can compose a picture just fine, but believe I compose even better with a 2D representation of the scene. Most 'real world' situations aren't that 'black & white' >> Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you >> can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find >> a new hobby. > > If that were true, Polaroid backs for medium/large format cameras would > have never been invented. Waist-level viewfinders wouldn't have been invented, either. If it comes down to a pissing match over who is a "real" photographer or who uses a "real" camera, squinting through the viewfinder of a 35mm camera doesn't make for a very convincing argument. Ansel sure must have been a real chump, "chimping" at that big ground-glass from a foot or two away for ten, twenty, or thirty minutes before even making an exposure. Those crazy ideas of making the camera work for the person instead of the other way around sure are nutty. steve > >> Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you > >> can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Waist-level viewfinders wouldn't have been invented, either. Well, except they were invented long before eye-level SLR viewfinders were. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> >> Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you >> >> can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Well, except they were invented long before eye-level SLR viewfinders >were. And you used to be able remove the pentaprism on SLR's in the field for a waist-level viewer. My F1 Nikon would do that. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ > > Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you > > can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find > > a new hobby. > > If that were true, Polaroid backs for medium/large format cameras would have > never been invented. And for 35mm cameras. Then there's the gadget that connects to the eyecup, has a small CCD sensor and a moderate sized LCD screen, and gives you video preview that way. It gives you the ability to see it from funny angles, and it works on film as well as digital SLRs. Ah, here it is: The Zigview, <http://www.zigview.co.uk/>. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >Personally, I find it so much easier to view a 2d image of the scene as it >allows you to view the image more or less as it would appear in the final >print. An SLR viewfinder is totally 2D. Your eyes can't perceive depth, or change focus through it. It is a 2D projection onto the matte glass. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Personally, I find it so much easier to view a 2d image of the scene as it >>allows you to view the image more or less as it would appear in the final >>print. > >An SLR viewfinder is totally 2D. Your eyes can't perceive depth, or >change focus through it. It is a 2D projection onto the matte glass. Which is exactly as the final print (and negative or sensor data file) will be. SignatureIan G8ILZ > In article <m094t1tcadjts62v96gvchthccrffn638t@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm writes > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Which is exactly as the final print (and negative or sensor data file) > will be. No it isn't. The viewfinder doesn't know what exposure settings you are using and whether the image will be underexposed or overexposed, etc. >> In article <m094t1tcadjts62v96gvchthccrffn638t@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm writes >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >No it isn't. Are you saying it is not 2d? SignatureIan G8ILZ >>>>> Personally, I find it so much easier to view a 2d image of the >>>>> scene as it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Are you saying it is not 2d? Oh, sorry Prometheus, I misread what you typed. I browsed over your post too quickly. It obviously is 2D. Sorry once again. Regards, Brian. > If that were true, Polaroid backs for medium/large format cameras would have > never been invented. Polaroid backs allow you to view exposure, lighting, and other details. It's apples and oranges. >>The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following >>sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find >a new hobby. Never try to shoot from ground level. -Rich >>>The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following >>>sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Never try to shoot from ground level. Yes, more than you ever have. What's the problem? ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>>>The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following >>>>sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Yes, more than you ever have. What's the problem? An articulated LCD screen can be very handy. -Rich >>>Never try to shoot from ground level. >> >>Yes, more than you ever have. What's the problem? > An articulated LCD screen can be very handy. So is an optical right angle finder. The canon one can be rotated to any angle (360 degrees and provides magnification up to 2x so you can see finer detail. Roger > >>>Never try to shoot from ground level. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > magnification up to 2x so you can see finer detail. > Roger Yes - I've got one and use it for my astro shots - BUT - you need to put your eye right up to it. A tilt and swivel LCD (for PREVIEW, not chimping) would allow unfit overweight inflexible slugs like me to compose a ground-level shot without having to lie down in the muck. -- Jeff R. > >The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following > >sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find > a new hobby. You've obviously never wanted to take a picture from a high or low angle where it was very inconvenient to get your eye to the viewfinder. Most SLR companies made right-angle finders, which helped somewhat with this, but most of us didn't actually *buy* them; we just did without. An LCD screen, especially a tilt/swivel one, that one could compose on would be *very* useful on an SLR. In fact, I consider the complex, delicate, noisy, vibration-producing, and expensive optical and mechanical system for viewing through the lens to be something of a drawback in a camera (not that it doesn't have advantages; but those advantages come with costs, and I was very happy doing a lot of photography with a Leica M3 for years, though I also used an SLR for other kinds of photography even then). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >In fact, I >consider the complex, delicate, noisy, vibration-producing, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >doing a lot of photography with a Leica M3 for years, though I also >used an SLR for other kinds of photography even then). What I sort of miss in these repeated requests for a DSLR with live preview, is what such a DSLR is supposed to offer over a digital P&S. The part that defines an SLR is the reflex mirror. Once you remove that part it is no longer an SLR. If it is the removable lenses people want, then the message should be that manufacturers should produce a P&S with a Nikon, Canon, KM, Pentax, whatever, mount. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Philip Homburg skrev: in these repeated requests for a DSLR with live preview, > is what such a DSLR is supposed to offer over a digital P&S. > > The part that defines an SLR is the reflex mirror. Once you remove that > part it is no longer an SLR. Of course. But the reflex mirror (it suddenly strikes me: Which mirror _isn't_ a reflex mirror?) is, in and by itself, not all that interesting. The point with it is to enable a truthful TTL view. The day an EVF with resolution adequate for manual focussing and next to zero video lag combined will hit the market, the standard SLR seutp will have lost a good deal of its raison d'être. > If it is the removable lenses people want, then the message should be that > manufacturers should produce a P&S with a Nikon, Canon, KM, Pentax, whatever, > mount. A top-notch P&S with a sensor of at least APS-C size with a maximum useful ISO sensitivity to match, and a mount with lots of readily available interchangable lenses would be quite nice, I agree. (Would it be too much to hope that Sony makes a successor of its DSC-R1 to take the Minolta mount, now when things have come to pass as they have?) But even nicer would be the following: A dSLR with a high resolution tilt-and-swivel LCD where you could couple mirror lockup with live preview on the LCD. Thus, you can either take pictures from impossible angles, or take a discreet photo without waking up the dead, while you have adequate possibilities for manual focussing, a and a non-lagging, realistically loooking TTL view when you need _that_. Jan Böhme >A top-notch P&S with a sensor of at least APS-C size with a maximum >useful ISO sensitivity to match, and a mount with lots of readily [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >have adequate possibilities for manual focussing, a and a non-lagging, >realistically loooking TTL view when you need _that_. Well, DSLR sensors are not designed with video modes. I sort of doubt that many DSLR users would like to lose 1 stop of sensitivity and dynamic range just to get a swivel LCD. Another thing is that without AF sensors, auto-focus is not going to work as well either. Or, if you look at it from a P&S point of view, how many people would pay extra to have a mirror and a prism added to a P&S just to be able focus manually every once in a while. The funny thing is that using the 'manual focus' mode (i.e. without live preview) you get better AF performance. A DSLR is not a P&S, and trying to create a hybrid, is likely to result in something that (most of the time) performs worse than either of the two designs. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > The day an EVF with resolution adequate for manual focussing and next > to zero video lag combined will hit the market, the standard SLR seutp > will have lost a good deal of its raison d'être. But why? I mean, one can imagine that, using technology that does not yet exist, a very expensive EVF could be made that would be almost as good as an optical viewfinder. What would be the point? Why pay more to give up important things only to get something that is almost, but not quite, as good as what we have right now? The SLR's actual image sensor would not be used for an EVF; that would be a disaster. Image quality would be sacrificed, the shutter would have to be held open, lag would be introduced, and the thing would probably end up having to use crappy contrast-detection autofocus like a P&S. Who would buy such a thing? So you'd end up with a reflex mirror going to a second sensor just for the EVF. That would work. But why? It can't accurately judge exposure any more than a current P&S with live preview can -- even less so, since it wouldn't be the real image sensor. Battery life would suffer. And you're still stuck looking at an EVF instead of a decent optical finder. And you paid more for it! Why? Everyone says that people with big SLRs also have little P&S "pocket" cameras for snapshots. I have one. I thought I'd use it for that. It sits in a drawer. Why? Because, being used to an SLR, it is so unpleasant to use even a *good* P&S that I'd rather just not take any pictures at all. It utterly defies my comprehension why some people want to turn SLRs into that kind of experience. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>The day an EVF with resolution adequate for manual focussing and next >>to zero video lag combined will hit the market, the standard SLR seutp [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to give up important things only to get something that is almost, but > not quite, as good as what we have right now? The Canon 20Da has a mode where the mirror is flipped up and the central portion of the chip is read out in a live preview. This is done magnified so you can manually focus. This is designed for astronomers using the camera on a telescope. There is no reason a DSLR could not have live LCD preview as well as classic optical viewfinder. Doing autofocus with the chip is small additional work that the DSLRs could easily do since they generally have more compute power. Roger > There is no reason a DSLR could not have live LCD preview as well > as classic optical viewfinder. The reason they *shouldn't* is because you don't want to compromise the sensor by enabling it to do a live preview. If you use a second sensor for the EVF, and also support an optical viewfinder, the light would have to be split between the two, resulting in a darker optical finder. > Doing autofocus with the chip is small additional work that the DSLRs > could easily do since they generally have more compute power. You don't want them to autofocus off the sensor. Contrast-detection autofocus is significantly inferior (and would require the sensor to do live preview, compromising image quality and increasing lag). SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> The day an EVF with resolution adequate for manual focussing and next >>> to zero video lag combined will hit the market, the standard SLR seutp [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This is done magnified so you can manually focus. This is > designed for astronomers using the camera on a telescope. I thought the shutter was open, too. So it's not a preview but actually a view of the current exposure. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons Jeremy Nixon skrev: > > The day an EVF with resolution adequate for manual focussing and next > > to zero video lag combined will hit the market, the standard SLR seutp [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to give up important things only to get something that is almost, but > not quite, as good as what we have right now? The EVF enables live preview, that's why. There are two uses for live preview. One is to enable a tilt-and swivel LCD for composing shots held at arms length in various directions. This can be achieved also with a device of the Zigview type. If the current one isn't good enough - and the only web-based review I've ever seen claimed it was woefully inadequate - something better might come along. It might also be achieved by equipping a right angle eyepiece with some sort of display matte screen large enough to be viwed at arm's length - though I exect that no such gadget would produce an image that was useful in sunlight. But the other use is to eliminate the slap of the mirror. SLR:s have many advantages over rangefinders in the Leica style, but one decided disadvantage is that they are really horribly indiscreet. We try to repress this knowledge when we shoot best as we can, but we still do have a machine that yells "GOTHCA! I TOOK A PICTURE!" at top voice whenever it shoots. In some situations you simply can't use an SLR at all. My favourite example is at a classical guitar recital, but there are many other situations, both shooting wildlife and people, where it would b a clear advantage if it wasn't obvious to subject or surrounding when a shot had been taken. And getting rid of the mirror slap would of course also make all pictures as vibration-free as the ones that you can take with special effort, and spending extra time, on some, but not all, currently available dSLR:s. Thus, if an EVF can eliminate the mirror it will have a definite edge. Because, as much as the mirror is a defining feature of an SLR, it is actually really a defining weakness. When all is said and done, what really defines an SLR is simply that it is a camera that can't take a picture without making an awful racket. Jan Böhme Jan B?hme <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote: > But the other use is to eliminate the slap of the mirror. SLR:s have > many advantages over rangefinders in the Leica style, but one decided > disadvantage is that they are really horribly indiscreet. We try to > repress this knowledge when we shoot best as we can, but we still do > have a machine that yells "GOTHCA! I TOOK A PICTURE!" at top voice > whenever it shoots. Well, I'm not willing to give up my optical viewfinder in exchange for a quieter shutter release. Sure, both would be nice, but on my personal list of priorities, the finder wins by a large margin. > When all is said and done, what really defines an SLR is simply that > it is a camera that can't take a picture without making an awful racket. Then it sounds like an SLR isn't really what you're looking for. There are, however, not a lot of choices for high-quality digital rangefinders, unfortunately. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > But the other use is to eliminate the slap of the mirror. SLR:s have > many advantages over rangefinders in the Leica style, but one decided [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > effort, and spending extra time, on some, but not all, currently > available dSLR:s. Oh yeah, that mirror slap almost jerks the camera out of my hand. >> And getting rid of the mirror slap would of course also make all >> pictures as vibration-free as the ones that you can take with special >> effort, and spending extra time, on some, but not all, currently >> available dSLR:s. >Oh yeah, that mirror slap almost jerks the camera out of my hand. I doubt it's an issue hand-held (too much damping), but for long lenses on a tripod, it could be an issue that needs to be dealt with (especially inferior tripods). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>In fact, I >>consider the complex, delicate, noisy, vibration-producing, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The part that defines an SLR is the reflex mirror. Once you remove that >part it is no longer an SLR. Nonsense. A half silvered mirror will give you preview plus all the attributes of an SLR. You don't need much light to provide a preview, so the light loss in the viewfinder will be tolerably small. >>>In fact, I >>>consider the complex, delicate, noisy, vibration-producing, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >attributes of an SLR. You don't need much light to provide a preview, >so the light loss in the viewfinder will be tolerably small. and how do you keep opening and closing the shutter? You do know about the shutter and how it works? If you want a live preview get a P&S. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>>>In fact, I >>>>consider the complex, delicate, noisy, vibration-producing, and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and how do you keep opening and closing the shutter? You do know > about the shutter and how it works? What has the shutter got to do with anything in this last example? Obviously, as per a normal viewfinder, the display would disappear at the moment of exposure and come back straight afterwards. > >In fact, I > >consider the complex, delicate, noisy, vibration-producing, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The part that defines an SLR is the reflex mirror. Once you remove that > part it is no longer an SLR. See, to me, despite the technical definition, the real difference is the interchangeable lenses. The Leica M-series rangefinder bodies are used and thought of the same way an SLR is, as the core of a photographic system consisting of a bunch of lenses and a body or two. A P&S with reflex viewing isn't an SLR to me, even if you view through the taking lens via a mirror system ("reflex"), it lacks a key feature of the market definition. (Words often don't mean in practice what their etymology would lead you to suspect they mean.) One of the big advantages of an SLR is lack of paralax; and a digital with LCD preview has that advantage. You're viewing through the taking lens, you're just not doing it via a reflex system. My ideal digital camera is a brick with a lens mount on the front, an LCD on the back (tilt/swivel, please), a button (shutter release) and hotshoe on the top, a battery compartment on the bottom (AA NiMH), and a memory card slot on one side (CF). The other side is left for future expansion :-). Okay, I actually want more controls than just the shutter release button :-). > If it is the removable lenses people want, then the message should > be that manufacturers should produce a P&S with a Nikon, Canon, KM, > Pentax, whatever, mount. Except I don't want a P&S. P&S (or "PHD") cameras don't have the controls and features people who want interchangeable lenses want. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >See, to me, despite the technical definition, the real difference is >the interchangeable lenses. The Leica M-series rangefinder bodies are >used and thought of the same way an SLR is, as the core of a >photographic system consisting of a bunch of lenses and a body or two. Very nice. But is the Leica M going to show the effects of a fish-eye? How does the Leica M handle 1000mm or longer? Shift lenses, macro? Interchangeable lenses is an important feature, but it is not the whole story. >A P&S with reflex viewing isn't an SLR to me, even if you view through >the taking lens via a mirror system ("reflex"), it lacks a key feature >of the market definition. (Words often don't mean in practice what >their etymology would lead you to suspect they mean.) Yes, an SLR with a fixed lens will have limited appeal. But this tends to be so obvious, that there is no need to state that fact. SLR designs with a fixed lens do not survive long. >One of the big advantages of an SLR is lack of paralax; and a digital >with LCD preview has that advantage. You're viewing through the >taking lens, you're just not doing it via a reflex system. True, you can to 'SLR like' thing using the main sensor and a display. >My ideal digital camera is a brick with a lens mount on the front, an >LCD on the back (tilt/swivel, please), a button (shutter release) and >hotshoe on the top, a battery compartment on the bottom (AA NiMH), and >a memory card slot on one side (CF). The other side is left for >future expansion :-). It is certainly not my ideal camera. But I think it would be a welcome addition to the market. With APS-C sized sensors like in the Sony R1, you just as well make the lens interchangeable. >> If it is the removable lenses people want, then the message should >> be that manufacturers should produce a P&S with a Nikon, Canon, KM, >> Pentax, whatever, mount. > >Except I don't want a P&S. P&S (or "PHD") cameras don't have the >controls and features people who want interchangeable lenses want. What control are you missing. Some of the tiny Canon models give you full manual control over focus, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. It is all just a matter of software. Is there any 'high-end' P&S that doesn't provide full manual control? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >See, to me, despite the technical definition, the real difference is > >the interchangeable lenses. The Leica M-series rangefinder bodies are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Very nice. But is the Leica M going to show the effects of a fish-eye? > How does the Leica M handle 1000mm or longer? Shift lenses, macro? Nope, of course. > Interchangeable lenses is an important feature, but it is not the whole > story. Still, a Leica photographer is probably going to be more at home in an "SLR" group than in a "P&S" group. > >A P&S with reflex viewing isn't an SLR to me, even if you view through > >the taking lens via a mirror system ("reflex"), it lacks a key feature [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > SLR designs with a fixed lens do not survive long. You'd think, but it was a HUGE issue in the discussion about naming this very newsgroup. > >One of the big advantages of an SLR is lack of paralax; and a digital > >with LCD preview has that advantage. You're viewing through the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It is certainly not my ideal camera. But I think it would be a welcome > addition to the market. And right now, it can't be made at the quality level I want, because the good sensors aren't set up for continuout video output; and in fact doing so would use up space currently devoted to bigger electron wells and such. > With APS-C sized sensors like in the Sony R1, you just as well make the > lens interchangeable. I wish they would. I was *so* bummed when I heard Leica was making a digital back -- for their SLRs. > >> If it is the removable lenses people want, then the message should > >> be that manufacturers should produce a P&S with a Nikon, Canon, KM, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is there any 'high-end' P&S that doesn't provide full manual control? I've yet to see any P&S that has decent manual focus control. The exposure control is sometimes usable, sometimes not. And the range of apertures available is very narrow (sometimes only two or three stops). Using a menu system for exposure setting isn't very quick or easy. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> SLR designs with a fixed lens do not survive long. > >You'd think, but it was a HUGE issue in the discussion about naming >this very newsgroup. Usenet discussions can be huge about anything. I can't find many 'fixed lens, optical through the lens finder' designs on the market. >And right now, it can't be made at the quality level I want, because >the good sensors aren't set up for continuout video output; and in >fact doing so would use up space currently devoted to bigger electron >wells and such. That last part is unlikely to change. A full video feed, needed for low delay framing and for more or less accurate AF is going to cost some sensor performance. I think it is far more practical to re-introduce removable finders on DSLRs and market a finder with a built-in sensor. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Philip Homburg skrev: > Is there any 'high-end' P&S that doesn't provide full manual control? No, not to my knowledge. But this means that "P&S" is really quite a silly name. In real life, an entry-level dSLR has as much "point-and-shoot" functionality as any of the cameras you would call "P&S", and many of the more advanced "P&S" cameras have as much manual control as a dSLR. Jan Böhme [] > With APS-C sized sensors like in the Sony R1, you just as well make > the lens interchangeable. .. and now that Sony have some ownership of the Konica-Minolta lens mount? Maybe the best of both worlds isn't so far away, after all! David >>See, to me, despite the technical definition, the real difference is >>the interchangeable lenses. The Leica M-series rangefinder bodies are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Very nice. But is the Leica M going to show the effects of a fish-eye? >How does the Leica M handle 1000mm or longer? Shift lenses, macro? Never shoot Leica have you? 1000mm lenses, that's what a Visoflex is for. Leica doesn't make a fisheye but for the wider lenses you use an external viewer. http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/m6ttl/zubehoer/sucher/index_e.html Leica photographers have been using macros for years on the rangefinders without problems. http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/objektive/makro/index_e.html ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >Never shoot Leica have you? No, I don't intend to. The description of the Nikon rangefinders is horrible enough. > Leica doesn't make a fisheye but for the wider lenses you use >an external viewer. > >http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/m6ttl/zubehoer/sucher/index_e.html So, how you focus with such a device? What about parallax? I think my 17-35 focuses down to about 30cm. I can't see how that is going to work with an external viewfinder. >Leica photographers have been using macros for years on the >rangefinders without problems. > >http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/objektive/makro/index_e.html I could be me, but do you focus with that lens? Use a ruler to measure the distance? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>Never shoot Leica have you? > >No, I don't intend to. The description of the Nikon rangefinders is >horrible enough. Well some people want to drive Fiats all their lives. Your lost. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>In fact, I >>consider the complex, delicate, noisy, vibration-producing, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The part that defines an SLR is the reflex mirror. Once you remove that >part it is no longer an SLR. The reflex optical system and mirror flipping mechanism is primative and expensive. Eventually, it will die. -Rich > The reflex optical system and mirror flipping mechanism is primative > and expensive. Eventually, it will die. Tell us more when you finally get a camera. >> >The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following >> >sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >somewhat with this, but most of us didn't actually *buy* them; we just >did without. So you did with out. I have a Zeiss right angle viewer in my Contarex kit. Some of us did buy them and used them. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ > >> >The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following > >> >sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Some of us did buy them and used them. Since you had to bring your eye right up to it, they solved the angle problem, but they only made a small improvement in the position problem. They didn't help at all for, for example, holding the camera at full extension overhead to get a higher angle (or see over obstacles). They didn't solve enough of the problem to make the price, space, and weight worthwhile, in my opinion. Depends what kinds of photograhy you did, of course. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following >>sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why would anyone want it? I have poor eyesight and I find an LCD much easier to use in many circumstances. I would welcome an SLR that let me have LCD and optical viewfinder composition as needed. If Oly's teaser ads are any indication, a camera body with those features may be announced in a few days. >I have poor eyesight and I find an LCD much easier to use in many >circumstances. I would welcome an SLR that let me have LCD and optical >viewfinder composition as needed. If Oly's teaser ads are any >indication, a camera body with those features may be announced in a few >days. So, what is wrong with just buying a P&S? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>I have poor eyesight and I find an LCD much easier to use in many >>circumstances. I would welcome an SLR that let me have LCD and optical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So, what is wrong with just buying a P&S? Many people appear to think that a DSLR is a badge of honour, and they would never wish to be seen with a mere P&S. ;-) >>I have poor eyesight and I find an LCD much easier to use in many >>circumstances. I would welcome an SLR that let me have LCD and optical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So, what is wrong with just buying a P&S? I have one. I shot with it for two years and became frustrated because the camera operation (shutter lag, auto-focus) was too slow for what I was trying to do. A DSLR solved those problems but came with a new one: the viewfinder is designed for people with eyesight much better than mine. Composition usually isn't the problem with optical viewfinders, rather it's reading the tiny numbers inside the finder for the meter, shutter, etc. As you might guess, manual focusing is difficult for me. An LCD viewer's magnification along with a split-prism effect might be enough to allow me to reliably manually focus my camera in situation where AF doesn't work. > Composition usually isn't the problem with optical viewfinders, > rather it's reading the tiny numbers inside the finder for the meter, > shutter, etc. What DSLR do you have? Mine has a diopter adjustment which after setting made the numbers clear. SignatureCharles >>Composition usually isn't the problem with optical viewfinders, >>rather it's reading the tiny numbers inside the finder for the meter, >>shutter, etc. > > What DSLR do you have? Mine has a diopter adjustment which after > setting made the numbers clear. I have the Oly E-500 and the E-1. The E-1 is barely readable if the light though the viewfinder doesn't wash out the numbers. The E-500 is what I call guessable, which means I can decipher it if I know what to expect. The numbers are clear but they aren't quite big enough. N.B.: My eyesight is very bad--- I'm legally blind even when I'm wearing my glasses. It's more than just nearsightedness, there's a limit to the amount of detail I can see even with corrective lenses. > It's more than just nearsightedness, there's a limit to the > amount of detail I can see even with corrective lenses. Sounds like astigmatism or whatnot so diopter adjustment is not enough. SignatureCharles >I have one. I shot with it for two years and became frustrated because >the camera operation (shutter lag, auto-focus) was too slow for what I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >enough to allow me to reliably manually focus my camera in situation >where AF doesn't work. I have to admit that I don't use AF, so I don't have a good idea how often AF doesn't work. It seems to me that usually there is an edge of some kind that you can use to get the AF system focus. My D1 has nice display on top of the camera that allows you to control exposure. Nikon was smart enough to make the exposure lock also work in manual mode. (frame, press and hold AE-lock, and then adjusting the shutter speed by looking at the top the camera works). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you > can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find > a new hobby. And the truth shall set you free. Preach it, baby. I can't believe the number lame-os that come out of the woodwork when this topic comes up. >> Why would anyone want it? It's just another way to Chimp. If you >> can't compose a picture in the view finder of a dSLR you need to find >> a new hobby. > >And the truth shall set you free. Preach it, baby. I can't believe the >number lame-os that come out of the woodwork when this topic comes up. Seems to me the greatest opposition to this idea comes from people who are SLR using cliches. "I've used and SLR type camera for 40 years...hack, cough, hack, and I don't see why some new-fangled idea needs to be adopted!!" Cough. -Rich > Seems to me the greatest opposition to this idea comes from people > who are SLR using cliches. > "I've used and SLR type camera for 40 years...hack, cough, hack, > and I don't see why some new-fangled idea needs to be adopted!!" THAT'S ME! I've been doing photography in various forms for almost 40 years. They put that little rectangular hole in the back so you can see through the lens that's taking the picture. Since you don't own a camera, you might not know that. That's your live preview. >> Seems to me the greatest opposition to this idea comes from people >> who are SLR using cliches. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >through the lens that's taking the picture. Since you don't own a >camera, you might not know that. That's your live preview. Too bad it blanks out when you actually take the shot. -Rich > Anybody who knows what this is about? There is a rumor that Olympus is coming out a body like the E300, which has a mirror arrangement which might be able to be used to beam split for live preview. SignatureCharles Charles skrev: > > Anybody who knows what this is about? > > There is a rumor that Olympus is coming out a body like the E300, which > has a mirror arrangement which might be able to be used to beam split > for live preview. Thanks a lot. (Whether one or zero posters actually answer the OP:s question makes a huge difference. The rest of the thread was entertaining, but not all that informative for me.) I had no idea about that. And I must admit that I still doesn't understand how it would work, but now I at least know in whch direction to look. Jan Böhme There are two reasons for why DSLRs cannot have live preview currently:- 1. There is a mirror seats in the mirror housing to reflect the light right up to the optical viewfinder of any DSLR, which block the light from reaching the CCD/CMOS; 2. The *large* CCD/CMOS imagers are not designed for live preview, owing to the low refresh rate and the high power it consumes. It is designed to capture instanteous images with the highest possible quality. It should be noted that if live preview is required, the shutter need to be opened too all the time such that light can fall onto the sensors. > The review of the KM Dynax 5D at dcresource.com contains the following > sentence, which is very intriguing at least to me: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Anybody who knows what this is about? Oh jeez! Another retard... I would rather have a remote view finder placed in front of my left eye that I could wear as a headband or cap. >I would rather have a remote view finder placed in front of my left eye >that I could wear as a headband or cap. Bluetooth. It's coming. -Rich I would rather have a remote view finder placed in front of my left eye that I could wear as a headband or cap. I think Olympus (and the others will follow no doubt) is hoping the LCD viewfinder on the new E-330 SLR will bring even more people over to SLR who would otherwise have bought a non-SLR to have the LCD preview. They are the ones who will most appreciate it, not the seasoned SLR user. Olympus did it because they could, and because they wanted to have another 'world first', whether established SLR users wanted it or not ( and I'm guessing most of them do not). One disadvantage of using the LCD as a viewfinder seems to have been overlooked in this thread -- camera shake. It's far easier to hold the camera steady when it's at eye-level and held against your forehead. Holding it out at arms length seems so unnatural to me (which is why I'm a DSLR user), and turning the zoom ring on the lens with the camera in this position is not something I want. Okay, so the live-preview LCD on the E-330 doesn't have to be used, but if adding such a feature compromises any other part of the camera (compared to those DSLR cameras which don't have it) I would not buy it. In any event it's a feature I would not use. If I wanted that, I'd buy a point-and-shoot Let's hope this feature does not become standard across all DSLRs until it absolutely does not compromise it's function and handling in any way compared to the current generation -- pip22 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.