Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why SLR with Digital ?!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:06:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.

With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?

Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).

My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

More about : slr digital

Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote in message
news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

Have you tried to see the image on a LCD display under bright conditions? My
P&S camera has both and I use the viewfinder more often than the LCD for
composition.
January 15, 2005 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:06:51 GMT, Stephen G. Giannoni
<E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote:

>For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
>on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
>With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
>sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
>Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
>My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

In my experience (so far) trying to manual focus with an LCD or EVF is
a nightmare! However resolutions on these devices keep going up so
eventually it might work okay.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Related resources
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen G. Giannoni wrote:

> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?

Have you tried to manually get a lens into sharp focus while looking at a
postange stamp sized LCD display ? You probably haven't or you wouldn't
even be asking the question :-)
January 15, 2005 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen G. Giannoni wrote:

> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...


The advantage is a bigger sensor which also pretty much requires
interchangeable lenses. It seems they ought to be able to do live
preview but there are technical issues and trade-off for image quality I
think. It's also real hard to focus through an LCD.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote in message
news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

1. the big high quality sensors of DSLRs aren't deisgned for real time
preview
(pixels from the sensor would need to be modified specificaly for LCD
preview, hence diminishing the area that actually captures the final image,
which is the whole point of DSLR).

2. it a lot easier to focus on a DSLR then a PS digicam.

3. i see no need for what you are suggesting, DSLRs viewfinders are a lot
better then PS viewfinders in case you haven't noticed, not to mention that
the excellent battery life of DSLR cameras would suffer (my 20D takes
800 photos with one charge).
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote in message
news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...


I MUCH prefer looking through the viewfinder and seeing exactly what the
lens sees with no electronic interpretation. SLRs are here to stay. There
are plenty of point 'n shoots to keep everybody else happy.

Mark
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com>, Stephen G.
Giannoni <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote:

> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?

So how does this work in an SLR when the mirror is in the way?
January 15, 2005 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> a écrit dans le
message de news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

My guess: you dont know anything about photography
January 15, 2005 10:06:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <34tkpsF3k7birU1@individual.net>, nospammm@no__spam.com says...
>
> "Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> a écrit dans le
> message de news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
> > For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> > on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
> >
> > With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> > sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
> >
> > Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
> >
> > My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...
>
> My guess: you dont know anything about photography
>
>
>

My prediction:

In a year or two we will have "Hybrid" cameras available with a choice
between evf and normal SLR viewfinders with interchangeable lenses. (perhaps
with a different sensor in the camera with the evf).

As the digital camera market matures the manufacturers will keep adding
features whether we ask for them or not, simply to have "selling points" for
their add copy.

My choice would be a viewfinder with the old split/prism system for manual
focus.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:27:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote in message
news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?

Actually, its not in real time. There is a slight delay which can cause
problems when panning rapidly. Also, the resolution of the LCD on which it
is viewed usually makes the image appear very coarse and it is usually
limited by the dynamic range capabilities of the sensor chip. SLRs allow
seeing the real image in true real time with its real dynamic range.


> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

Your guess is wrong.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:20:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/15/05 1:06 PM, in article 0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com,
"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote:

> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

A troll, but I'll bite. . .
Can you get a 400mm, 500mm, 600mm (35mm equivalent) or greater lens for your
non-SLR? Can you get a 10mm wide angle for your non-SLR? Can you continue
to use that same lens with a new camera body when you decide to upgrade your
non-SLR?
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:20:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/15/05 2:20 PM, in article BE0ED715.149BE%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com,
"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

> A troll, but I'll bite. . .
> Can you get a 400mm, 500mm, 600mm (35mm equivalent) or greater lens for your
> non-SLR? Can you get a 10mm wide angle for your non-SLR? Can you continue
> to use that same lens with a new camera body when you decide to upgrade your
> non-SLR?
Can you control the exposure etc to get exactly the effect you want? No.
Anybody who is shooting photography rather than "snapshots" needs something
they can control. I have both and use each for specific situations and
purposes.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:24:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
> Stephen G. Giannoni wrote:
>
>> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will
>> be on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>>
>> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
>> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Have you tried to manually get a lens into sharp focus while looking
> at a postange stamp sized LCD display ? You probably haven't or you
> wouldn't even be asking the question :-)

With the Panasonic FZ20, and other cameras which magnify the central area
of the viewfinder when manual focus is selected, using an LCD or EVF to
determine the correct focus setting for the lens is easy. Certainly no
more difficult than using SLRs which today have no manual focussing aid
like split-prism or microprism.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:24:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Jim Townsend wrote:
>> Stephen G. Giannoni wrote:
>>
>>> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will
>>> be on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>>>
>>> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
>>> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>>
>> Have you tried to manually get a lens into sharp focus while looking
>> at a postange stamp sized LCD display ? You probably haven't or you
>> wouldn't even be asking the question :-)
>
> With the Panasonic FZ20, and other cameras which magnify the central area
> of the viewfinder when manual focus is selected, using an LCD or EVF to
> determine the correct focus setting for the lens is easy. Certainly no
> more difficult than using SLRs which today have no manual focussing aid
> like split-prism or microprism.

Then you've got better eyes than I have :-)

I had a Canon Pro90 with an EVF. It was mostly luck when i got a
manually focused shot looking sharp. The LCD was no better.. It
was much worse in bright sunlight because it was just too hard
to see..
January 15, 2005 11:34:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

None of these answers are really right.
One can easily read real time video from sensor, especially if you don't
need full resolution information.
But, that means that mirror would have to be up for composing the picture,
and the shutter open.
Now, one technical snag - CCD and CMOS imager has to be precharged, to take
the picture.
This does not take too long, but it has to be dark. This means mirror has to
come down, shutter to close,
imager precharge, and ONLY THEN properly expose. This would make an SLR
camera worse than the
worst P/S camera made up to date.
Things may be made faster with application of pellicle mirror (Canon RT,
fastest camera of its time and even today).
but you still have shutter plane in the way.
Even the Olympus E-10/20 which is a true dual SLR/live view camera has EVF
blackout time due to lag needed
for CCD to precharge.
So there you go.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:49:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen G. Giannoni <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> writes:

> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

Maybe. As soon as the sensor makers solve the problem of making a
large, high quality, high resolution sensor that can do continuous
video output. The chips currently used in the DSLRs *can't* do
continuous video output, the space normally used for that circuitry is
being used to make other things better instead.

I personally would be happy with an EVF or flexible LCD screen with
preview if the final image quality isn't compromised; in *some* ways
I'd be *happier* than with real SLR viewing. But you'll find a lot of
other people don't feel that way :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:51:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"(((((0)))))" <newsgroup@NSPMgrubor.ca> wrote in message
news:17fGd.86283$Xk.64352@pd7tw3no...
> None of these answers are really right.
> One can easily read real time video from sensor, especially if you don't
> need full resolution information.
> But, that means that mirror would have to be up for composing the picture,
> and the shutter open.
> Now, one technical snag - CCD and CMOS imager has to be precharged, to
take
> the picture.
> This does not take too long, but it has to be dark. This means mirror has
to
> come down, shutter to close,
> imager precharge, and ONLY THEN properly expose. This would make an SLR
> camera worse than the
> worst P/S camera made up to date.
> Things may be made faster with application of pellicle mirror (Canon RT,
> fastest camera of its time and even today).
> but you still have shutter plane in the way.
> Even the Olympus E-10/20 which is a true dual SLR/live view camera has EVF
> blackout time due to lag needed
> for CCD to precharge.
> So there you go.
>
>

Interesting stuff - thanks. Do the DSLRs come with an LCD screen at all? So
far I've only lashed out for a Canon G5 and really like the flip out screen.
I will be buying a DSLR but not until they are .....

cheaper
have a bigger ISO range
don't have a mirror bashing up and down

I may be waiting a long time from what you write.

John
January 15, 2005 11:51:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eatmorepies wrote:
>
> Do the DSLRs come with an LCD screen at all?


Yes so you can see how the exposure came out a moment after shooting. I
do miss the constant input but it's a tolerable tradeoff.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:29:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen G. Giannoni wrote:
> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

The primary reason I bought an SLR was the viewfinder. I had two non
SLR digitals and they are ok for what they are, but they are not the same by
any means. I have a LCD screen on the back of my camera, but I have not yet
used to to compose a picture.


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
January 16, 2005 1:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beacause the picute on teh back of most digitals is quite frankly very poor.
You need to see well enough to know what the picture is going to look like -
which is why most serious photographers use some form of direct viewing -
SLRs dominate 35mm, in the past 20 years they replaced the never quite as
good TLR in medium format shooting, and of course in large format the view
can also be directly through the lens.
Basically, while the little representation on the LCD is an improvement
over film point and shoots - it is still pretty damn pathetic.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote in message
news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>
> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...
January 16, 2005 2:02:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote in message
news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...

>
> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>
> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...



Read and learn:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 2:32:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rudy Benner puts on the robe and wizard hat... HARRRRRRRRRR:

>
> Have you tried to see the image on a LCD display under bright
> conditions? My P&S camera has both and I use the viewfinder more often
> than the LCD for composition.
>
>

And dont forget dark conditions when the LCD isnt sensitive to pick
anything up, so while pics might work with your flash on, you can't see
anything in the viewfinder

--
Dave

Get me away from here I’m dying
Play me a song to set me free
January 16, 2005 2:41:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in
news:150120051433158447%rag@nospam.techline.com:

> In article <0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com>, Stephen G.
> Giannoni <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote:
>
>> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
>> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>
> So how does this work in an SLR when the mirror is in the way?

Congratulations, you win the dumb question of the day award.

Stephen was advocating NOT having SLR digitals, so the real time data is
from a camera not using the SLR arrangement.

In other words the answer to your question is: Duh! It doesn't!


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 2:48:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:BE0ED715.149BE%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...
> On 1/15/05 1:06 PM, in article 0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com,
> "Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote:
>
>> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
>> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>>
>> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
>> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>>
>> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>>
>> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...
>
> A troll, but I'll bite. . .
> Can you get a 400mm, 500mm, 600mm (35mm equivalent) or greater lens for
> your
> non-SLR? Can you get a 10mm wide angle for your non-SLR? Can you
> continue
> to use that same lens with a new camera body when you decide to upgrade
> your
> non-SLR?
>
Though I see that dSLRs offer several advantages over most digital cameras,
the reverse can also be true. I use a coolpix (and after a great deal of
soul searching have just upgraded from a 5700 to an 8800. It's lighter than
a dSLR and lenses, it offers 24mm to 350mm zoom and the option of using lens
adaptors to cover 12mm to 650mm, it will focus down to 3mm (now that's
macro!), it will record in Raw or it will offer a continuous burst for up to
12 frames. I never get dust onto the sensor and the 'flip out' screen lets
me work in some really unusual positions.
I agree that the build quality will not stand up to really hard hammer (but
nether will I, I'm 58), The shutter delay is the bain of my life, ho how I
long for true manual focus. I will probably end up buying a D70 and a
longish lens with a wider aperture for some natural history work, but that
will be destined for specific outings only as the bulk will prevent me from
carrying both all the time.
The introduction of digital cameras dragged me back into photography, I used
to own an A1 and had got to the point of needing two bags for all the gear
(so I gradually stopped taking pictures. I'm now secretary of my local club
www.wakefieldcameraclub.org.uk again (I was before in the 80s) and we have a
growing membership of Photoshop addicts ;o) So, there is room in this hobby
for both non-SLR and SLR photography, I've yet to meet a judge that can tell
me what camera took the picture ;o) Enjoy your photography.
January 16, 2005 2:50:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen G. Giannoni <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote in
news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com:

> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.

Yep, precisely why the SLR was developed.

> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?

Not quite accurate here. With the lower image quality sensors you can have
a real time preview, but with higher quality low noise sensors - you can't!

> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).

All cameras that are capable of taking pictures are "real cameras"! The
cameras that take good quality pictures with acceptably low noise at ISO
1600 are "more capable cameras".

> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

Quite possible, but we don't know how numbered. IT could be 20 years or it
could be 80 years, but probably their design will be replaced at some
point!

When I bought my D-SLR my requirements were (and still are):
1. Optical TTL viewfinder.
2. Low noise, even at high ISO.
3. Interchangeable lenses (I need the equivalent of 28 - 400+ in 35mm
terms).
4. Fast AF.
5. Low lag times.
6. Always ready to take a picture, even if the camera just took a picture
and is currently writing it to the CF card, or if I am checking the review
of the previous picture.

At the state of current technology there are no non SLR digitals that meet
half of my requirements, but I NEED the camera to meet all 6 of those
requirements to be capable of doing what I want the camera to do.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 4:04:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor responds:

>> Have you tried to manually get a lens into sharp focus while looking
>> at a postange stamp sized LCD display ? You probably haven't or you
>> wouldn't even be asking the question :-)
>
>With the Panasonic FZ20, and other cameras which magnify the central area
>of the viewfinder when manual focus is selected, using an LCD or EVF to
>determine the correct focus setting for the lens is easy. Certainly no
>more difficult than using SLRs which today have no manual focussing aid
>like split-prism or microprism.

Yeah, it is more difficult. I use a *istD, without manual focus aids. It
focuses easily. I had a Minolta Dimage 7i before that, and an Olympus C2020
before that, and...well, let's just say it takes about 1/10th as long to
manually focus the Pentax as it did any of the others, the point of selection
is more nearly where I put it, and overall, the camera provides a lot better
shots.

Charlie Self
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above
that which is expected." George W. Bush
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 6:05:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:08:33 -0500, Larry
<lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>In article <34tkpsF3k7birU1@individual.net>, nospammm@no__spam.com says...
>>
>> "Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> a écrit dans le
>> message de news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
>> > For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
>> > on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>> >
>> > With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
>> > sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>> >
>> > Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>> >
>> > My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...
>>
>> My guess: you dont know anything about photography
>>
>>
>>
>
>My prediction:
>
>In a year or two we will have "Hybrid" cameras available with a choice
>between evf and normal SLR viewfinders with interchangeable lenses. (perhaps
>with a different sensor in the camera with the evf).
>
>As the digital camera market matures the manufacturers will keep adding
>features whether we ask for them or not, simply to have "selling points" for
>their add copy.
>
>My choice would be a viewfinder with the old split/prism system for manual
>focus.

Yes, a digital M3 Lecia!!!


********************************************************

"The fox knows many things, but
the hedgehog knows one big thing."

Archilochus
675 - 635 B.C.
January 16, 2005 7:52:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> In article <34tkpsF3k7birU1@individual.net>, nospammm@no__spam.com says...
>
>>"Stephen G. Giannoni" <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> a écrit dans le
>>message de news:0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com...
>>
>>>For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
>>>on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>>>
>>>With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
>>>sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>>>
>>>Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>>>
>>>My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...
>>
>>My guess: you dont know anything about photography
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> My prediction:
>
> In a year or two we will have "Hybrid" cameras available with a choice
> between evf and normal SLR viewfinders with interchangeable lenses. (perhaps
> with a different sensor in the camera with the evf).
>
> As the digital camera market matures the manufacturers will keep adding
> features whether we ask for them or not, simply to have "selling points" for
> their add copy.
>
> My choice would be a viewfinder with the old split/prism system for manual
> focus.


I don't see the advantage of an EVF viewfinder. If you're talking about
a flip out LCD screen, I think there would be some interests.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:38:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'd sort of like to see the following:

-Take an existing DSLR design.

-Add a ca. 1MP sensor which reads fast on the viewfinder.

-Send the readings of the small sensor to a nice big LCD preview screen (2 or
2.5 inches diagonal) Possibly extend-out, or even (for fixed applications like
portrait shops) a miniature VGA connector as an option so you could have a 14
inch preview.

In some conditions, an LCD beats a look-in viewfinder (for example, if you
can't hold the camera to the eye
--
Marada Shra'drakaii
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:56:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:34te2iF4a5i6iU1@individual.net...
>
> "(((((0)))))" <newsgroup@NSPMgrubor.ca> wrote in message
> news:17fGd.86283$Xk.64352@pd7tw3no...
>> None of these answers are really right.
>> One can easily read real time video from sensor, especially if you don't
>> need full resolution information.
>> But, that means that mirror would have to be up for composing the
>> picture,
>> and the shutter open.
>> Now, one technical snag - CCD and CMOS imager has to be precharged, to
> take
>> the picture.
>> This does not take too long, but it has to be dark. This means mirror has
> to
>> come down, shutter to close,
>> imager precharge, and ONLY THEN properly expose. This would make an SLR
>> camera worse than the
>> worst P/S camera made up to date.
>> Things may be made faster with application of pellicle mirror (Canon RT,
>> fastest camera of its time and even today).
>> but you still have shutter plane in the way.
>> Even the Olympus E-10/20 which is a true dual SLR/live view camera has
>> EVF
>> blackout time due to lag needed
>> for CCD to precharge.
>> So there you go.
>>
>>
>
> Interesting stuff - thanks. Do the DSLRs come with an LCD screen at all?
> So
> far I've only lashed out for a Canon G5 and really like the flip out
> screen.
> I will be buying a DSLR but not until they are .....
>
> cheaper
> have a bigger ISO range
> don't have a mirror bashing up and down
>
> I may be waiting a long time from what you write.
>
> John
>
>
You are, indeed, going to be waiting a long time. Cheaper, you'll get, and
soon. DSLR bodies are down there with the high end p&s camera, now. The
mirror thing, though, is endemic to the SLR type camera, even though the
Olympus Evolt/300 has one that swings like a gate instead of a garage door.
And what wider ISO range do you want/need than 100-3200 ISO? Or the ISO
50-3200 of some of the high level pro DSLRs?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:43:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The advantages are obvious. If you have an LCD viewfinder, you can
position it anywhere, even wi-fi it to the camera, and it shows exactly
what the color and exposure will look like before you shoot, and after.
When I shoot video, I can rest assured that my shots will look good
because I can see exactly what I'm getting in the viewfinder. Great
comfort, and almost essential in digital with its limited dynamic
range!

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:55:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes. I think digital won't truly come into its own until the EVF is
improved to the point that image quality is superior with live preview
and the EVF itself is high enough resolution that it can be used for
composition and following action. Perhaps a prism arrangement rather
than a flipping mirror, like the E10/20. Perhaps like video, with the
same image going to the viewfinder as goes to the memory. Might even be
able to record a second of frames, then search thru and choose the
exact moment you want, instead of the default first frame.
Gary Eickmeier
January 16, 2005 11:30:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

geickmei@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
> The advantages are obvious. If you have an LCD viewfinder, you can
> position it anywhere, even wi-fi it to the camera, and it shows exactly
> what the color and exposure will look like before you shoot, and after.
> When I shoot video, I can rest assured that my shots will look good
> because I can see exactly what I'm getting in the viewfinder. Great
> comfort, and almost essential in digital with its limited dynamic
> range!

I don't know about P&S digitals but DSLRs have huge dynamic range. I do
miss the ability to compose with the LCD seeing the actual exposure &
lighting effect but I used to often find strange little distractions in
my pics that were not noticeable at that scale which I can see clearly
in the optical viewfinder. Stuff like twigs in the corner or a little
piece of trash that wasn't noticeable. But the LCD was great for getting
the overall squinty-eye artistic sense of the shot.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:22:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nancy C Kenfield wrote:
[]
> Can you control the exposure etc to get exactly the effect you want?
> No. Anybody who is shooting photography rather than "snapshots" needs
> something they can control. I have both and use each for specific
> situations and purposes.

Many ZLRs have full manual control of focus, aperture and shutter speed.

David
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:23:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
[]
>> With the Panasonic FZ20, and other cameras which magnify the central
>> area of the viewfinder when manual focus is selected, using an LCD
>> or EVF to determine the correct focus setting for the lens is easy.
>> Certainly no more difficult than using SLRs which today have no
>> manual focussing aid like split-prism or microprism.
>
> Then you've got better eyes than I have :-)
>
> I had a Canon Pro90 with an EVF. It was mostly luck when i got a
> manually focused shot looking sharp. The LCD was no better.. It
> was much worse in bright sunlight because it was just too hard
> to see..

It's the magnification in the central area which is key to this -
unmagnified I would completely agree with you.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:31:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well lets see:

With the SLR reflex system, the light path from the front of the lens
to the back of the viewfinder is between 6" and 12". This means that
the light goes through the system in 12 inches /( (186,000
miles/sec)*(5280 feet/mile)*(12 inches/feet) ) or about 1 nanosecond!

Show me a LCD that is this fast, and we can talk.

"My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ..."

And my guess is this number is just about equal to the numbe of days
the human species has left....
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:13:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eatmorepies wrote:
> I will be buying a DSLR but not until they are .....
>
> cheaper
> have a bigger ISO range
> don't have a mirror bashing up and down
>
> I may be waiting a long time from what you write.
>
> John

I think your preconceived ideas about SLR's are not right.

They will never be cheaper than a point & shoot

Current DSLR's have a greater ISO range than any point & shoot,
typically 100 to 1600 or 3200 ISO. Noise limitations with small P&S
type sensors limit the usable speeds of P&S's to 400 or less - and at
that they are quite noisy.

Mirrors don't 'bash up and down'. SLR's with mirrors have been around
for 40 or more years. The design parameters for mirrors have long been
established and refined. Mirrors are light-weight, air-damped and
cushioned. Bash, they don't. Do you worry about the pistons in your
car thrashing up and down 50 times every second? Then don't worry about
SLR mirrors.

Colin
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:13:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
[]
> Mirrors don't 'bash up and down'. SLR's with mirrors have been around
> for 40 or more years. The design parameters for mirrors have long
> been established and refined. Mirrors are light-weight, air-damped
> and cushioned. Bash, they don't. Do you worry about the pistons in
> your car thrashing up and down 50 times every second? Then don't
> worry about SLR mirrors.

However, mirrors cause acoustic noise and camera-shake - two features you
could do without.

David
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
> The primary reason I bought an SLR was the viewfinder. I had two non
> SLR digitals and they are ok for what they are, but they are not the same by
> any means. I have a LCD screen on the back of my camera, but I have not yet
> used to to compose a picture.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan

What make of DSLR do you have that will let you preview on the LCD
screen?

Colin
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:41E9A3F9.7DDE2390@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>>
>> The primary reason I bought an SLR was the viewfinder. I had two non
>> SLR digitals and they are ok for what they are, but they are not the same
>> by
>> any means. I have a LCD screen on the back of my camera, but I have not
>> yet
>> used to to compose a picture.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>
> What make of DSLR do you have that will let you preview on the LCD
> screen?
>

Question is, why would you want to?
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>>
>> The primary reason I bought an SLR was the viewfinder. I had
>> two non SLR digitals and they are ok for what they are, but they are
>> not the same by any means. I have a LCD screen on the back of my
>> camera, but I have not yet used to to compose a picture.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>
> What make of DSLR do you have that will let you preview on the LCD
> screen?
>
> Colin

You know I just assumed it did, I have never actually tried to use it.
I understand if you have a handy laptop you can do it there. :-)

BTW I have a Canon 20D

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:15:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:frjGd.1234$e64.478@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Colin D wrote:
>> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>>>
>>> The primary reason I bought an SLR was the viewfinder. I had
>>> two non SLR digitals and they are ok for what they are, but they are
>>> not the same by any means. I have a LCD screen on the back of my
>>> camera, but I have not yet used to to compose a picture.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> What make of DSLR do you have that will let you preview on the LCD
>> screen?
>>
>> Colin
>
> You know I just assumed it did, I have never actually tried to use it.
> I understand if you have a handy laptop you can do it there. :-)
>
> BTW I have a Canon 20D
>

I hope you won't be disappointed to know that you can't use the LCD to
compose, only review.

Mark
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 7:30:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <0npiu05mhj57ljri5ircb6bim2v9ic5bno@4ax.com>,
Stephen G. Giannoni <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> wrote:
>
>My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...

It's a good job you brought this topic up, as it never gets discussed here.

And in such a non-confrontational way, too, so it's obvious to everyone that
you aren't a troll.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:19:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:

> Stephen G. Giannoni <E-mailAddressWitheld@No-ISP.com> writes:
>
>> For film it's obvious. You need a means of seeing exactly what will be
>> on the film, hence the reflex mirror, focusing screen, etc.
>>
>> With digital, you can see the results directly in real time from the
>> sensor chip, so why bother with the SLR arrangement?
>>
>> Oh, I forgot, only SLRs are "real cameras" (yeah right!).
>>
>> My guess : with digital, the days of SLRs are numbered ...
>
> Maybe. As soon as the sensor makers solve the problem of making a
> large, high quality, high resolution sensor that can do continuous
> video output. The chips currently used in the DSLRs *can't* do
> continuous video output, the space normally used for that circuitry is
> being used to make other things better instead.
>
> I personally would be happy with an EVF or flexible LCD screen with
> preview if the final image quality isn't compromised; in *some* ways
> I'd be *happier* than with real SLR viewing. But you'll find a lot of
> other people don't feel that way :-).

Which may or may not answer what the original poster meant by "the
days of SLRs are numbered": does he mean that cameras with moving
mirrors will someday be obsolete, or that cameras with interchangeable
lenses will someday be obsolete?

I'm more likely to believe the former than the latter.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 11:07:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
> Colin D wrote:
> > Joseph Meehan wrote:
> >>
> >> The primary reason I bought an SLR was the viewfinder. I had
> >> two non SLR digitals and they are ok for what they are, but they are
> >> not the same by any means. I have a LCD screen on the back of my
> >> camera, but I have not yet used to to compose a picture.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joseph Meehan
> >
> > What make of DSLR do you have that will let you preview on the LCD
> > screen?
> >
> > Colin
>
> You know I just assumed it did, I have never actually tried to use it.
> I understand if you have a handy laptop you can do it there. :-)
>
> BTW I have a Canon 20D

Aaahh, ok. You had me going there, thought i was missing something ...
{:-)

Colin
January 16, 2005 11:31:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <m2r7kkq2d7.fsf@Matt-Austerns-Computer.local>, Matt Austern
<austern@well.com> wrote:

> I'm more likely to believe the former than the latter.

Everything will be obsolete someday. He asserted that the days of SLR's
are numbered. Which I would take to mean in a few years. I don't think
there is any evidence that the days of SLR's are numbered. If something
better than an SLR was on the near timeline there is no evidence. When
something better comes along that will fine. At the moment it looks
like the replacement for my current digital SLR will be a better
digital SLR, not something else.

--
Charles
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 1:24:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> Colin D wrote:
> []
> > Mirrors don't 'bash up and down'. SLR's with mirrors have been around
> > for 40 or more years. The design parameters for mirrors have long
> > been established and refined. Mirrors are light-weight, air-damped
> > and cushioned. Bash, they don't. Do you worry about the pistons in
> > your car thrashing up and down 50 times every second? Then don't
> > worry about SLR mirrors.
>
> However, mirrors cause acoustic noise and camera-shake - two features you
> could do without.
>
> David

Camera shake with modern mirrors, especially those in dslr's (which are
reduced in size because of the smaller sensor, except the canon full
framers) is a non-issue. Tests on a tripod, with mirror lock-up show no
difference whether the mirror is locked up or not. It's a myth, a
hangover from the days when slr's were built like tanks, and from
larger-format slr's like the early Bronica. Those things literally
jumped in your hand when the mirror went up.
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 1:24:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:24:47 +1300, Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
>
>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Colin D wrote:
>> []
>> > Mirrors don't 'bash up and down'. SLR's with mirrors have been around
>> > for 40 or more years. The design parameters for mirrors have long
>> > been established and refined. Mirrors are light-weight, air-damped
>> > and cushioned. Bash, they don't. Do you worry about the pistons in
>> > your car thrashing up and down 50 times every second? Then don't
>> > worry about SLR mirrors.
>>
>> However, mirrors cause acoustic noise and camera-shake - two features you
>> could do without.
>>
>> David
>
>Camera shake with modern mirrors, especially those in dslr's (which are
>reduced in size because of the smaller sensor, except the canon full
>framers) is a non-issue. Tests on a tripod, with mirror lock-up show no
>difference whether the mirror is locked up or not. It's a myth, a
>hangover from the days when slr's were built like tanks, and from
>larger-format slr's like the early Bronica. Those things literally
>jumped in your hand when the mirror went up.
I had a Houghton-Butcher Ensign in the 1940s,
used 120 size film, the shutter speed was set
on a focalblind blind with adjustable slot,
the speed was a combination of a spring setting and the
blind slot dimension, when the shutter button on the
front of the camera was pressed, the mirror first of all
swung up, then the focal blind exposed the film.
I think it seemed to be easier to handle for camera
shake than my small digicam, of course being in my
laye seventies does not help the old shaking syndrome.
January 18, 2005 12:39:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in news:41EADB9F.D4BA4C60
@killspam.127.0.0.1:

> Camera shake with modern mirrors, especially those in dslr's (which are
>

Nikon figured out a long, long, time ago (with the FM2) that miror shake
could be all but eliminated by putting a counterbalance on the miror.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
!