 |
 | 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 / March 2006Why no LCD screen preview on DSLRs?
Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. Why don't digital SLRs allow previewing using the LCD screen? It would seem that to do this, the mirror would have to be temporarily locked-up, and the image sensor enabled. This is what point-and-shoot digital cameras do, except that there's no mirror. My guess is that this is counter to how SLRs have always been used. In fact, one could build a DSLR camera without the mirror and just rely on the LCD screen for the viewfinder. Of course the "R" in DSLR would have to be dropped as there's no mirror. Okay, a viewfinder-less camera wouldn't be that great, but I don't see why manufactures don't implement a LCD preview feature. This would also eliminate mirror flip related shake during bulb exposures. SM > Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > implement a LCD preview feature. This would also eliminate mirror flip > related shake during bulb exposures. There is a new one coming out with that from oly or panasonic I think. It's supposed to compromise the viewfinder some and is being done on a 4/3 sensor which is somewhat smaller. Basically I think it's a matter of larger sensors costing more so they optimise for single capture instead of spending on video capture ability, the one coming out has a second sensor (I think??) that picks up a reflection off the mirror or something like that. > Why don't digital SLRs allow previewing using the LCD screen? It would > seem that to do this, the mirror would have to be temporarily > locked-up, and the image sensor enabled. This is what point-and-shoot > digital cameras do, except that there's no mirror. The sensors normally used in SLRs are not capable of live preview. Adding that capability compromises image quality, because some part of the sensor needs to be occupied by the circuitry to do the preview instead of being occupied by stuff to create the actual image.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Why don't digital SLRs allow previewing using the LCD screen? It would >> seem that to do this, the mirror would have to be temporarily [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the sensor needs to be occupied by the circuitry to do the preview >instead of being occupied by stuff to create the actual image. They could design the camera so the mirror would swing up out of the way (mirror lock up?) and then they could turn on the sensor to provide an LCD "live" view that way. But I understand the big 1.6:1 or larger CMOS sensors draw too much power, so the battery would simply die too fast. -Rich >> The sensors normally used in SLRs are not capable of live preview. >> Adding that capability compromises image quality, because some part of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > way (mirror lock up?) and then they could turn on the sensor to > provide an LCD "live" view that way. I didn't say it's not possible because the mirror is in the way; it's not possible because the sensors don't do live preview at all. The only reason they don't do live preview is to maximize image quality -- and that's a big enough reason for me to not want it, since I see almost no value in it as a feature. The other method is to use a second sensor in the viewfinder's light path, which that one new SLR also does; the problem with that is that you end up losing light for the optical viewfinder, which isn't as big a tradeoff as the image quality thing, but it's still significant (and also not worth it to me). > But I understand the big 1.6:1 or larger CMOS sensors draw too much > power, so the battery would simply die too fast. Sort of like a P&S camera, then. :) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I didn't say it's not possible because the mirror is in the way; it's > not possible because the sensors don't do live preview at all. The > only reason they don't do live preview is to maximize image quality -- > and that's a big enough reason for me to not want it, since I see > almost no value in it as a feature. "Almost no value" is different than none. Live preview, combined with an LCD panel that swings out, allows you to get those over-the-head shots where otherwise you're just guessing. Or at the very least looking really, really dorky holding your DSLR way over your head and hoping it's pointed in the right direction... --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA >>> The sensors normally used in SLRs are not capable of live preview. >>> Adding that capability compromises image quality, because some part of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Sort of like a P&S camera, then. :) >> I didn't say it's not possible because the mirror is in the way; it's >> not possible because the sensors don't do live preview at all. The [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dorky holding your DSLR way over your head and hoping it's pointed in the > right direction... That's what things like the Zigview are for. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>> I didn't say it's not possible because the mirror is in the way; it's >>> not possible because the sensors don't do live preview at all. The [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >That's what things like the Zigview are for. Why pay up to an extra $200 for a Zigview when you can get live viewing for free with the Olympus E-330? >>>> I didn't say it's not possible because the mirror is in the way; it's >>>> not possible because the sensors don't do live preview at all. The [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Why pay up to an extra $200 for a Zigview when you can get live > viewing for free with the Olympus E-330? Why buy an entirely new and different camera system when I have a perfectly good one at hand? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >Why buy an entirely new and different camera system when I have a perfectly >good one at hand? That's true for you, and me too. But for people who want a live preview, why buy a DSLR plus an expensive Zigview when you can buy one of several DSLRs that offer built-in preview? I'm not suggesting live preview is for everyone, but for those who want it, the DSLRs that feature it offer excellent value. If I recall correctly, DSLRs with live preview come from Pentax, Samsung and Olympus, with the Olympus-based Panasonic Four Thirds DSLR with live preview (and Leica zoom lens) expected Q3-Q4/2006. >> Why buy an entirely new and different camera system when I have a perfectly >> good one at hand? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm not suggesting live preview is for everyone, but for those who > want it, the DSLRs that feature it offer excellent value. Right. BTW, in another forum I read a post by a long-time Canon user today (one of the founders, as it seems, of the primary German forum related to Canon digital cameras) who just bought an E-330 for underwater photography. > If I recall correctly, DSLRs with live preview come from Pentax, > Samsung and Olympus, with the Olympus-based Panasonic Four Thirds DSLR > with live preview (and Leica zoom lens) expected Q3-Q4/2006. The Pentax/Samsung has some kind of DOF and AE preview, which, as I seem to gather, works by taking a shot before taking the real shot. As of now, there's no fully usable permanent live view display on any other DSLR than the E-330. Cheers, Robert >> I'm not suggesting live preview is for everyone, but for those who >> want it, the DSLRs that feature it offer excellent value. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >now, there's no fully usable permanent live view display on any other >DSLR than the E-330. OK, understood. Thanks for your interesting comments. >>Why buy an entirely new and different camera system when I have a >>perfectly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Samsung and Olympus, with the Olympus-based Panasonic Four Thirds DSLR > with live preview (and Leica zoom lens) expected Q3-Q4/2006. OTOH, the Zigview works for someone who wants features not available in the Oly/Panasonic cameras, like 10-16mp, 5-8 fps, lower noise at higher ISOs, full 35mm frame sensor, etc. I'd really like to see one of those in action, as far as I can tell, they are only available from the mfr, there's no US outlet for them, anyway. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> Why buy an entirely new and different camera system when I have a >>> perfectly [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > as far as I can tell, they are only available from the mfr, there's no US > outlet for them, anyway. Yes, but the Zigview does not really seem to be a match for a proper camera LCD, let alone Olympus' 2.5" screen. It is said to be grainy and somewhere someone wrote about a resolution of 220x176, which would of course be so ridiculous that I find it hard to believe myself. But, as a matter of fact, I did not find any sources which would correct those figures. Even the manufacturer does not seem to be keen on publishing the display resolution at all. Then, the device looks quite bulky, and it is a separate electronic device which has to be operated separately, like needing its own batteries, having to be switched on and off separately (although there seems to be some automated function there), to be configured in terms of display characteristics and stuff like that. There's one variation of the Zigview device though which seems quite interesting to me - the screen coupled with a shutter release cable and a motion detector, so the camera can be set up to virtually shoot everything that moves. I wonder how well that may work... Cheers Robert >>>> Why buy an entirely new and different camera system when I have a >>>> perfectly [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Cheers > Robert There are times I've found myself shooting from a tripod in its lowest position (elevator down, legs at their widest) and it's sort of inconvenient to get down and look through the viewfinder. The Zigfinder would alleviate that, but if you're right about the res, that's pretty useless... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Then, the device looks quite bulky, and it is a separate electronic >> device which has to be operated separately, like needing its own [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > would alleviate that, but if you're right about the res, that's pretty > useless... And for the occasional times most would use the camera in this way it is an awful lot of performance to give away. -------------cut, on the zigview--------------- >Then, the device looks quite bulky, and it is a separate electronic >device which has to be operated separately, like needing its own >batteries, having to be switched on and off separately (although there >seems to be some automated function there), to be configured in terms >of display characteristics and stuff like that. So when there is no longer enough power to operate the back lit power drinking electronic slow-view you can remove it and use the powerless live view to take several huddled photographs. With no power required for a back light and no battery power required for the zoom I can take ten or twenty times as many photographs with my 350d as a friend can with his 8800. I can see the angle-view capability of the Zigview being occasionally useful, but in the first instance I would spend the money on lenses. >There's one variation of the Zigview device though which seems quite >interesting to me - the screen coupled with a shutter release cable and >a motion detector, so the camera can be set up to virtually shoot >everything that moves. I wonder how well that may work... That is one aspect which interests me, although it would need an external power source to raise the autonomy to something more useful. I have considered setting up an observation using a PIR to capture nocturnal wild life in the garden. SignatureIan G8ILZ >>>> I didn't say it's not possible because the mirror is in the way; it's >>>> not possible because the sensors don't do live preview at all. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Why pay up to an extra $200 for a Zigview when you can get live >viewing for free with the Olympus E-330? Why pay for another (and poorer) system when I have live viewing with my 350D. SignatureIan G8ILZ > "Almost no value" is different than none. Yes, that's why I said "Almost no value" rather than "none". > Live preview, combined with an LCD panel that swings out, allows you to > get those over-the-head shots where otherwise you're just guessing. That's what I was thinking of when I said "almost no value". That one, very minor thing is not worth the enormous tradeoff involved, to me. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >Why don't digital SLRs allow previewing using the LCD screen? The new Olympus E-330 does. So will the first digital SLR from Panasonic, which is based on the E-330. >>Why don't digital SLRs allow previewing using the LCD screen? > > The new Olympus E-330 does. So will the first digital SLR from > Panasonic, which is based on the E-330. It's a matter of definition what is based on what. The sensor is Panasonic, the mirror box they developed together, and the rest is different. > The sensor is Panasonic, the mirror box they developed together, and the > rest is different. I believe the mirror box was actually designed by Oly because it was already used previously in the E300 which (if memory serves) was developed BEFORE the agreement between Oly and Pana. > Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > SM If you think about it, make a DSLR the way you would like and it would work like a Hassleblad. It would have to be open to preview the image, then shut down and reopen to capture the image. Talk about slow. >Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >SM There are lots of reasons, one being that the real view through the glass is far superior to any electronic viewer, (the reason I junked my Dimage and bought a D70), and also the power required by the full time use of the sensor would negate the long life of the batteries, which I charge every 700 pics, as opposed to every 75 pics with a P&S. Note that some new cameras do offer full time preview, I think with a different sensor then the main. As far as I'm concerned, I've used all types, including "viewfinder film" cameras, and I don't care for any electronic display. Maybe in the future we'll have twin lens cameras, one for electronic view and one for taking the pic, like a 2&1/4 or something... Damn I wish my D70 had the split screen view of my Minolta X-9! > Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > implement a LCD preview feature. This would also eliminate mirror flip > related shake during bulb exposures. It's tard time again. > > Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It's tard time again. Yeah, you had to come in with your pointless, worthless comment, insulting someone who doesn't have as much knowledge as you do. Tard time, no kidding. >>> Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Tard time, no kidding. You know, Mike the only time many of us are subjected to Radall' predictable spew is when someone "has to come in" and answer him. KnowwhatImean? SignatureFrank ess "One time, I got up the next morning and looked in the mirror and there were two of them up in my hair." - JEAN LEMEAUX, on the travails of removing those little stickers from her fruits and vegetables. > Yeah, you had to come in with your pointless, worthless comment, > insulting someone who doesn't have as much knowledge as you do. You're right. Why should someone educate themself? > Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > implement a LCD preview feature. This would also eliminate mirror flip > related shake during bulb exposures. The EOS 630RT 35mm camera had a fixed mirror that was semi transparent. It had the advantage of being really quick to fire and no mirror shake. The disadvantage was that you lost one stop of available light because half of it went to the viewfinder. They could re-introduce something like that. Better still would be to just have a small section of the mirror semi-transparent and mount a second 'compact' sized sensor in the bottom of the camera. Something like an Ixus sensor would be perfect. It could provide the preview iamge as well as capture video. > Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > > Why don't digital SLRs allow previewing using the LCD screen? It would > seem that to do this, the mirror would have to be temporarily > locked-up, and the image sensor enabled. This is what point-and-shoot > digital cameras do, except that there's no mirror. No reason to get rid of the mirror; most mirrors allow some of the image to pass to the light meter anyway. You would have to open the shutter, though, as well as enable the sensor. The reason DSLRs are faster than other kinds of digital cameras is that they have a real shutter. There is no time lag as the sensor is momentarily turned off and then on again. There is also no delay between what you see in the viewfinder and the shutter being tripped. An image has to be processed before it will appear on an LCD. This takes time and creates a noticeable delay. You can wave your hand in front of the lens of a camera with LCD preview and see this delay on the screen. The ON/OFF switch on a DSLR basically allows the shutter release to be activated, nothing more. If you leave a DSLR on the battery drains no faster than if you turn it off. Put an LCD in there, though, and you are talking about serious battery drain. People already gripe that the batteries don't last long enough. The sensors on other digital cameras have no shutter. They are on all the time, draining the battery, when the LCD is on. But they cannot take a picture in that mode. They have to shut off momentarily when the "shutter release" is tripped, then turn themselves on again for the length of the exposure, then turn themselves off and then on again in preview mode. All this processing delays taking the picture and again storing the picture in memory. A DSLR does not do that. The sensor is on only for the moment that the shutter is open. It does not transmit anything to the LCD; instead the LCD displays the photo after it has been processed and saved on the memory card. Putting LCD preview on a DSLR would negate most of the advantages of the DSLR, leaving you with the liabilities, such as dust on the sensor. > Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > implement a LCD preview feature. This would also eliminate mirror flip > related shake during bulb exposures. The main question is why you would want this. It is harder to focus, harder to see--especially in bright light, eats battery power...Why even have a reflex if you want to view a crappy LCD screen to focus and compose? Toby > The main question is why you would want this. It is harder to focus, harder > to see--especially in bright light, eats battery power...Why even have a > reflex if you want to view a crappy LCD screen to focus and compose? If you have poor vision then manual focusing may work better with a camera like the E-330. I haven't tried it yet so I can't say for sure, but previews I've read seem promising. If you have good vision you may find it hard to imagine but the view on a camera LCD is often an improvement over what I can see through an optical viewfinder. This is not a fluffy frilly feature to me--- it will allow me to make better photographs. The E-330 LCD also flips out so you can shoot with your hands above your head or at hip level and still compose accurately. This could be useful for street shooting and should be considerably more useful than traditional right angle finders for this purpose. If you've ever shot on a cold day you know that fogging of the viewfinder is a constant problem. Being able to compose with the camera held away from your face should be a win here. > If you have poor vision then manual focusing may work better with a > camera like the E-330. I haven't tried it yet so I can't say for > sure, but previews I've read seem promising. If you have good vision > you may find it hard to imagine but the view on a camera LCD is often > an improvement over what I can see through an optical viewfinder. Seems you'd need some pretty damn good resolution on that LCD to make manual focus more reliable than with a good viewfinder. This was actually one of the things that sold me on my (Pentax) DSLR after strongly considering the Panasonic FZ20. > The E-330 LCD also flips out so you can shoot with your hands above > your head or at hip level and still compose accurately. This could be > useful for street shooting and should be considerably more useful than > traditional right angle finders for this purpose. I agree; I think those who completely ridicule the notion are not considering the possible advantages (also: live feedback on white balance & exposure). On the other hand, I strongly suspect most of those asking why the feature hasn't been implemented haven't considered the fairly basic difference between DSLR and P&S that makes eliminates the huge advantage a live preview has over a viewfinder in a P&S in terms of showing you what you are actually getting in your shot when shooting at close range. > If you've ever shot on a cold day you know that fogging of the > viewfinder is a constant problem. I shoot in the cold a lot, and can't say I'm noticed this. But then, it's dry cold here in Colorado. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>If you have poor vision then manual focusing may work better with a >>camera like the E-330. I haven't tried it yet so I can't say for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Seems you'd need some pretty damn good resolution on that LCD to make > manual focus more reliable than with a good viewfinder. A 10x magnification mode is available so you can see details come into focus. Again, I haven't tried it, so I can't vouch for how well it works. But if they can do the magnification in such a way that you don't get the twinkling pixels around edges then I think it can work. >>> If you have poor vision then manual focusing may work better with a >>> camera like the E-330. I haven't tried it yet so I can't say for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > works. But if they can do the magnification in such a way that you > don't get the twinkling pixels around edges then I think it can work. I have one, and it works well. As long as you have the camera in a stable position, the E-330 it is not only better to manually focus than any other camera with one of those tiny FourThirds, APS-C or DX sized focusing screens, in fact it is better to manually focus than any 35mm analogue SLR I looked through. The camera is not quite perfect, though. There are two modes of Live View. In A Mode, the display shows a signal taken from a second CCD that lives in the viewfinder compartment and takes some of the light off the optical view. This secondary CCD 'films' the focusing screen, which makes the resulting view slightly grainy and difficult to judge focus (since the semi-matte screen makes it difficult in the first place). In A Mode, both the optical finder and the display show a picture, the optical finder shows 94% of the scene, the display 92%, which is something one has to get used to. In B Mode, the mirror is locked up, and the primary sensor delivers the picture; it is the first FourThirds- (or larger) sized sensor that is physically capable to deliver a permanent view which is similar to that of a compact digital camera. The display shows 100% then, but there's no AF anymore and no AE; the exposure will only be measured after the shutter button is pressed. Only this mode lets you zoom in 10x to get the exact focus manually. Given that you can use the camera either with live view or conventionally, though with a somewhat darker finder, I see it as quite a nice progress even though it's not perfect in every detail. The tiltable display does allow for a completely different perspective - it's quite like that of the Olympus C-8080WZ, only significantly larger. And don't believe the fairy tales that a live view sensor couldn't be as good as a classic one-shot DSLR sensor - in fact, the new Panasonic/Olympus NMOS sensor is the best FourThirds sensor they ever made. At 7.5 million pixels, the E-330 resolves at least as much detail as the 8 million pixel sensor which is built into the E-500. Dynamic range and colour behaviour seem up to par, or, if anything, slightly improved as well. Cheers, Robert So where are all the links to the great shots these bloody marvelous cameras are capable of? I want to see the walk not just the talk. >>>> If you have poor vision then manual focusing may work better with a >>>> camera like the E-330. I haven't tried it yet so I can't say for sure, [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Cheers, > Robert > So where are all the links to the great shots these bloody marvelous cameras > are capable of? I want to see the walk not just the talk. Oh, the shots won't differ too much from those out of its predecessors or its competition, just as the current cameras between 6 and 8 million pixels won't differ all too much in their results... The difference is more in the way you can take pictures, like nature macros without having to lie down in the dirt, like holding the camera above your head to picture a crowd while quite nicely seeing what you'll get, like pictures of people while shooting from the hip without alerting them. Because the E-330 hit the stores only a few days ago, at least around here, it probably will take some weeks for a larger choice of sample shots to appear. You'll find one or two shots here, with more to follow in time: http://oly-e.de/alben/show.php4?album=e330 And if you don't mind that it's in German as well, at http://www.iemp.net/rs/fototechnik/ (machine translation by Google: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iemp.net%2Frs%2Ffototec hnik%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools) you'll find a couple of test shots comparing the E-330 to the E-500 and some more sample shots, some at high ISO (which are probably still not totally on par with the EOS 350D, as I believe, but do come closer than earlier FourThirds cameras), also three macro shots done with manual focusing in "B Mode" live view ("Stativ", translated by Google as "stand", means "tripod"...). Cheers, Robert >> So where are all the links to the great shots these bloody marvelous >> cameras are capable of? I want to see the walk not just the talk. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > picture a crowd while quite nicely seeing what you'll get, like pictures > of people while shooting from the hip without alerting them. So you are saying you can focus better for macro shots with these screens, what rubbish, the differnce in this situation would be minimal as you would have to get down to see the screen and in bright sunshine it would ordinary at best. My 200mm macro lens seems to give me plenty of room anyway. The occcasional crowd shot over my head has not been a problem for me, just how often do you need this feature. I can still shoot from the hip but prefer that people know I am taking photos rather than doing it covertly. Personally I would rather have a better quality camera. >>> So where are all the links to the great shots these bloody marvelous >>> cameras are capable of? I want to see the walk not just the talk. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So you are saying you can focus better for macro shots with these screens, Yes. Though the B Mode manual focus feature is for shots for which you have the camera in a rather stable position, like on a tripod, and when you can take your time. If it's no use for a certain situation, you do it like you used to do it before. But you have always the chance to switch it on, which then lets you manually focus better and more exact than any other digital or analog 35mm SLR camera can. By the way, you can read the large display very well even if you hold the camera with outstretched arm. > what rubbish, the differnce in this situation would be minimal as you would > have to get down to see the screen and in bright sunshine it would ordinary [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I can still shoot from the hip but prefer that people know I am taking > photos rather than doing it covertly. Well, you might indeed have no use for an E-330. On the other hand, people who used a compact digital camera with a folding display for the first time, didn't know that they would until they had the chance to. > Personally I would rather have a better quality camera. Image-wise? All current cameras, regardless of manufacturer, already deliver image quality at or above 35mm film and already have much better low light capabilities. All systems more or less have a decent selection of quality lenses. If I buy a camera, I don't care too much about which camera delivers a couple of pixels more or a few ISO more, I rather think about what I can do with a camera, and how I can do it. My reason to go for the FourThirds sensor format in the first place was that I found no other telephoto zoom lens like the 2.8-3.5/50-200 (100-400 35mm equiv.) which would have been equally small, light, fast and sharp at the same time. And my main reason to upgrade my E-500 to an E-330, beside the small improvements especially in high ISO image quality, was that I know that the live view feature, which I already had come to like in a C-8080WZ compact camera, simply lets me take pictures I wouldn't be able to take without it. Cheers, Robert >>>> So where are all the links to the great shots these bloody marvelous >>>> cameras are capable of? I want to see the walk not just the talk. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Cheers, > Robert I guess the bottom line here is that those that like the screen compose will prefer a camera with it rather than a camera without it bo matter what compromises need to be made, the fact that they can use a screen to compose is justification enough really. I have of course used many P&S cameras and they take nice enough snaps but for me they are always a compromise and I see the E330 as too little too late and jst not there in the important areas. >>>>> So where are all the links to the great shots these bloody marvelous >>>>> cameras are capable of? I want to see the walk not just the talk. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >see the E330 as too little too late and jst not there in the important >areas. I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? After all SLRs didn't have them. -Rich > I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? After all SLRs > didn't have them. I could do without it on mine. >>> Robert >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > didn't have them. > -Rich I seem to remember that I use it for other things besides previewing my shots. But I guess when you get a camera you will see that. Other things, like what? Piping in a television signal? > Other things, like what? Piping in a television > signal? Where do you think you setup the cameras configuration? God you are hard teach, please, please buy one. > I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? After all SLRs > didn't have them. > -Rich About the second time I was blinded by mine in a dark venue, I wondered the same thing. But it is handy to check for screwup, like forgetting to lock exposure before shifting to focus... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? After all SLRs >> didn't have them. > > About the second time I was blinded by mine in a dark venue, I wondered the > same thing. I shut off the auto-review a lot, especially in the dark. If you need to check the shot it's just a button away, after all. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? After all SLRs >>> didn't have them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I shut off the auto-review a lot, especially in the dark. If you need to > check the shot it's just a button away, after all. Y'know, I forgot about that option. But it doesn't happen that often, anyway. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? After all SLRs >>>didn't have them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I shut off the auto-review a lot, especially in the dark. If you need to > check the shot it's just a button away, after all. Good point, I probably don't check but half the pics (if that) & it's one button to check when I want to. > I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? You don't own a DSLR so no wonder you asked such a stupid question. Greg >> I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? > >You don't own a DSLR so no wonder you asked such a stupid question. > >Greg Well, according to one person, he could do without it. Since SLRs didn't have them, it wouldn't be impossible to do without them, would it? On the other hand, some people are obviously finding some benefit from them so is it such as stretch for people with little minds to think that perhaps a live view LCD might be a benefit, especially one that can be tilted, moved, etc? -Rich > >> I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, according to one person, he could do without it. So because one person can do without it you ask a stupid question? > Since SLRs > didn't have them, it wouldn't be impossible to do without them, would > it? Of course not, but why would I want to lose ground in the ability to take better pictures? > On the other hand, some people are obviously finding some benefit > from them so is it such as stretch for people with little minds to > think that perhaps a live view LCD might be a benefit, especially one > that can be tilted, moved, etc? Nice non-sequitur. Live preview, and camera setup/image review are two completely different things. And the main reason that many current DSLRs have an LCD is because you need them to change camera settings. How many DSLRs have enough knobs and dials to change all settings without the LCD? Greg >> >> I wonder why they put LCD screens on DSLRs at all? >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Greg None. Some however have separate function LCD screens, small ones on top of or in back of the camera, much like the last crop of SLRs did. I think, but am not sure, that some cameras are moving away (a bit) from the nested menu systems (some people hated the complexity of the Olympus ones) and towards having more functions available via buttons and switches. More than one reviewer has stated that the inability to change functions with the camera at eye-level is a problem. But LCDs have afforded users with a way to post-check images so IMO, the logical outgrowth of that is live preview. In five years, there will be no more reflex mirrors and live LCDs will be the rule with DSLRs. Just a guess. -Rich > In five years, there will be no more reflex mirrors and > live LCDs will be the rule with DSLRs. Just a guess. There may be live preview, but, you'll still need a mirror or other optical trickery to provide the optical viewfinder... SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com The main problem I see with live preview is that once you press the shutter release, the shutter, which up until that moment has been open, will have to close. There would need to be a very short interval to allow the charge to dissipate and then the shutter would have to open to take the picture. This would introduce some, albeit short, sutter lag but probably unacceptable to most DSLR users. In addition, leaving the shutter open for live preview would also mean more dust on the sensor. Also, with the shutter open the mirror sort of gets in the way, even if it is only half-mirrored. > The main problem I see with live preview is that once you press the > shutter release, the shutter, which up until that moment has been open, will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shutter open the mirror sort of gets in the way, even if it is only > half-mirrored. Using the main image sensor for live preview is simply not feasible with current technology. Besides what you mention, other issues would include autofocus not working and exposure meter not working. Someone would need to invent something before it could be done in a way that is even remotely useful -- but it's reasonable to expect that someone could invent it. Using a secondary sensor would be the way to go. I don't think it's worth bothering with, but obviously some people actually think an LCD preview is a good thing to have, and are willing to sacrifice just about anything else about the camera to get it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> The main problem I see with live preview is that once you press the >> shutter release, the shutter, which up until that moment has been open, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > else > about the camera to get it. And those people should probably just buy an all in one camera that does it all, they will be happy with their compromise. > Using a secondary sensor would be the way to go. I don't think it's worth > bothering with, but obviously some people actually think an LCD preview is > a good thing to have, and are willing to sacrifice just about anything else > about the camera to get it. There are a lot of retarded people who think they're photographers. >> Using a secondary sensor would be the way to go. I don't think it's worth >> bothering with, but obviously some people actually think an LCD preview is >> a good thing to have, and are willing to sacrifice just about anything else >> about the camera to get it. > >There are a lot of retarded people who think they're photographers. They don't really have to worry about the LCD "sacrificing" much. Olympus DSLRs are not stipped down to bare bones like some entry level products. -Rich >>> Using a secondary sensor would be the way to go. I don't think it's >>> worth [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > entry level products. > -Rich Such as? Just which cameras do you think are stripped down? >>>> Using a secondary sensor would be the way to go. I don't think it's >>>> worth [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Such as? Just which cameras do you think are stripped down? Rebel XT, D50, Pentax (all) and Minolta's D5, Samsung's new clones of the Pentax's. Do a comparison of the specifications and control features on dpreview.com. Olympus's entry-level E-500 beats them all for this. -Rich >>Such as? Just which cameras do you think are stripped down? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for this. > -Rich Just because a feature is not included does not mean the camera is "stripped down", it just means the feature is not implemented. I don't see what is missing in these cameras compared to the E500, from what I see the E500 is "stripped down" compared to the others. >>Such as? Just which cameras do you think are stripped down? > > Rebel XT, D50, Pentax (all) and Minolta's D5, Samsung's new clones of > the Pentax's. Do a comparison of the specifications and control > features on dpreview.com. Olympus's entry-level E-500 beats them all > for this. As will be the case comparing virtually any two cameras, one can find certain features one camera chooses to implement that another doesn't. Yes, the E500 has some things the others don't. And the others each have things the E500 doesn't. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>>Such as? Just which cameras do you think are stripped down? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, the E500 has some things the others don't. And the others each have > things the E500 doesn't. No way?? How could Rich have stuffed that up??? squirrelmaster@hushmail.com schrieb: > Why don't digital SLRs allow previewing using the LCD screen? It would > seem that to do this, the mirror would have to be temporarily > locked-up, and the image sensor enabled. This is what point-and-shoot > digital cameras do, except that there's no mirror. Look here: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1226 Available since march 2006. > In fact, one could build a DSLR camera without the mirror and just rely > on the LCD screen for the viewfinder. Of course the "R" in DSLR would > have to be dropped as there's no mirror. Okay, a viewfinder-less camera > wouldn't be that great, but I don't see why manufactures don't > implement a LCD preview feature. This would also eliminate mirror flip > related shake during bulb exposures. The E-330 implements this as mode B. The drawback is that by flipping the mirror away, the Af sensors can not work (because they are located inside of the viewfinder). Therefore, Olympus offers a Mode A for this camera. In Mode A, an additional CCD-Sensor inside of the viewfinder is used for the preview function. The drawback is that you do not get a 100% pane of the image, it captures only 92% approximately. Clemens >Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. Yes, it is. A pointless feature, if you want that just buy a point and shoot. ********************************************************** "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/ > Yes, it is. > > A pointless feature, if you want that just buy a point and shoot. At long last...someone who gets it. >>Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > >Yes, it is. > >A pointless feature, if you want that just buy a point and shoot. Remember, these characters were the same ones who probably denigrated autofocus when it appeared. Not exactly long-term thinkers. -Rich > Remember, these characters were the same ones who probably denigrated > autofocus when it appeared. Not exactly long-term thinkers. You want a live preview...buy a P&S. > Remember, these characters were the same ones who probably denigrated > autofocus when it appeared. Not exactly long-term thinkers. I thought autofocus was the best thing since sliced bread. I still think it's good. The trade-offs for autofocus turn out to be autofocus lenses that aren't as easy to manually focus; and cameras without proper focusing screens. I can eliminate the first by simply putting a manual focus lens on my camera. The second is a bit more problematic; I'm still waiting (im)patiently for someone to offer a proper focusing screen for my camera, a feat no one seems able to accomplish. The focusing screen issue is, to me, the single biggest problem with the current digital SLR cameras. But even so, the benefits of autofocus outweigh it. Live LCD preview is a completely different situation. The benefits are few (I can think of only one, having to hold the camera away from your face) and the downsides are tremendous. Nowhere near worth it. Make one with no downside, and that'll be fine with me. So, as usual, your statement is stupid. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Remember, these characters were the same ones who probably denigrated >> autofocus when it appeared. Not exactly long-term thinkers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > screens. I can eliminate the first by simply putting a manual focus lens > on my camera. Canon's USM lenses are as easy to focus manually as anything. > The second is a bit more problematic; I'm still waiting > (im)patiently for someone to offer a proper focusing screen for my > camera, a feat no one seems able to accomplish. What's your camera? I just installed a Katzeye screen in my 350D. It has a split prism center with a microprism collar, and even makes the viewfinder brighter. Installing it was easy too. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com > Canon's USM lenses are as easy to focus manually as anything. They're okay. Nikon's are too. Still nothing like the feel of the manual lenses. Of course, autofocus works 80% of the time, so it's a good trade -- as long as you're using an autofocus lens, which I guess with Canon you pretty much always are. >> The second is a bit more problematic; I'm still waiting >> (im)patiently for someone to offer a proper focusing screen for my >> camera, a feat no one seems able to accomplish. > > What's your camera? Nikon D2x. > I just installed a Katzeye screen in my 350D. It has a split prism > center with a microprism collar, and even makes the viewfinder brighter. Yep. Still waiting for one for my camera. > Installing it was easy too. The D2x has changeable focusing screens, so that won't be an issue at all. Nikon just doesn't see fit to make any with focusing aids. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > >>Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > autofocus when it appeared. Not exactly long-term thinkers. > -Rich Says the guy who has trashed so many cameras so many cameras on this group that he still refuses to buy one. >> >>Maybe this is a dumb question, maybe not, but here goes.. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Says the guy who has trashed so many cameras so many cameras on this >group that he still refuses to buy one. Sometimes you have to wait for technology to really produce something that isn't just a clone of SLRs of the 1970s. If there are people who still don't like LCD preview and the flexibility it confers, so be it. I guess right angle viewfinders for SLRs made no sense either? Why don't you people just admit (since in a few years this will become normal on all DSLRs) that the LCD preview is a huge step forward in improving the flexibility and capabilities of DSLRs? -Rich > Sometimes you have to wait for technology to really produce something > that isn't just a clone of SLRs of the 1970s. If there are people who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > forward in improving the flexibility and capabilities of DSLRs? > -Rich My D-SLR is a far cry from the SLR I was using in the 70's but I still don't have a use for live preview, even on my little P&S I rarely use it. >> Sometimes you have to wait for technology to really produce something >> that isn't just a clone of SLRs of the 1970s. If there are people who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My D-SLR is a far cry from the SLR I was using in the 70's but I still > don't have a use for live preview, even on my little P&S I rarely use it. My little P&S has such a POS viewfinder, I'm forced to use the LCD, which goes essentially blank in bright light. Great combination... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> Sometimes you have to wait for technology to really produce something >>> that isn't just a clone of SLRs of the 1970s. If there are people who [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My little P&S has such a POS viewfinder, I'm forced to use the LCD, which > goes essentially blank in bright light. Great combination... I use glasses for reading and the diopter adjustment on my D-SLR lets me focus perfectly when using the viewfinder, my camera uses a matt screen as standard and I can easily replace that with a split screen, it would then be like my SLR from the 70's but have not felt the need as the viewfinder is so clear and sharp. >>> Sometimes you have to wait for technology to really produce something >>> that isn't just a clone of SLRs of the 1970s. If there are people who [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >My little P&S has such a POS viewfinder, I'm forced to use the LCD, which >goes essentially blank in bright light. Great combination... It is probably also blank in low light. SignatureIan G8ILZ > Sometimes you have to wait for technology to really produce something > that isn't just a clone of SLRs of the 1970s. If there are people who > still don't like LCD preview and the flexibility it confers, so be it. > I guess right angle viewfinders for SLRs made no sense either? Right angle viewfinders don't negatively affect image quality, or add shutter lag. > Why don't you people just admit (since in a few years this will > become normal on all DSLRs) that the LCD preview is a huge step > forward in improving the flexibility and capabilities of DSLRs? Even if they make one with none of the negatives, it would at best be a minor step forward. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Sometimes you have to wait for technology to really produce something > > that isn't just a clone of SLRs of the 1970s. If there are people who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Right angle viewfinders don't negatively affect image quality, or add > shutter lag. Wouls\d an LCD preview have to affect image quality? > > Why don't you people just admit (since in a few years this will > > become normal on all DSLRs) that the LCD preview is a huge step > > forward in improving the flexibility and capabilities of DSLRs? > > Even if they make one with none of the negatives, it would at best be > a minor step forward. Respectfully disagree. I use the LCD (in my P&S) to frame over-the-head and ground-level shots *a lot*. I really miss that feature on my SLRs -- Jeff R. (...or should that be SLR's ?) > Would an LCD preview have to affect image quality? Only if it uses the image sensor. > Respectfully disagree. > I use the LCD (in my P&S) to frame over-the-head and ground-level shots *a > lot*. > I really miss that feature on my SLRs Right; one small feature that is definitely useful sometimes. Minor step forward. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Would an LCD preview have to affect image quality? > > Only if it uses the image sensor. No, it wouldn't. Proof by counter-example: Image quality of the E-330, including visible resolution, sharpness and especially noise, has , if anything, slightly improved compared to its non-liveview counterparts, the E-300 and E-500, even though it offers slightly less megapixels. In any case I find it hard to accept that there should be a negative effect in a feature that is purely optional, which has to be switched on if wanted, can be switched off again if not. There is one single issue, though - the optical viewfinder is slightly darker, since the light for the main live view mode, which does not by the way use the primary sensor at all, diverts a small amount light from. Brightness is not an issue with the E-330's optical viewfinder, though. It suffers more from being tiny and from the difficulty to judge sharpness and foucs, especially compared to 35mm SLRs. Which is an inherent problem of all small-sensor DSLRs though, be it FourThirds, APS-C or DX. Personally, I see the live view feature as a potential first step on a path to an electronic finder and/or display technology that could in the end become better than any currently available optical viewfinder based on small-sensor sized focusing screens. Cheers, Robert >No, it wouldn't. Proof by counter-example: Image quality of the E-330, >including visible resolution, sharpness and especially noise, has , if >anything, slightly improved compared to its non-liveview counterparts, >the E-300 and E-500, even though it offers slightly less megapixels. The samples I've seen suggest that the E-330 has at least as much noise as the others, but is more heavily noise-reduced. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> No, it wouldn't. Proof by counter-example: Image quality of the E-330, >> including visible resolution, sharpness and especially noise, has , if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The samples I've seen suggest that the E-330 has at least as much noise > as the others, but is more heavily noise-reduced. Noise-wise, I think it is quite clear to see that the E-330 does have a lead of about 1/2 EV to the E-500. This is the case both /with/ (JPEGs compared, internal high iso noise filter enabled) and /without/ any internal noise-reduction whatsoever (identically developed RAWs compared), and taking resolution and sharpness of detail into account. I got that impression already from a couple of test shots from pre-production cameras which occured on the 'net, but I've done two sets of comparisons myself in http://www.iemp.net/rs/fototechnik/e330-e500-iso and http://www.iemp.net/rs/fototechnik/e330-e500-iso2 (please excuse the few words in German language there), which, I think, do show the same. Robert >Noise-wise, I think it is quite clear to see that the E-330 does have a >lead of about 1/2 EV to the E-500. This is the case both /with/ (JPEGs [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >http://www.iemp.net/rs/fototechnik/e330-e500-iso2 (please excuse the few >words in German language there), which, I think, do show the same. The E-330 images all look a little hazier to me than the E-500 images; like they've been filtered. The noise looks processed in all of the deep shadow examples. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Noise-wise, I think it is quite clear to see that the E-330 does have a >>lead of about 1/2 EV to the E-500. This is the case both /with/ (JPEGs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >like they've been filtered. >The noise looks processed in all of the deep shadow examples. Someone else posted some images at higher ISO that seem to look alot better. As usual, we'll have to wait until a reputable review site runs it through its paces. -Rich Robert Schroeder <rs@iemp.net> wrote in news:441426a0$0$12912$9b4e6d93 @newsread4.arcor-online.net: >>> Would an LCD preview have to affect image quality? >> >> Only if it uses the image sensor. > > No, it wouldn't. Proof by counter-example: Image quality of the E-330, Which doesn't use the image sensor. SignatureMatti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm> > Robert Schroeder <rs@iemp.net> wrote in news:441426a0$0$12912$9b4e6d93 > @newsread4.arcor-online.net: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Which doesn't use the image sensor. Mode A liveview doesn't. Mode B does. >>> Would an LCD preview have to affect image quality? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anything, slightly improved compared to its non-liveview counterparts, > the E-300 and E-500, even though it offers slightly less megapixels. Of course it has. It's newer. > In any case I find it hard to accept that there should be a negative > effect in a feature that is purely optional, which has to be switched on > if wanted, can be switched off again if not. You don't understand. In order for the image sensor to provide live preview it must be capable of providing live preview. In order to be capable of it, it needs to devote circuitry to it at the expense of devoting it to forming the final photograph. You can switch off that circuitry, but you can't make it disappear and reappear. > There is one single issue, though - the optical viewfinder is slightly > darker, since the light for the main live view mode, which does not by > the way use the primary sensor at all, diverts a small amount light from. That's the issue with doing it the other way, by using a second sensor. You cut the viewfinder light in half. Not acceptable. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com [...] >> In any case I find it hard to accept that there should be a negative >> effect in a feature that is purely optional, which has to be switched on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the final photograph. You can switch off that circuitry, but you can't make > it disappear and reappear. Sorry to be contrary again, but it is not a matter of additional circuitry to enable a digital sensor to provide a live view. In fact it is a question whether the sensor's existing readout circuitry, if we'll carry on with the term, can deliver a permanent or semi-permanent feed, without the sensor to have its image quality degraded by increased noise through heat, instead of being restricted to single readouts at a time. This is what Panasonic and Olympus managed to achieve with the new NMOS sensor, thereby also significantly reducing noise at very slow shutter speeds, important e.g. for astrophotography. >> There is one single issue, though - the optical viewfinder is slightly >> darker, since the light for the main live view mode, which does not by >> the way use the primary sensor at all, diverts a small amount light from. > > That's the issue with doing it the other way, by using a second sensor. > You cut the viewfinder light in half. Not acceptable. Where did you get the information that it was "cut in half"? And on which experience to you base your judgement that was "not acceptable"? My judgement is, no 1.5x, 1.6x or 2x crop DSLR optical viewfinder is really "acceptable", because the focusing screens are necessarily way too small - not too dark. And taking 20% (as Olympus says, although in fact I suspect it could be more) off the light from an originally quite bright viewfinder system doesn't really make it even significantly less acceptable (more inacceptable). If you compare the E-330 with the E-300, you'll notice the difference in direct comparison, of course, but all in all it's still bright enough. In situations when light gets really scarce, you can use the LCD instead, and while it's rather noisy at low light, you still can compose your picture, which you probably would have more problems to do then even with the non-liveview camera. Robert |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message